"The 'vegan' shuffle"

[George Plimpton]

"vegans" just can't address this.

http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> "vegans" just can't address this.
>
>
>
> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one

He writes

"Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.

This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."

Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.

It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.

[Derek]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
accrued during the production of my food are unintended.

Hope you had a good day yesterday! 37, eh? I'm 51 today.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:18:05 AM UTC+2, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> "vegans" just can't address this.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
> >
>
> >He writes
>
> >
>

> >"Extrapolating from that, it�s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
> >
>
> >This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don�t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven�t reduced it to the max."

>
> >
>
> >Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>
> >
>
> >It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.
>
>
>
> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>
> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>
>
>
> Hope you had a good day yesterday! 37, eh? I'm 51 today.

Happy birthday, Derek.

One of the mathematically interesting things about yesterday's birthday was that my age and my father's age are the first two irregular primes. (You can read about irregular primes on Wikipedia.)

[Derek]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 03:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:18:05 AM UTC+2, Derek wrote:

[]

>> Hope you had a good day yesterday! 37, eh? I'm 51 today.
>
>Happy birthday, Derek.

Cheers. They're perfect opportunities, aren't they, for getting all those
items you want but can't justify spending the cash on. This year I've been
/granted/ a pair of wireless headphones and a 35mm scanner for all those
hundreds, if not a couple of thousand, of photo negatives I've been keeping
all these years.

>One of the mathematically interesting things about yesterday's birthday was that my age and my father's age are the first two irregular primes. (You can read about irregular primes on Wikipedia.)

Sorry, no: I can't read a damn thing about them. I did try for a while but I
didn't really get anywhere. I failed get anywhere recently when reading a
paper on Dedekind domains as well. In fact I couldn't get started, to be
honest. You're weird.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/8/2013 12:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
> He writes
>
> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>
> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.

Not by being "vegan". If *all* you do in the area of reducing suffering
is to follow a "vegan" diet, then it would be better for you simply to
kill yourself. A meat eater might take other active steps to reduce
suffering with far more effect than a "vegan" who does nothing beyond
following a "vegan" diet.

As always, you're deliberately missing the point. All we need do to
realize that "veganism" is a worthless response is to note that not all
"vegan" diets cause the same amount of suffering. It is entirely
plausible that you follow the very worst "vegan" diet, out of all
possible "vegan" diets, in terms of the animal suffering you cause. I
suspect your particular "vegan" diet is actually worse than the average
of all "vegan" diets in terms of the suffering it causes, as you seem
not to care about animal suffering all that much.

[dh]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
>He writes

Why can you present examples from Goo's links, but not from your own? It's
not that you can't present quotes. It's that there's nothing at your links that
you feel is worth presenting.

>"Extrapolating from that, it�s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.

I've been pointing out to you for years that veganism "helps" animals in the
same way that dead people help them. No way. Did you think I was lying all those
years?

>This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering

Yet you won't even consider anything that actually contributes to lives of
positive value for livestock animals, so why did you bother presenting that?

>(freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don�t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven�t reduced it to the max."
>
>Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.

I've been pointing out for years that buying cage free eggs is better than
doing nothing because that's the most CLEARLY OBVIOUS example I can think of so
it seems even you should be able to appreciate it. But no, you can't. Not even
close in fact. So I pointed out that the number of deaths in crop production
varies greatly from one situation to another in case you cared anything at all
about your contribution to the deaths of wildlife and you've shown that you
don't care about that either. A vegan who doesn't care about livestock or
wildlife is no better than a meat consumer who doesn't care about livestock or
wildlife.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/8/2013 10:10 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
> I've been pointing out

No.

> to you for years that veganism "helps" animals in the
> same way that dead people help them. No way. Did you think I was lying all those
> years?

You were just posting pointless blabber, that's all.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>
>> He writes
>>

>> "Extrapolating from that, it�s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>>
>> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don�t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven�t reduced it to the max."

>>
>> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>>
>> It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.
>
> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.

Many of them are intended. Some animals are actively exterminated to
ensure a larger harvest. In any case, it's a little hard to continue to
maintain that expected collateral deaths are unintended.

Intent can't be the only thing that matters. Suppose 1,000 sentient
animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
intend them to die or not.

The point of the "vegan shuffle" post is to show that "vegans" keep
flip-flopping back and forth between rights and suffering, and it serves
to gut their entire stance.

[Derek]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:34:49 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>>
>>> He writes
>>>

>>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>>>
>>> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."

>>>
>>> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>>>
>>> It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.
>>
>> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>
>Many of them are intended.

Not by me. By definition, collateral deaths are unforeseen and
unintentional. Intent is all-important to me. You've conceded in the past
that I shouldn't think that buying vegetables is morally wrong, on the basis
that intent matters.

[Rupert wrote]
> By that logic you should also say that Derek thinks that buying
> vegetables is morally wrong.
[you wrote]
Nope. Intent matters.
[end]
George Plimpton Nov 15 2012 http://tinyurl.com/chano27

>Some animals are actively exterminated to
>ensure a larger harvest. In any case, it's a little hard to continue to
>maintain that expected collateral deaths are unintended.

Well, I certainly don't intend them.

>Intent can't be the only thing that matters.

It is for me. Like I said, "For me, it's *all* about intent."

>Suppose 1,000 sentient
>animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>intend them to die or not.

I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
preferences. To paraphrase your argument, suppose 1000 children are killed
every month for your meals during crop production, and only one for mine
because I eat children. It would certainly be worse for more children to
die, whether you intend them to die or not, but I still doubt you would
switch from eating vegetables to children because of those deaths. They too
hold an inalienable right not to be used for your food preferences. You
couldn't do it.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:03:24 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 5/8/2013 12:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> "vegans" just can't address this.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
> >
>
> > He writes
>
> >
>
> > "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
> >
>
> > This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>
> >
>
> > Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>
>
>
> Not by being "vegan". If *all* you do in the area of reducing suffering
>
> is to follow a "vegan" diet, then it would be better for you simply to
>
> kill yourself. A meat eater might take other active steps to reduce
>
> suffering with far more effect than a "vegan" who does nothing beyond
>
> following a "vegan" diet.
>

Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.

>
>
> As always, you're deliberately missing the point. All we need do to
>
> realize that "veganism" is a worthless response is to note that not all
>
> "vegan" diets cause the same amount of suffering. It is entirely
>
> plausible that you follow the very worst "vegan" diet, out of all
>
> possible "vegan" diets, in terms of the animal suffering you cause. I
>
> suspect your particular "vegan" diet is actually worse than the average
>
> of all "vegan" diets in terms of the suffering it causes, as you seem
>
> not to care about animal suffering all that much.

I can't see how you have any reason to suspect that, especially when you don't have any clue what I eat. Last night I ate some pasta with eggplant and spinach, for what it's worth. If you have any reason to think that those foods are particularly bad then by all means let me know.

I put a good faith effort into trying to reduce suffering as effectively as possible with the limited resources available to me. Putting effort into trying to find out which vegan foods cause more harm would not be an optimal use of my limited capacity to do research, there would be other better uses of that time available, like doing research into which charities were more effective. You don't have any real reason for thinking that I'm not putting a good faith effort into reducing suffering as effectively as possible. I also obviously have no rational reason to care what you think.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:10:21 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> "vegans" just can't address this.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
> >
>
> >He writes
>
>
>
> Why can you present examples from Goo's links, but not from your own? It's
>
> not that you can't present quotes. It's that there's nothing at your links that
>
> you feel is worth presenting.
>

No, that is not the case. I'm fully capable of copying and pasting stuff from my own links, of course, and I have done in the past. I wasted a large amout of time copying and pasting many paragraphs from my document about broiler chickens for you, and it still didn't do me any good in terms of getting you to pay any attention.

There is no good reason why I should have to copy and paste stuff from my own links. There is no good reason why you can't just read the link. Just because I choose not to waste my time copying pasting stuff, doesn't mean there's nothing there that I think is worth reading. I posted the link so that you can read it. There's no good reason why you can't just click on the link and read it.

>
>
> >"Extrapolating from that, it�s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.

>
>
>
> I've been pointing out to you for years that veganism "helps" animals in the
>
> same way that dead people help them. No way. Did you think I was lying all those
>
> years?
>

I think you're an idiot. Following a vegan diet causes less suffering than most omnivorous diets. Simple as that.

>
>
> >This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering
>
>
>
> Yet you won't even consider anything that actually contributes to lives of
>
> positive value for livestock animals, so why did you bother presenting that?
>

You really ought to read this essay, you know.

http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf

>
>
> >(freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don�t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven�t reduced it to the max."

>
> >
>
> >Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>
>
>
> I've been pointing out for years that buying cage free eggs is better than
>
> doing nothing because that's the most CLEARLY OBVIOUS example I can think of so
>
> it seems even you should be able to appreciate it. But no, you can't. Not even
>
> close in fact.

Why is a diet with cage-free eggs better than a vegan diet?

> So I pointed out that the number of deaths in crop production
>
> varies greatly from one situation to another in case you cared anything at all
>
> about your contribution to the deaths of wildlife and you've shown that you
>
> don't care about that either.

That is nonsense. I am obviously fully aware that there would be some variation in the amount of wildlife deaths caused by crop production in different crop fields. As I pointed out, that doesn't mean that you can plausibly claim that it would frequently be as high as 3000 per hectare per year, so your claim that tofu is worse than grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds is nonsense. That's all I've been doing, pointing out that you're talking nonsense.

If I had good reason to think spending time doing research about the amount of harm caused by different forms of crop production was a cost-effective use of my time as far as making further efforts to reduce suffering goes, then I'd do it. But I don't have any good reason to think that.

> A vegan who doesn't care about livestock or
>
> wildlife is no better than a meat consumer who doesn't care about livestock or
>
> wildlife.

Except that you don't have any good reason to think that I don't care about livestock or wildlife.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/8/2013 4:16 PM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:34:49 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>>>
>>>> He writes
>>>>
>>>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>>>>
>>>> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>>>>
>>>> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>>>>
>>>> It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.
>>>
>>> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>>> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>>
>> Many of them are intended.
>
> Not by me.

Well, I don't intend the meat animals to die, either. I just intend to
eat meat. If the animals simply dropped dead and the meat was just as
fresh, I wouldn't care.

>> Intent can't be the only thing that matters.
>
> It is for me. Like I said, "For me, it's *all* about intent."

That makes no sense.

>
>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>> intend them to die or not.
>
> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
> preferences.

The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.

[Derek]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 23:28:16 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>On 5/8/2013 4:16 PM, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:34:49 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:

[]

>>>> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>>>> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>>>
>>> Many of them are intended.
>>
>> Not by me.
>
>Well, I don't intend the meat animals to die, either.

You wrote, "In any case, it's a little hard to continue to maintain that
expected collateral deaths are unintended." If you genuinely believe that
the collateral deaths associated with my food are intended while the
targeted livestock deaths associated with your food aren't, you're going to
find it more than "a little hard to continue to maintain that."

>>> Intent can't be the only thing that matters.
>>
>> It is for me. Like I said, "For me, it's *all* about intent."
>
>That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me.

>>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>>> intend them to die or not.
>>
>> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
>> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
>> preferences.
>
>The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.

Yes, of course.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/8/2013 6:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:03:24 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/8/2013 12:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>
>>>
>>
>>> He writes
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not by being "vegan". If *all* you do in the area of reducing suffering
>>
>> is to follow a "vegan" diet, then it would be better for you simply to
>>
>> kill yourself. A meat eater might take other active steps to reduce
>>
>> suffering with far more effect than a "vegan" who does nothing beyond
>>
>> following a "vegan" diet.
>>
>
> Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.

No, because as we have seen, there are better ways than being "vegan"
that any *one* person can undertake.

>
>>
>>
>> As always, you're deliberately missing the point. All we need do to
>>
>> realize that "veganism" is a worthless response is to note that not all
>>
>> "vegan" diets cause the same amount of suffering. It is entirely
>>
>> plausible that you follow the very worst "vegan" diet, out of all
>>
>> possible "vegan" diets, in terms of the animal suffering you cause. I
>>
>> suspect your particular "vegan" diet is actually worse than the average
>>
>> of all "vegan" diets in terms of the suffering it causes, as you seem
>>
>> not to care about animal suffering all that much.
>
> I can't see how you have any reason to suspect that,

Because you have publicized the fact that you won't adversely affect
your ease, comfort, pleasure and professional fulfillment in order to
reduce your death toll. You've made that very well known.

> I put a good faith effort into trying to reduce suffering as effectively as possible

No, you don't. All you do is refrain from consuming animal products.
You give no thought at all to the suffering caused by the products you
*do* consume.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/9/2013 5:56 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 23:28:16 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2013 4:16 PM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:34:49 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:
> []
>>>>> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>>>>> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>>>>
>>>> Many of them are intended.
>>>
>>> Not by me.
>>
>> Well, I don't intend the meat animals to die, either.
>
> You wrote, "In any case, it's a little hard to continue to maintain that
> expected collateral deaths are unintended." If you genuinely believe that
> the collateral deaths associated with my food are intended while the
> targeted livestock deaths associated with your food aren't, you're going to
> find it more than "a little hard to continue to maintain that."

But you said *you* don't intend for the collateral deaths your diet
causes to occur, meaning you're putting it all on the farmer. So I
replied that *I* don't intend the meat animals to die, either. If you
can put it all on the farmer, why can't I?

>>>> Intent can't be the only thing that matters.
>>>
>>> It is for me. Like I said, "For me, it's *all* about intent."
>>
>> That makes no sense.
>
> It makes perfect sense to me.

As a dodge, perhaps; not as a considered ethical position.

>>>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>>>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>>>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>>>> intend them to die or not.
>>>
>>> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
>>> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
>>> preferences.
>>
>> The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.
>
> Yes, of course.

Then intent doesn't matter.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 4:44:06 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 5/8/2013 6:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:03:24 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 5/8/2013 12:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> He writes
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not by being "vegan". If *all* you do in the area of reducing suffering
>
> >>
>
> >> is to follow a "vegan" diet, then it would be better for you simply to
>
> >>
>
> >> kill yourself. A meat eater might take other active steps to reduce
>
> >>
>
> >> suffering with far more effect than a "vegan" who does nothing beyond
>
> >>
>
> >> following a "vegan" diet.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.
>
>
>
> No, because as we have seen, there are better ways than being "vegan"
>
> that any *one* person can undertake.
>

What do you have in mind?

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> As always, you're deliberately missing the point. All we need do to
>
> >>
>
> >> realize that "veganism" is a worthless response is to note that not all
>
> >>
>
> >> "vegan" diets cause the same amount of suffering. It is entirely
>
> >>
>
> >> plausible that you follow the very worst "vegan" diet, out of all
>
> >>
>
> >> possible "vegan" diets, in terms of the animal suffering you cause. I
>
> >>
>
> >> suspect your particular "vegan" diet is actually worse than the average
>
> >>
>
> >> of all "vegan" diets in terms of the suffering it causes, as you seem
>
> >>
>
> >> not to care about animal suffering all that much.
>
> >
>
> > I can't see how you have any reason to suspect that,
>
>
>
> Because you have publicized the fact that you won't adversely affect
>
> your ease, comfort, pleasure and professional fulfillment in order to
>
> reduce your death toll. You've made that very well known.
>

I said I wasn't willing to quit my job. And quitting my job would not be the rational thing to do, if the goal is to reduce suffering.

Your suspicions that my vegan diet is worse than other vegan diets or that I don't care about animal suffering are entirely unfounded.

>
>
>
>
> > I put a good faith effort into trying to reduce suffering as effectively as possible
>
>
>
> No, you don't. All you do is refrain from consuming animal products.
>
> You give no thought at all to the suffering caused by the products you
>
> *do* consume.

I do more than refrain from consuming animal products. I support charities which promote vegetarianism and do research into what are effective ways of reducing suffering, and I familiarize myself with that research and engage in discussions with people about it, trying to think how I can best make use of my limited time and resources to further reduce animal suffering.

As discussed repeatedly, trying to do further research into how much suffering is caused by the products I consume would not be an optimal use of my limited time and resources, from the point of view of reducing suffering. It would be better to do research into other things instead, which is indeed what I do.

[Derek]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 07:46:23 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>On 5/9/2013 5:56 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 23:28:16 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2013 4:16 PM, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:34:49 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:
>> []
>>>>>> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>>>>>> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of them are intended.
>>>>
>>>> Not by me.
>>>
>>> Well, I don't intend the meat animals to die, either.
>>
>> You wrote, "In any case, it's a little hard to continue to maintain that
>> expected collateral deaths are unintended." If you genuinely believe that
>> the collateral deaths associated with my food are intended while the
>> targeted livestock deaths associated with your food aren't, you're going to
>> find it more than "a little hard to continue to maintain that."
>
>But you said *you* don't intend for the collateral deaths your diet
>causes to occur, meaning you're putting it all on the farmer. So I
>replied that *I* don't intend the meat animals to die, either. If you
>can put it all on the farmer, why can't I?

Because, unlike you, I don't instruct the farmer to kill animals for my
food. I only instruct him to produce vegetables. The deaths accrued during
the production of your food are intended by you and the farmer. The
collateral deaths accrued during the production of my food are unintended by
me, even if they're intended by the farmer. There's a massive difference
between the two.

>>>>> Intent can't be the only thing that matters.
>>>>
>>>> It is for me. Like I said, "For me, it's *all* about intent."
>>>
>>> That makes no sense.
>>
>> It makes perfect sense to me.
>
>As a dodge, perhaps; not as a considered ethical position.

It's a perfectly sensible ethical position. Like you said, "Intent matters."

>>>>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>>>>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>>>>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>>>>> intend them to die or not.
>>>>
>>>> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
>>>> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
>>>> preferences.
>>>
>>> The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>
>Then intent doesn't matter.

No, that doesn't follow from what I wrote. Intent always matters.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/9/2013 7:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Thursday, May 9, 2013 4:44:06 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/8/2013 6:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:03:24 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> On 5/8/2013 12:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> He writes
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Not by being "vegan". If *all* you do in the area of reducing suffering
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> is to follow a "vegan" diet, then it would be better for you simply to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> kill yourself. A meat eater might take other active steps to reduce
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> suffering with far more effect than a "vegan" who does nothing beyond
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> following a "vegan" diet.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, because as we have seen, there are better ways than being "vegan"
>>
>> that any *one* person can undertake.
>>
>
> What do you have in mind?

Reread the "vegan shuffle" page. He goes through several possibilities.

>>>>
>>
>>>> As always, you're deliberately missing the point. All we need do to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> realize that "veganism" is a worthless response is to note that not all
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> "vegan" diets cause the same amount of suffering. It is entirely
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> plausible that you follow the very worst "vegan" diet, out of all
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> possible "vegan" diets, in terms of the animal suffering you cause. I
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> suspect your particular "vegan" diet is actually worse than the average
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of all "vegan" diets in terms of the suffering it causes, as you seem
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> not to care about animal suffering all that much.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I can't see how you have any reason to suspect that,
>>
>>
>>
>> Because you have publicized the fact that you won't adversely affect
>>
>> your ease, comfort, pleasure and professional fulfillment in order to
>>
>> reduce your death toll. You've made that very well known.
>>
>
> I said I wasn't willing to quit my job.

You made clear that you aren't willing to put yourself out at all.

> Your suspicions that my vegan diet is worse than other vegan diets or that I don't care about animal suffering are entirely unfounded.

My belief that your diet is worse than the average "vegan" diet in terms
of the suffering underlying it is very well founded. Your "caring"
about animal suffering is about like Fuckwit's "consideration" for
merely potential animal lives - nothing but lip service.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I put a good faith effort into trying to reduce suffering as effectively as possible
>>
>>
>>
>> No, you don't. All you do is refrain from consuming animal products.
>>
>> You give no thought at all to the suffering caused by the products you
>>
>> *do* consume.
>
> I do more than refrain from consuming animal products.

No, that's all you do.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/9/2013 8:01 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 07:46:23 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2013 5:56 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 23:28:16 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2013 4:16 PM, Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:34:49 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> []
>>>>>>> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>>>>>>> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many of them are intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by me.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't intend the meat animals to die, either.
>>>
>>> You wrote, "In any case, it's a little hard to continue to maintain that
>>> expected collateral deaths are unintended." If you genuinely believe that
>>> the collateral deaths associated with my food are intended while the
>>> targeted livestock deaths associated with your food aren't, you're going to
>>> find it more than "a little hard to continue to maintain that."
>>
>> But you said *you* don't intend for the collateral deaths your diet
>> causes to occur, meaning you're putting it all on the farmer. So I
>> replied that *I* don't intend the meat animals to die, either. If you
>> can put it all on the farmer, why can't I?
>
> Because, unlike you, I don't instruct the farmer to kill animals for my
> food.

I don't instruct any farmer to do anything. I only expect my grocer to
carry high quality fresh meat.

> I only instruct him to produce vegetables. The deaths accrued during
> the production of your food are intended by you and the farmer.

I just wish to buy meat. If it's from an animal that dropped over dead
and the meat is good, that's fine by me.

We've been through all this before. My distance - commercially and
ethically - from the meat producer is identical to the distance between
you and the vegetable farmer.

> The collateral deaths accrued during the production of my food are unintended by
> me,

As is the death of meat animals by me. I want fresh meat; that's all.

> even if they're intended by the farmer. There's a massive difference
> between the two.
>
>>>>>> Intent can't be the only thing that matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is for me. Like I said, "For me, it's *all* about intent."
>>>>
>>>> That makes no sense.
>>>
>>> It makes perfect sense to me.
>>
>> As a dodge, perhaps; not as a considered ethical position.
>
> It's a perfectly sensible ethical position. Like you said, "Intent matters."

A little, but it can't be everything. We've been through all of this
before, and you even recently elaborated on how came to understand how
you share in the moral responsibility for the CDs.

Take my long-held major position here against the proposition of
shared moral responsibility, for example, and the hard work I put
into defending it against you to escape culpability in the
collateral deaths associated with my vegetarian lifestyle. I felt
that it was vital to reject shared moral responsibility for these
deaths at all costs to reinforce the view that going vegetarian
meant living a death-free lifestyle. But, unlike Harrison, the
"inconsequential juvenile lacking all seriousness of purpose", I
finally had to concede that, not only did I have *some* sense of
shared moral responsibility, it was overarching and lead me to
forego meat in the first place, exactly like you'd been trying to
explain to me for years.


https://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/e80d313a310b7494

The point is that you acknowledge your shared moral responsibility for
the deaths even though you claim you don't intend for them to occur.
The further point is that you can't claim ignorance of them. A German
in 1939-1940 could say, "Well, I didn't think the SS were going to try
to /exterminate/ all those Poles after the invasion. All /I/ intended
was for the army to create a bigger buffer between Germany and Russia."
Yet it is widely accepted that the German nation bears responsibility
for all that happened. You *do* know that the CDs occur and are going
to occur, so that's a major qualitative difference. It *strengthens*
and *augments* the degree of moral responsibility you bear. I think it
takes intent out of it altogether. You may not have an intent for CDs
to occur, but you have knowledge that they *do* and *will* occur.

>
>>>>>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>>>>>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>>>>>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>>>>>> intend them to die or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
>>>>> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
>>>>> preferences.
>>>>
>>>> The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.
>>>
>>> Yes, of course.
>>
>> Then intent doesn't matter.
>
> No, that doesn't follow from what I wrote. Intent always matters.

Not that you've shown.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 5:33:01 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 7:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.
>
> >> No, because as we have seen, there are better ways than being "vegan"
>
> >> that any *one* person can undertake.
>
> > What do you have in mind?
>
>
>
> Reread the "vegan shuffle" page. He goes through several possibilities.
>

You mean things like bivalveganism and freeganism?

I don't have any objection to those practices. I think that veganism is about as good, and I think that under certain circumstances you might be justified in not being freegan if it freed up your time and resources to alleviate suffering in other ways.

> >> Because you have publicized the fact that you won't adversely affect
> >> your ease, comfort, pleasure and professional fulfillment in order to
> >> reduce your death toll. You've made that very well known.
>
> > I said I wasn't willing to quit my job.
>
>
>
> You made clear that you aren't willing to put yourself out at all.
>

No, I did not.

> > Your suspicions that my vegan diet is worse than other vegan diets or that I don't care about animal suffering are entirely unfounded.
>
>
>
> My belief that your diet is worse than the average "vegan" diet in terms
>
> of the suffering underlying it is very well founded.

No. It's got no rational foundation whatsoever.

> Your "caring"
>
> about animal suffering is about like Fuckwit's "consideration" for
>
> merely potential animal lives - nothing but lip service.
>

Your opinion is without rational foundation, and I have no interest in it.

> >> No, you don't. All you do is refrain from consuming animal products.
> >> You give no thought at all to the suffering caused by the products you
> >> *do* consume.
>
> >
>
> > I do more than refrain from consuming animal products.
>
>
>
> No, that's all you do.

It's not, you ignorant twit.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/9/2013 9:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Thursday, May 9, 2013 5:33:01 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 7:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.
>>
>>>> No, because as we have seen, there are better ways than being "vegan"
>>
>>>> that any *one* person can undertake.
>>
>>> What do you have in mind?
>>
>>
>>
>> Reread the "vegan shuffle" page. He goes through several possibilities.
>>
>
> You mean things like bivalveganism and freeganism?
>
> I don't have any objection to those practices. I think that veganism is about as good, and I think that under certain circumstances you might be justified in not being freegan if it freed up your time and resources to alleviate suffering in other ways.

Of course, we know you don't do *anything* other than abstain from
animal products.

>
>>>> Because you have publicized the fact that you won't adversely affect
>>>> your ease, comfort, pleasure and professional fulfillment in order to
>>>> reduce your death toll. You've made that very well known.
>>
>>> I said I wasn't willing to quit my job.
>>
>>
>>
>> You made clear that you aren't willing to put yourself out at all.
>>
>
> No, I did not.

Yes, you sure did.

>>> Your suspicions that my vegan diet is worse than other vegan diets or that I don't care about animal suffering are entirely unfounded.
>>
>>
>>
>> My belief that your diet is worse than the average "vegan" diet in terms
>>
>> of the suffering underlying it is very well founded.
>
> No. It's got no rational foundation whatsoever.

Of course it has.

>
>> Your "caring"
>>
>> about animal suffering is about like Fuckwit's "consideration" for
>>
>> merely potential animal lives - nothing but lip service.
>>
>
> Your opinion is without rational foundation, and I have no interest in it.

My opinion is very well founded. You are absolutely an animal rights
passivist.

>
>>>> No, you don't. All you do is refrain from consuming animal products.
>>>> You give no thought at all to the suffering caused by the products you
>>>> *do* consume.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I do more than refrain from consuming animal products.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, that's all you do.
>
> It's not, you ignorant twit.

It is.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:04:53 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 9:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 9, 2013 5:33:01 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 5/9/2013 7:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> No, because as we have seen, there are better ways than being "vegan"
>
> >>
>
> >>>> that any *one* person can undertake.
>
> >>
>
> >>> What do you have in mind?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Reread the "vegan shuffle" page. He goes through several possibilities.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > You mean things like bivalveganism and freeganism?
>
> >
>
> > I don't have any objection to those practices. I think that veganism is about as good, and I think that under certain circumstances you might be justified in not being freegan if it freed up your time and resources to alleviate suffering in other ways.
>
>
>
> Of course, we know you don't do *anything* other than abstain from
>
> animal products.
>

No. You don't know any such thing.

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >>>> Because you have publicized the fact that you won't adversely affect
>
> >>>> your ease, comfort, pleasure and professional fulfillment in order to
>
> >>>> reduce your death toll. You've made that very well known.
>
> >>
>
> >>> I said I wasn't willing to quit my job.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You made clear that you aren't willing to put yourself out at all.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > No, I did not.
>
>
>
> Yes, you sure did.
>

I wonder if you could show me where I did that.

>
>
>
>
> >>> Your suspicions that my vegan diet is worse than other vegan diets or that I don't care about animal suffering are entirely unfounded.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> My belief that your diet is worse than the average "vegan" diet in terms
>
> >>
>
> >> of the suffering underlying it is very well founded.
>
> >
>
> > No. It's got no rational foundation whatsoever.
>
>
>
> Of course it has.
>

And what, pray tell, would the rational foundation be?

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> Your "caring"
>
> >>
>
> >> about animal suffering is about like Fuckwit's "consideration" for
>
> >>
>
> >> merely potential animal lives - nothing but lip service.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Your opinion is without rational foundation, and I have no interest in it.
>
>
>
> My opinion is very well founded. You are absolutely an animal rights
>
> passivist.
>

What's the foundation for the opinion?

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >>>> No, you don't. All you do is refrain from consuming animal products.
>
> >>>> You give no thought at all to the suffering caused by the products you
>
> >>>> *do* consume.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I do more than refrain from consuming animal products.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No, that's all you do.
>
> >
>
> > It's not, you ignorant twit.
>
>
>
> It is.

I see. How did you find this out?

[George Plimpton]

On 5/9/2013 10:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:04:53 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 9:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, May 9, 2013 5:33:01 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> On 5/9/2013 7:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> No, because as we have seen, there are better ways than being "vegan"
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> that any *one* person can undertake.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> What do you have in mind?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Reread the "vegan shuffle" page. He goes through several possibilities.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You mean things like bivalveganism and freeganism?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I don't have any objection to those practices. I think that veganism is about as good, and I think that under certain circumstances you might be justified in not being freegan if it freed up your time and resources to alleviate suffering in other ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, we know you don't do *anything* other than abstain from
>>
>> animal products.
>>
>
> No. You don't know any such thing.

I do know it. We all know it.

>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> Because you have publicized the fact that you won't adversely affect
>>
>>>>>> your ease, comfort, pleasure and professional fulfillment in order to
>>
>>>>>> reduce your death toll. You've made that very well known.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> I said I wasn't willing to quit my job.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> You made clear that you aren't willing to put yourself out at all.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> No, I did not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, you sure did.
>>
>
> I wonder if you could show me where I did that.

It was something implied in quite a number of posts you made.

>>
>>>>> Your suspicions that my vegan diet is worse than other vegan diets or that I don't care about animal suffering are entirely unfounded.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> My belief that your diet is worse than the average "vegan" diet in terms
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of the suffering underlying it is very well founded.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> No. It's got no rational foundation whatsoever.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course it has.
>>
>
> And what, pray tell, would the rational foundation be?

Your having informed us that you won't do *anything* more than what
you're *not* doing now, i.e., abstain from consuming animal parts.

>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Your "caring"
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> about animal suffering is about like Fuckwit's "consideration" for
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> merely potential animal lives - nothing but lip service.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Your opinion is without rational foundation, and I have no interest in it.
>>
>>
>>
>> My opinion is very well founded. You are absolutely an animal rights
>>
>> passivist.
>>
>
> What's the foundation for the opinion?

You.

>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> No, you don't. All you do is refrain from consuming animal products.
>>
>>>>>> You give no thought at all to the suffering caused by the products you
>>
>>>>>> *do* consume.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> I do more than refrain from consuming animal products.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> No, that's all you do.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It's not, you ignorant twit.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is.
>
> I see. How did you find this out?

You told me.

[Derek]

If you "don't instruct any farmer to do anything" during the production of
your meat, it's hardly fitting to assume vegans do instruct farmers to kill
animals during the production of their vegetables. Why are you so set
against accepting the truth, that the deaths on your plate are fully
intended by you?

>I only expect my grocer to carry high quality fresh meat.

And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
accrued are unintended by me.

>> I only instruct him to produce vegetables. The deaths accrued during
>> the production of your food are intended by you and the farmer.
>
>I just wish to buy meat.

And you don't intend the deaths of those animals you eat?

>If it's from an animal that dropped over dead
>and the meat is good, that's fine by me.
>
>We've been through all this before. My distance - commercially and
>ethically - from the meat producer is identical to the distance between
>you and the vegetable farmer.

Only if you refuse to accept the hard fact that the deaths on your plate are
intentional.

>> The collateral deaths accrued during the production of my food are unintended by
>> me,
>
>As is the death of meat animals by me.

You cannot seriously suggest that the deaths on your plate are unintentional
while assuming the collateral deaths on mine are intentional.

>I want fresh meat; that's all.

And I want fresh veg; that's all.

That's correct, but I don't see how that weakens the ethical principle
behind 'intent matters'. I bear moral responsibility for the collateral
deaths accrued during the production of my veg because I continue to pay the
farmer who kills them. I also bear moral responsibility for the recent
deaths of 96 people following the collapse of an eight-storey building in
Bangladesh, and even more in the future who supply the clothing industry,
because I continue to buy clothes. But that's a long way short of actually
intending those death to occur.

>The further point is that you can't claim ignorance of them. A German
>in 1939-1940 could say, "Well, I didn't think the SS were going to try
>to /exterminate/ all those Poles after the invasion. All /I/ intended
>was for the army to create a bigger buffer between Germany and Russia."
> Yet it is widely accepted that the German nation bears responsibility
>for all that happened. You *do* know that the CDs occur and are going
>to occur, so that's a major qualitative difference. It *strengthens*
>and *augments* the degree of moral responsibility you bear. I think it
>takes intent out of it altogether. You may not have an intent for CDs
>to occur, but you have knowledge that they *do* and *will* occur.

Yes, I do know they occur and will continue to occur, just like I know more
deaths will occur during the manufacture of clothing, for example, despite
our best efforts to reduce them. But that's a country mile away from
intending them to occur.

>>>>>>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>>>>>>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>>>>>>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>>>>>>> intend them to die or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
>>>>>> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
>>>>>> preferences.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>
>>> Then intent doesn't matter.
>>
>> No, that doesn't follow from what I wrote. Intent always matters.
>
>Not that you've shown.

You've already agreed that it does matter.

[George Plimpton]

I don't assume that. I assume you have the same distance from the
vegetable farmer that I have from the rancher.

> Why are you so set
> against accepting the truth, that the deaths on your plate are fully
> intended by you?
>
>> I only expect my grocer to carry high quality fresh meat.
>
> And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
> accrued are unintended by me.

As are the meat animal deaths for me.

>>> I only instruct him to produce vegetables. The deaths accrued during
>>> the production of your food are intended by you and the farmer.
>>
>> I just wish to buy meat.
>
> And you don't intend the deaths of those animals you eat?

I intend to buy meat. If the animals drop dead after living decent
lives of possitive [sic] value and then are butchered and packaged,
that's great.

>
>> If it's from an animal that dropped over dead
>> and the meat is good, that's fine by me.
>>
>> We've been through all this before. My distance - commercially and
>> ethically - from the meat producer is identical to the distance between
>> you and the vegetable farmer.
>
> Only if you refuse to accept the hard fact that the deaths on your plate are
> intentional.

No more by me than the CDs are by you.

>>> The collateral deaths accrued during the production of my food are unintended by
>>> me,
>>
>> As is the death of meat animals by me.
>
> You cannot seriously suggest that the deaths on your plate are unintentional
> while assuming the collateral deaths on mine are intentional.

I'm not.

There isn't any valid ethical principle to that. It's a dodge. It's an
attempt at lessening your responsibility.

> I bear moral responsibility for the collateral
> deaths accrued during the production of my veg because I continue to pay the
> farmer who kills them. I also bear moral responsibility for the recent
> deaths of 96 people

It's more than 500.

> following the collapse of an eight-storey building in
> Bangladesh, and even more in the future who supply the clothing industry,
> because I continue to buy clothes. But that's a long way short of actually
> intending those death to occur.

But there's a major difference in the deaths. Until someone can show
that the factory operator there recklessly disregarded the safety of his
employees by housing his production facility in a known unsafe building,
one must assume that there was no intent to disregard their safety.
However, the vegetable farmer *knows* that he's going to kill some
animals, and *you* know that he knows.

>> The further point is that you can't claim ignorance of them. A German
>> in 1939-1940 could say, "Well, I didn't think the SS were going to try
>> to /exterminate/ all those Poles after the invasion. All /I/ intended
>> was for the army to create a bigger buffer between Germany and Russia."
>> Yet it is widely accepted that the German nation bears responsibility
>> for all that happened. You *do* know that the CDs occur and are going
>> to occur, so that's a major qualitative difference. It *strengthens*
>> and *augments* the degree of moral responsibility you bear. I think it
>> takes intent out of it altogether. You may not have an intent for CDs
>> to occur, but you have knowledge that they *do* and *will* occur.
>
> Yes, I do know they occur and will continue to occur, just like I know more
> deaths will occur during the manufacture of clothing, for example, despite
> our best efforts to reduce them.

No, because you don't know that the deaths that occurred did so despite
best efforts to prevent them. But you *do* know that best efforts to
prevent animal CDs are not undertaken; in fact, you know that *no*
efforts to prevent them are undertaken.

> But that's a country mile away from intending them to occur.

I think it's not as much distance as you want to pretend.

>
>>>>>>>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>>>>>>>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>>>>>>>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>>>>>>>> intend them to die or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
>>>>>>> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
>>>>>>> preferences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Then intent doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> No, that doesn't follow from what I wrote. Intent always matters.
>>
>> Not that you've shown.
>
> You've already agreed that it does matter.

I don't think I've agreed that it matters as much as you wish to claim
it does.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:45:44 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 10:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:04:53 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 5/9/2013 9:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Thursday, May 9, 2013 5:33:01 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 5/9/2013 7:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> Yes, but someone who was serious about trying to reduce suffering in the most effective way possible would probably want to be vegan, among other things.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> No, because as we have seen, there are better ways than being "vegan"
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> that any *one* person can undertake.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> What do you have in mind?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Reread the "vegan shuffle" page. He goes through several possibilities.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> You mean things like bivalveganism and freeganism?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I don't have any objection to those practices. I think that veganism is about as good, and I think that under certain circumstances you might be justified in not being freegan if it freed up your time and resources to alleviate suffering in other ways.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Of course, we know you don't do *anything* other than abstain from
>
> >>
>
> >> animal products.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > No. You don't know any such thing.
>
>
>
> I do know it. We all know it.
>

If I put some effort into finding out which charity was most effective at alleviating animal suffering, and then committed to donating 10% of my income to it, would that count as doing something?

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> Because you have publicized the fact that you won't adversely affect
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> your ease, comfort, pleasure and professional fulfillment in order to
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> reduce your death toll. You've made that very well known.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> I said I wasn't willing to quit my job.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> You made clear that you aren't willing to put yourself out at all.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> No, I did not.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Yes, you sure did.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > I wonder if you could show me where I did that.
>
>
>
> It was something implied in quite a number of posts you made.
>

Really?

>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Your suspicions that my vegan diet is worse than other vegan diets or that I don't care about animal suffering are entirely unfounded.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> My belief that your diet is worse than the average "vegan" diet in terms
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> of the suffering underlying it is very well founded.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> No. It's got no rational foundation whatsoever.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Of course it has.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > And what, pray tell, would the rational foundation be?
>
>
>
> Your having informed us that you won't do *anything* more than what
>
> you're *not* doing now, i.e., abstain from consuming animal parts.
>

Except that I never told you any such thing.

>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Your "caring"
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> about animal suffering is about like Fuckwit's "consideration" for
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> merely potential animal lives - nothing but lip service.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Your opinion is without rational foundation, and I have no interest in it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> My opinion is very well founded. You are absolutely an animal rights
>
> >>
>
> >> passivist.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > What's the foundation for the opinion?
>
>
>
> You.
>

Really?

>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> No, you don't. All you do is refrain from consuming animal products.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> You give no thought at all to the suffering caused by the products you
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> *do* consume.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> I do more than refrain from consuming animal products.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> No, that's all you do.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> It's not, you ignorant twit.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It is.
>
> >
>
> > I see. How did you find this out?
>
>
>
> You told me.

When did I tell you?

[Derek]

And for some unfathomable reason, that same distance from our respective
food producers implies two different things: there's no intent on your part
for the animals that die during the production of your meat while there is
intent on my part for the animals that die collaterally during the
production of my vegetables.

>> Why are you so set
>> against accepting the truth, that the deaths on your plate are fully
>> intended by you?

Why wont you answer this question? Are you also of the opinion that the
collateral deaths associated with your food are unintentional as well, while
mine are fully intentional?

>>> I only expect my grocer to carry high quality fresh meat.
>>
>> And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
>> accrued are unintended by me.
>
>As are the meat animal deaths for me.

No, the deaths on your plate are intentional. When you eat pork, beef or
chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
There's no getting away from that uncomfortable truth. Why do you refuse to
concede this self-evident truth?

>>>> I only instruct him to produce vegetables. The deaths accrued during
>>>> the production of your food are intended by you and the farmer.
>>>
>>> I just wish to buy meat.
>>
>> And you don't intend the deaths of those animals you eat?
>
>I intend to buy meat.

Yes, so you keep saying. Why wont you admit that the deaths on your plate
are fully-intentional on your part? What's the problem?
[]

>>>> The collateral deaths accrued during the production of my food are unintended by
>>>> me,
>>>
>>> As is the death of meat animals by me.
>>
>> You cannot seriously suggest that the deaths on your plate are unintentional
>> while assuming the collateral deaths on mine are intentional.
>
>I'm not.

Then what are you suggesting? It seems to me that you're trying to deny any
intention on your part for the deaths on your plate while at the same time
assuming the collateral deaths on mine are intentional. Have I misunderstood
something?

[]

I've conceded moral responsibility for them, for the reason given, but I
don't see how that means I intend that they occur.

>> I bear moral responsibility for the collateral
>> deaths accrued during the production of my veg because I continue to pay the
>> farmer who kills them. I also bear moral responsibility for the recent
>> deaths of 96 people
>
>It's more than 500.
>
>
>> following the collapse of an eight-storey building in
>> Bangladesh, and even more in the future who supply the clothing industry,
>> because I continue to buy clothes. But that's a long way short of actually
>> intending those death to occur.
>
>But there's a major difference in the deaths.

What ever that difference might be, it certainly doesn't mean that I intend
that they occur, simply by conceding moral responsibility for them.

>Until someone can show
>that the factory operator there recklessly disregarded the safety of his
>employees by housing his production facility in a known unsafe building,
>one must assume that there was no intent to disregard their safety.
>However, the vegetable farmer *knows* that he's going to kill some
>animals, and *you* know that he knows.

I also know that the clothing manufacturers we indiscriminately buy from,
for whatever reason despite our best efforts to reduce them, kill people
and will continue to kill them. But that doesn't mean I intend those deaths
simply because I realise a moral responsibility on my part as a continuing
buyer of clothes from those manufacturers.

>>> The further point is that you can't claim ignorance of them. A German
>>> in 1939-1940 could say, "Well, I didn't think the SS were going to try
>>> to /exterminate/ all those Poles after the invasion. All /I/ intended
>>> was for the army to create a bigger buffer between Germany and Russia."
>>> Yet it is widely accepted that the German nation bears responsibility
>>> for all that happened. You *do* know that the CDs occur and are going
>>> to occur, so that's a major qualitative difference. It *strengthens*
>>> and *augments* the degree of moral responsibility you bear. I think it
>>> takes intent out of it altogether. You may not have an intent for CDs
>>> to occur, but you have knowledge that they *do* and *will* occur.
>>
>> Yes, I do know they occur and will continue to occur, just like I know more
>> deaths will occur during the manufacture of clothing, for example, despite
>> our best efforts to reduce them.
>
>No, because you don't know that the deaths that occurred did so despite
>best efforts to prevent them. But you *do* know that best efforts to
>prevent animal CDs are not undertaken; in fact, you know that *no*
>efforts to prevent them are undertaken.

Nevertheless, no one seriously believes I intend they die. I certainly
don't, for one.

>> But that's a country mile away from intending them to occur.
>
>I think it's not as much distance as you want to pretend.

It's a country mile.

>>>>>>>>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>>>>>>>>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>>>>>>>>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>>>>>>>>> intend them to die or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
>>>>>>>> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
>>>>>>>> preferences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then intent doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>> No, that doesn't follow from what I wrote. Intent always matters.
>>>
>>> Not that you've shown.
>>
>> You've already agreed that it does matter.
>
>I don't think I've agreed that it matters as much as you wish to claim
>it does.

[Rupert wrote]
> By that logic you should also say that Derek thinks that buying
> vegetables is morally wrong.
[you wrote]
Nope. Intent matters.
[end]
George Plimpton Nov 15 2012 http://tinyurl.com/chano27

It seems absolutely plain to me.

[dh]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:10:21 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>> >> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>
>> >
>>
>> >He writes
>>
>>
>>
>> Why can you present examples from Goo's links, but not from your own? It's
>>
>> not that you can't present quotes. It's that there's nothing at your links that
>>
>> you feel is worth presenting.
>>
>
>No, that is not the case. I'm fully capable of copying and pasting stuff from my own links, of course, and I have done in the past. I wasted a large amout of time copying and pasting many paragraphs from my document about broiler chickens for you, and it still didn't do me any good in terms of getting you to pay any attention.

That's a lie since I had to point out to YOU that they weren't talking about
broilers but instead about their parents AND that what you presented is not
enough to make their lives of negative value.

>There is no good reason why I should have to copy and paste stuff from my own links. There is no good reason why you can't just read the link. Just because I choose not to waste my time copying pasting stuff, doesn't mean there's nothing there that I think is worth reading.

That's another lie because it does mean exactly that.

>I posted the link so that you can read it. There's no good reason why you can't just click on the link and read it.
>
>>
>>

>> >"Extrapolating from that, it�s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.

>>
>>
>>
>> I've been pointing out to you for years that veganism "helps" animals in the
>>
>> same way that dead people help them. No way. Did you think I was lying all those
>>
>> years?
>>
>
>I think you're an idiot.

Try to explain exactly HOW you want people to think veganism helps livestock
animals more than dead people do. Go:
. . .

>> I've been pointing out for years that buying cage free eggs is better than
>>
>> doing nothing because that's the most CLEARLY OBVIOUS example I can think of so
>>
>> it seems even you should be able to appreciate it. But no, you can't. Not even
>>
>> close in fact.
>
>Why is a diet with cage-free eggs better than a vegan diet?

Because it contributes to not only lives of positive value but a better way
of raising chickens in general, while a vegan diet does nothing for any
livestock animals including laying hens.

>> So I pointed out that the number of deaths in crop production
>>
>> varies greatly from one situation to another in case you cared anything at all
>>
>> about your contribution to the deaths of wildlife and you've shown that you
>>
>> don't care about that either.
>
>That is nonsense. I am obviously fully aware that there would be some variation in the amount of wildlife deaths caused by crop production in different crop fields. As I pointed out, that doesn't mean that you can plausibly claim that it would frequently be as high as 3000 per hectare per year, so your claim that tofu is worse than grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds is nonsense. That's all I've been doing, pointing out that you're talking nonsense.
>
>If I had good reason to think spending time doing research about the amount of harm caused by different forms of crop production was a cost-effective use of my time as far as making further efforts to reduce suffering goes, then I'd do it. But I don't have any good reason to think that.

You don't care anywhere near as much as you'd like other people to think you
do, and possibly not anywhere near as much as you'd like to yourself.

>> A vegan who doesn't care about livestock or
>>
>> wildlife is no better than a meat consumer who doesn't care about livestock or
>>
>> wildlife.
>
>Except that you don't have any good reason to think that I don't care about livestock or wildlife.

Your refusal to support decent lives for any livestock is reason to believe
you don't care about them. Your refusal to even think about reducing the number
of deaths you contribute to with your own veggies is reason to think you don't
care about wildlife. What I don't have is any reason to feel that you do care
about either group.

[Rupert]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 12:39:05 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:10:21 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> "vegans" just can't address this.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >He writes
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Why can you present examples from Goo's links, but not from your own? It's
>
> >>
>
> >> not that you can't present quotes. It's that there's nothing at your links that
>
> >>
>
> >> you feel is worth presenting.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, that is not the case. I'm fully capable of copying and pasting stuff from my own links, of course, and I have done in the past. I wasted a large amout of time copying and pasting many paragraphs from my document about broiler chickens for you, and it still didn't do me any good in terms of getting you to pay any attention.
>
>
>
> That's a lie since I had to point out to YOU that they weren't talking about
>
> broilers but instead about their parents AND that what you presented is not
>
> enough to make their lives of negative value.
>

I'm not talking about the quote I gave to do with underfeeding. I copied and pasted quite a large number of paragraphs into a post at one stage, and posted it somewhere in the archives. Anyway, what you said gives us no reason at all to think that what I said was a lie. You shouldn't accuse people of lying when you have no rational foundation for doing so. It's unethical.

>
>
> >There is no good reason why I should have to copy and paste stuff from my own links. There is no good reason why you can't just read the link. Just because I choose not to waste my time copying pasting stuff, doesn't mean there's nothing there that I think is worth reading.
>
>
>
> That's another lie because it does mean exactly that.
>

You're a fool.

>
>
> >I posted the link so that you can read it. There's no good reason why you can't just click on the link and read it.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> >"Extrapolating from that, it�s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I've been pointing out to you for years that veganism "helps" animals in the
>
> >>
>
> >> same way that dead people help them. No way. Did you think I was lying all those
>
> >>
>
> >> years?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I think you're an idiot.
>
>
>
> Try to explain exactly HOW you want people to think veganism helps livestock
>
> animals more than dead people do. Go:
>
> . . .
>

People follow the example of vegans, not dead people.

> >> I've been pointing out for years that buying cage free eggs is better than
>
> >>
>
> >> doing nothing because that's the most CLEARLY OBVIOUS example I can think of so
>
> >>
>
> >> it seems even you should be able to appreciate it. But no, you can't. Not even
>
> >>
>
> >> close in fact.
>
> >
>
> >Why is a diet with cage-free eggs better than a vegan diet?
>
>
>
> Because it contributes to not only lives of positive value but a better way
>
> of raising chickens in general, while a vegan diet does nothing for any
>
> livestock animals including laying hens.
>

In order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage free eggs, it would have to be the case that no alternative use of the same amount of money would improve the outcome to the same extent. You have given no reason to think that this is true.

>
>
> >> So I pointed out that the number of deaths in crop production
>
> >>
>
> >> varies greatly from one situation to another in case you cared anything at all
>
> >>
>
> >> about your contribution to the deaths of wildlife and you've shown that you
>
> >>
>
> >> don't care about that either.
>
> >
>
> >That is nonsense. I am obviously fully aware that there would be some variation in the amount of wildlife deaths caused by crop production in different crop fields. As I pointed out, that doesn't mean that you can plausibly claim that it would frequently be as high as 3000 per hectare per year, so your claim that tofu is worse than grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds is nonsense. That's all I've been doing, pointing out that you're talking nonsense.
>
> >
>
> >If I had good reason to think spending time doing research about the amount of harm caused by different forms of crop production was a cost-effective use of my time as far as making further efforts to reduce suffering goes, then I'd do it. But I don't have any good reason to think that.
>
>
>
> You don't care anywhere near as much as you'd like other people to think you
>
> do, and possibly not anywhere near as much as you'd like to yourself.
>

I don't have any interest in whether people think I care or not.

>
>
> >> A vegan who doesn't care about livestock or
>
> >>
>
> >> wildlife is no better than a meat consumer who doesn't care about livestock or
>
> >>
>
> >> wildlife.
>
> >
>
> >Except that you don't have any good reason to think that I don't care about livestock or wildlife.
>
>
>
> Your refusal to support decent lives for any livestock is reason to believe
>
> you don't care about them. Your refusal to even think about reducing the number
>
> of deaths you contribute to with your own veggies is reason to think you don't
>
> care about wildlife. What I don't have is any reason to feel that you do care
>
> about either group.

As I pointed out before, in order for any pro tanto reason to buy food which is not vegan to be a decisive reason, it would have to be the case that no alternative use of the same amount of money would improve the outcome to the same extent, and you've given no reason to think that this is the case. I do think about how I might reduce the death rate associated with the vegetables I eat, but it's difficult to find useful reliable data about the matter and investing time into finding it would not be an optimal use of my limited time and resources.

As I correctly pointed out, you've given no reason at all to think that I don't care about livestock and wildlife.

[George Plimpton]

No, you're misreading. I'm not saying you have intent and I don't. I'm
saying the intent doesn't matter. It doesn't lessen your
responsibility. Your knowledge is more than sufficient.

>>> Why are you so set
>>> against accepting the truth, that the deaths on your plate are fully
>>> intended by you?
>
> Why wont you answer this question?

I've answered it.

> Are you also of the opinion that the
> collateral deaths associated with your food are unintentional as well, while
> mine are fully intentional?
>
>>>> I only expect my grocer to carry high quality fresh meat.
>>>
>>> And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
>>> accrued are unintended by me.
>>
>> As are the meat animal deaths for me.
>
> No, the deaths on your plate are intentional.

Not by me.

> When you eat pork, beef or
> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.

No, they're not.

> There's no getting away from that uncomfortable truth. Why do you refuse to
> concede this self-evident truth?
>
>>>>> I only instruct him to produce vegetables. The deaths accrued during
>>>>> the production of your food are intended by you and the farmer.
>>>>
>>>> I just wish to buy meat.
>>>
>>> And you don't intend the deaths of those animals you eat?
>>
>> I intend to buy meat.
>
> Yes, so you keep saying. Why wont you admit that the deaths on your plate
> are fully-intentional on your part? What's the problem?

Because they aren't. Anyway, it's beside the point. Intent isn't all
that matters. Criminal and civil law both are very clear on that.

>>>>> The collateral deaths accrued during the production of my food are unintended by
>>>>> me,
>>>>
>>>> As is the death of meat animals by me.
>>>
>>> You cannot seriously suggest that the deaths on your plate are unintentional
>>> while assuming the collateral deaths on mine are intentional.
>>
>> I'm not.
>
> Then what are you suggesting?

That intent is irrelevant.

> It seems to me that you're trying to deny any
> intention on your part for the deaths on your plate while at the same time
> assuming the collateral deaths on mine are intentional. Have I misunderstood
> something?

Yes, repeatedly.

It doesn't matter if you do or not. Clearly you don't *care* that they

Your knowledge changes everything.

>>> But that's a country mile away from intending them to occur.
>>
>> I think it's not as much distance as you want to pretend.
>
> It's a country mile.

Not any distance at all.

>>>>>>>>>> Suppose 1,000 sentient
>>>>>>>>>> animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>>>>>>>>>> It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>>>>>>>>>> intend them to die or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
>>>>>>>>> those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
>>>>>>>>> preferences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "right" has to be against not being killed, period, regardless of use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then intent doesn't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that doesn't follow from what I wrote. Intent always matters.
>>>>
>>>> Not that you've shown.
>>>
>>> You've already agreed that it does matter.
>>
>> I don't think I've agreed that it matters as much as you wish to claim
>> it does.
>
> [Rupert wrote]
> > By that logic you should also say that Derek thinks that buying
> > vegetables is morally wrong.
> [you wrote]
> Nope. Intent matters.
> [end]
> George Plimpton Nov 15 2012 http://tinyurl.com/chano27
>
> It seems absolutely plain to me.

Honestly, reviewing that thread, I can't recall what I meant by saying
that intent matters. Fuckwit *personally* raised fighting birds and
intended them to fight to the death (or be killed by their owners for
"cowardice"), and necessarily he has to feel the same way about fighting
dogs.

[Derek]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:30:04 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>On 5/9/2013 3:28 PM, Derek wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:47:34 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2013 11:06 AM, Derek wrote:

[]

>>>> And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
>>>> accrued are unintended by me.
>>>
>>> As are the meat animal deaths for me.
>>
>> No, the deaths on your plate are intentional.
>
>Not by me.

We're agreed, then, that there's no intent on my part for the collateral
deaths associated with the production of my vegetables. Great! All that's
left now is for you to accept the undeniable truth; you *do* intend the
deaths associated with the production of your meat. It's inescapable.

>> When you eat pork, beef or
>> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
>
>No, they're not.

The most certainly are, even though I'm fairly certain you wont budge from
this bizarre position you've adopted. The vegan shuffle? Are you kidding?
[]

[George Plimpton]

On 5/10/2013 10:10 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:30:04 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2013 3:28 PM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:47:34 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2013 11:06 AM, Derek wrote:
> []
>>>>> And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
>>>>> accrued are unintended by me.
>>>>
>>>> As are the meat animal deaths for me.
>>>
>>> No, the deaths on your plate are intentional.
>>
>> Not by me.
>
> We're agreed, then, that there's no intent on my part for the collateral
> deaths associated with the production of my vegetables. Great! All that's
> left now is for you to accept the undeniable truth; you *do* intend the
> deaths associated with the production of your meat. It's inescapable.

Nope. All I intend is to obtain meat.

>>> When you eat pork, beef or
>>> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
>>
>> No, they're not.
>
> The most certainly are, even though I'm fairly certain you wont budge from
> this bizarre position you've adopted.

What's bizarre about it? I want a product: meat. I don't care if the
animals are slaughtered or keel over dead on their own. I don't even
care if it's the flesh of animals - if someone could find a way to
recycle paper and cardboard and produce a product identical to the meats
I consume, I'd buy it. I'm not talking about something "meat-like" on
the order of "Tofurkey" and so on, I mean something that is fully
indistinguishable from the flesh of animals.

The point is, your intent or lack of it doesn't do anything to lessen
your degree of moral responsibility for something you claim to believe
is an absolute wrong. You say rather emptily that you accept such
responsibility, but it has no consequence. Absolutely you are trying to
use this piffle about "intent" to avoid having to face up to this
responsibility in a meaningful way. In other words, your supposed
acceptance of responsibility is just rhetoric - sophistry.

Never lose sight of the fact that my intent regarding the ultimate end
of livestock animals is irrelevant, because I reject that killing
animals for food is wrong. That's what stupid Karen Winter never could
quite figure out. She kept insisting that I was under the same moral
obligation she was to reduce the death toll my consumption causes, but
that's wrong.

[Derek]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:25:26 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>On 5/10/2013 10:10 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:30:04 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2013 3:28 PM, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:47:34 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/2013 11:06 AM, Derek wrote:
>> []
>>>>>> And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
>>>>>> accrued are unintended by me.
>>>>>
>>>>> As are the meat animal deaths for me.
>>>>
>>>> No, the deaths on your plate are intentional.
>>>
>>> Not by me.
>>
>> We're agreed, then, that there's no intent on my part for the collateral
>> deaths associated with the production of my vegetables. Great! All that's
>> left now is for you to accept the undeniable truth; you *do* intend the
>> deaths associated with the production of your meat. It's inescapable.
>
>Nope. All I intend is to obtain meat.

Without intending the deaths of those animals you eat? Sorry, but I find
that implausible.

>>>> When you eat pork, beef or
>>>> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
>>>
>>> No, they're not.
>>
>> The most certainly are, even though I'm fairly certain you wont budge from
>> this bizarre position you've adopted.
>
>What's bizarre about it? I want a product: meat.

From animals that are raised, slaughtered and packaged for you. You pay the
food producers to perform these tasks, and your intent for these deaths is
certain and beyond rational dispute.

>I don't care if the
>animals are slaughtered or keel over dead on their own.

All the meat you buy are from animals that are slaughtered for you. You know
this, and while you continue to buy meat from slaughtered animals your
intent for their deaths is beyond rational dispute.

>I don't even
>care if it's the flesh of animals - if someone could find a way to
>recycle paper and cardboard and produce a product identical to the meats
>I consume, I'd buy it. I'm not talking about something "meat-like" on
>the order of "Tofurkey" and so on, I mean something that is fully
>indistinguishable from the flesh of animals.
>
>The point is, your intent or lack of it doesn't do anything to lessen
>your degree of moral responsibility for something you claim to believe
>is an absolute wrong.

I didn't say or imply that it did.

>You say rather emptily that you accept such
>responsibility, but it has no consequence. Absolutely you are trying to
>use this piffle about "intent" to avoid having to face up to this
>responsibility in a meaningful way. In other words, your supposed
>acceptance of responsibility is just rhetoric - sophistry.

No, that's not true.

>Never lose sight of the fact that my intent regarding the ultimate end
>of livestock animals is irrelevant, because I reject that killing
>animals for food is wrong.

If you reject the idea that killing animals for food is wrong, why did you
write,

�I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
aspect to killing animals, even rodents.�
5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh

Isn't it a fact that *you* are trying to lessen your degree of moral
responsibility for the inherently inhumane deaths of animals on your plate
by claiming they're unintentional on your part?

>That's what stupid Karen Winter never could
>quite figure out. She kept insisting that I was under the same moral
>obligation she was to reduce the death toll my consumption causes, but
>that's wrong.

You believe there's an inherent, inhumane aspect to killing animals, even
rodents, so it seems pretty obvious to me that you are under the same moral
obligation to reduce the death toll your consumption causes.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/10/2013 11:44 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:25:26 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/2013 10:10 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:30:04 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2013 3:28 PM, Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:47:34 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2013 11:06 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> []
>>>>>>> And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
>>>>>>> accrued are unintended by me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As are the meat animal deaths for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the deaths on your plate are intentional.
>>>>
>>>> Not by me.
>>>
>>> We're agreed, then, that there's no intent on my part for the collateral
>>> deaths associated with the production of my vegetables. Great! All that's
>>> left now is for you to accept the undeniable truth; you *do* intend the
>>> deaths associated with the production of your meat. It's inescapable.
>>
>> Nope. All I intend is to obtain meat.
>
> Without intending the deaths of those animals you eat? Sorry, but I find
> that implausible.

I find it equally implausible that you can claim "intent is everything"
and then try to maintain this fiction about your lack of intent to cause
animals to die when you know full well they do die. At some point, your
knowledge that they die becomes intent.

>>>>> When you eat pork, beef or
>>>>> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
>>>>
>>>> No, they're not.
>>>
>>> The most certainly are, even though I'm fairly certain you wont budge from
>>> this bizarre position you've adopted.
>>
>> What's bizarre about it? I want a product: meat.
>
> From animals that are raised, slaughtered and packaged for you. You pay the
> food producers to perform these tasks, and your intent for these deaths is
> certain and beyond rational dispute.
>
>> I don't care if the
>> animals are slaughtered or keel over dead on their own.
>
> All the meat you buy are from animals that are slaughtered for you. You know
> this, and while you continue to buy meat from slaughtered animals your
> intent for their deaths is beyond rational dispute.
>
>> I don't even
>> care if it's the flesh of animals - if someone could find a way to
>> recycle paper and cardboard and produce a product identical to the meats
>> I consume, I'd buy it. I'm not talking about something "meat-like" on
>> the order of "Tofurkey" and so on, I mean something that is fully
>> indistinguishable from the flesh of animals.
>>
>> The point is, your intent or lack of it doesn't do anything to lessen
>> your degree of moral responsibility for something you claim to believe
>> is an absolute wrong.
>
> I didn't say or imply that it did.

Of course you did. Nothing could be more obvious.

>> You say rather emptily that you accept such
>> responsibility, but it has no consequence. Absolutely you are trying to
>> use this piffle about "intent" to avoid having to face up to this
>> responsibility in a meaningful way. In other words, your supposed
>> acceptance of responsibility is just rhetoric - sophistry.
>
> No, that's not true.

It is true.

>> Never lose sight of the fact that my intent regarding the ultimate end
>> of livestock animals is irrelevant, because I reject that killing
>> animals for food is wrong.
>
> If you reject the idea that killing animals for food is wrong, why did you
> write,
>
> “I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
> aspect to killing animals, even rodents.”
> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh
>
> Isn't it a fact that *you* are trying to lessen your degree of moral
> responsibility for the inherently inhumane deaths of animals on your plate
> by claiming they're unintentional on your part?

No. I'm saying that because it's not wrong, my intent is irrelevant.

>> That's what stupid Karen Winter never could
>> quite figure out. She kept insisting that I was under the same moral
>> obligation she was to reduce the death toll my consumption causes, but
>> that's wrong.
>
> You believe there's an inherent, inhumane aspect to killing animals, even
> rodents, so it seems pretty obvious to me that you are under the same moral
> obligation to reduce the death toll your consumption causes.

No, thinking something has a slight inhumane aspect to it doesn't imply
I think it's morally objectionable.

[Derek]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:12:45 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>On 5/10/2013 11:44 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:25:26 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 5/10/2013 10:10 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:30:04 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/2013 3:28 PM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:47:34 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2013 11:06 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>>>>> And I only expect my grocer to carry high quality vegetables. Any deaths
>>>>>>>> accrued are unintended by me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As are the meat animal deaths for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the deaths on your plate are intentional.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by me.
>>>>
>>>> We're agreed, then, that there's no intent on my part for the collateral
>>>> deaths associated with the production of my vegetables. Great! All that's
>>>> left now is for you to accept the undeniable truth; you *do* intend the
>>>> deaths associated with the production of your meat. It's inescapable.
>>>
>>> Nope. All I intend is to obtain meat.
>>
>> Without intending the deaths of those animals you eat? Sorry, but I find
>> that implausible.
>
>I find it equally implausible that you can claim "intent is everything"
>and then try to maintain this fiction about your lack of intent to cause
>animals to die when you know full well they do die.

Knowing they die doesn't mean that I intend they die. We've been over this
by looking at the other harms and deaths my lifestyle causes. If I pay
someone to kill animals to eat, like you do, that would mean that I intend
their deaths, not simply by just knowing they die.

>At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent.

Ah, so you weren't being serious about your lack of intent?

>>>>>> When you eat pork, beef or
>>>>>> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>>
>>>> The most certainly are, even though I'm fairly certain you wont budge from
>>>> this bizarre position you've adopted.
>>>
>>> What's bizarre about it? I want a product: meat.
>>
>> From animals that are raised, slaughtered and packaged for you. You pay the
>> food producers to perform these tasks, and your intent for these deaths is
>> certain and beyond rational dispute.

"At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent."

>>> I don't care if the
>>> animals are slaughtered or keel over dead on their own.
>>
>> All the meat you buy are from animals that are slaughtered for you. You know
>> this, and while you continue to buy meat from slaughtered animals your
>> intent for their deaths is beyond rational dispute.

"At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent." Why doesn't
this apply to you?

>>> I don't even
>>> care if it's the flesh of animals - if someone could find a way to
>>> recycle paper and cardboard and produce a product identical to the meats
>>> I consume, I'd buy it. I'm not talking about something "meat-like" on
>>> the order of "Tofurkey" and so on, I mean something that is fully
>>> indistinguishable from the flesh of animals.
>>>
>>> The point is, your intent or lack of it doesn't do anything to lessen
>>> your degree of moral responsibility for something you claim to believe
>>> is an absolute wrong.
>>
>> I didn't say or imply that it did.
>
>Of course you did. Nothing could be more obvious.

You're welcome to believe that if you want, but it isn't true.

>>> You say rather emptily that you accept such
>>> responsibility, but it has no consequence. Absolutely you are trying to
>>> use this piffle about "intent" to avoid having to face up to this
>>> responsibility in a meaningful way. In other words, your supposed
>>> acceptance of responsibility is just rhetoric - sophistry.
>>
>> No, that's not true.
>
>It is true.

Nope.

>>> Never lose sight of the fact that my intent regarding the ultimate end
>>> of livestock animals is irrelevant, because I reject that killing
>>> animals for food is wrong.
>>
>> If you reject the idea that killing animals for food is wrong, why did you
>> write,
>>
>> “I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents.”
>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh
>>
>> Isn't it a fact that *you* are trying to lessen your degree of moral
>> responsibility for the inherently inhumane deaths of animals on your plate
>> by claiming they're unintentional on your part?
>
>No.

"Of course [it is]. Nothing could be more obvious."

>I'm saying that because it's not wrong, my intent is irrelevant.
>
>
>>> That's what stupid Karen Winter never could
>>> quite figure out. She kept insisting that I was under the same moral
>>> obligation she was to reduce the death toll my consumption causes, but
>>> that's wrong.
>>
>> You believe there's an inherent, inhumane aspect to killing animals, even
>> rodents, so it seems pretty obvious to me that you are under the same moral
>> obligation to reduce the death toll your consumption causes.
>
>No, thinking something has a slight inhumane aspect to it doesn't imply
>I think it's morally objectionable.

So, doing something considered inhumane isn't morally objectionable?

[George Plimpton]

That's irrelevant.

In fact, your focus on intent is a dodge.

> We've been over this
> by looking at the other harms and deaths my lifestyle causes. If I pay
> someone to kill animals to eat, like you do, that would mean that I intend
> their deaths, not simply by just knowing they die.
>
>> At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent.
>
> Ah, so you weren't being serious about your lack of intent?

You aren't being serious about it. It's perfectly clear you aren't.

You know you could not maintain this fiction about no intent if the
victims of rights violations were human. If the clothing you bought
came from factories in which industrial accidents killed 500 people at
once several times a year, you know that you would have to stop buying
those brands of clothing.

This has always been why CDs destroy any conceivable deontological basis
for "animal rights." They occur in massive numbers, there are no
consequences of any kind for them, and you know all about them. Your
alleged lack of intent is meaningless. You keep saying that "intent is
everything", but you've never said what moral importance it has. You're
implying there is some, but you're unable to identify it.

Meanwhile, your knowledge completely trumps any alleged lack of intent.

It is true. Necessarily.

>>>> You say rather emptily that you accept such
>>>> responsibility, but it has no consequence. Absolutely you are trying to
>>>> use this piffle about "intent" to avoid having to face up to this
>>>> responsibility in a meaningful way. In other words, your supposed
>>>> acceptance of responsibility is just rhetoric - sophistry.
>>>
>>> No, that's not true.
>>
>> It is true.
>
> Nope.

It is true. It's obvious.

>
>>>> Never lose sight of the fact that my intent regarding the ultimate end
>>>> of livestock animals is irrelevant, because I reject that killing
>>>> animals for food is wrong.
>>>
>>> If you reject the idea that killing animals for food is wrong, why did you
>>> write,
>>>

>>> �I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents.�

>>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh
>>>
>>> Isn't it a fact that *you* are trying to lessen your degree of moral
>>> responsibility for the inherently inhumane deaths of animals on your plate
>>> by claiming they're unintentional on your part?
>>
>> No.
>
> "Of course [it is]. Nothing could be more obvious."
>
>> I'm saying that because it's not wrong, my intent is irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>>> That's what stupid Karen Winter never could
>>>> quite figure out. She kept insisting that I was under the same moral
>>>> obligation she was to reduce the death toll my consumption causes, but
>>>> that's wrong.
>>>
>>> You believe there's an inherent, inhumane aspect to killing animals, even
>>> rodents, so it seems pretty obvious to me that you are under the same moral
>>> obligation to reduce the death toll your consumption causes.
>>
>> No, thinking something has a slight inhumane aspect to it doesn't imply
>> I think it's morally objectionable.
>
> So, doing something considered inhumane isn't morally objectionable?

Not /per se/, no.

[Derek]

You know that it isn't. When Rupert suggested you should say that I believe
buying vegetables is morally wrong, you replied, "Nope. Intent matters."
You've been trying to put that cat back into the bag ever since, but it's a
bit late for that now.

>> We've been over this
>> by looking at the other harms and deaths my lifestyle causes. If I pay
>> someone to kill animals to eat, like you do, that would mean that I intend
>> their deaths, not simply by just knowing they die.

Why are you having so much trouble accepting this self-evident fact?

>>> At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent.
>>
>> Ah, so you weren't being serious about your lack of intent?
>
>You aren't being serious about it. It's perfectly clear you aren't.

I'm very serious about it. However, now that you've admitted that "At some
point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent.", it's certain that you
aren't serious about your lack of intent surrounding the deaths of
livestock, because there can be no doubt that your knowledge about their
deaths reveals your intent, just like you said it does.

>You know you could not maintain this fiction about no intent if the
>victims of rights violations were human. If the clothing you bought
>came from factories in which industrial accidents killed 500 people at
>once several times a year, you know that you would have to stop buying
>those brands of clothing.

I'm fully aware that many tens of thousands of human rights holders die in
industries all around the world every year to provide goods and services,
despite our best efforts to reduce them, and yet I and the millions of
others who believe in human rights still continue to enjoy these products
and services. The death toll from that collapsed factory in Bangladesh looks
set to reach 1400, and yet we all still continue to buy clothes from similar
producers, knowing that many many more will continue to die. So no, sorry,
that argument falls to the floor.

>This has always been why CDs destroy any conceivable deontological basis
>for "animal rights." They occur in massive numbers, there are no
>consequences of any kind for them, and you know all about them.

Human rights violations and human collateral deaths occur everywhere all
around the world to produce the goods and services we enjoy, despite our
best efforts to reduce them, and yet we still maintain that all humans hold
rights. Your CD argument against the vegan was broken long ago.

>Your alleged lack of intent is meaningless.

No, intent matters, just like you said. That cat wont go back into the bag.

>>>>>>>> When you eat pork, beef or
>>>>>>>> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most certainly are, even though I'm fairly certain you wont budge from
>>>>>> this bizarre position you've adopted.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's bizarre about it? I want a product: meat.
>>>>
>>>> From animals that are raised, slaughtered and packaged for you. You pay the
>>>> food producers to perform these tasks, and your intent for these deaths is
>>>> certain and beyond rational dispute.
>>
>> "At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent."

Why does this rule of yours only apply only to vegans and not you?

>>>>> I don't care if the
>>>>> animals are slaughtered or keel over dead on their own.
>>>>
>>>> All the meat you buy are from animals that are slaughtered for you. You know
>>>> this, and while you continue to buy meat from slaughtered animals your
>>>> intent for their deaths is beyond rational dispute.
>>
>> "At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent." Why doesn't
>> this apply to you?

This is a perfectly valid question regarding your rule, so what's stopping
you from answering it?

>>>>> I don't even
>>>>> care if it's the flesh of animals - if someone could find a way to
>>>>> recycle paper and cardboard and produce a product identical to the meats
>>>>> I consume, I'd buy it. I'm not talking about something "meat-like" on
>>>>> the order of "Tofurkey" and so on, I mean something that is fully
>>>>> indistinguishable from the flesh of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is, your intent or lack of it doesn't do anything to lessen
>>>>> your degree of moral responsibility for something you claim to believe
>>>>> is an absolute wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say or imply that it did.
>>>
>>> Of course you did. Nothing could be more obvious.
>>
>> You're welcome to believe that if you want, but it isn't true.
>
>It is true. Necessarily.

I'm not lying.

>>>>> You say rather emptily that you accept such
>>>>> responsibility, but it has no consequence. Absolutely you are trying to
>>>>> use this piffle about "intent" to avoid having to face up to this
>>>>> responsibility in a meaningful way. In other words, your supposed
>>>>> acceptance of responsibility is just rhetoric - sophistry.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not true.
>>>
>>> It is true.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>It is true. It's obvious.

No, my sense of vicarious moral responsibility forces me to forego animal
products. I could never intentionally direct my food producer to kill
animals on my behalf. The animals that die collaterally during the
production of my veg aren't intended by me, and so I'm under no obligation
to stop buying them.

>>>>> Never lose sight of the fact that my intent regarding the ultimate end
>>>>> of livestock animals is irrelevant, because I reject that killing
>>>>> animals for food is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> If you reject the idea that killing animals for food is wrong, why did you
>>>> write,
>>>>

>>>> �I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>>>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents.�

>>>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it a fact that *you* are trying to lessen your degree of moral
>>>> responsibility for the inherently inhumane deaths of animals on your plate
>>>> by claiming they're unintentional on your part?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> "Of course [it is]. Nothing could be more obvious."

Even if you don't subscribe to the idea of animal rights and promote animal
welfare instead, you still continue to buy meat knowing full well that "the
welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is horrifically
neglected."

�... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
treated from the time they're born all the way to the
point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true � the
welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
horrifically neglected."
28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm

Why do you continue to buy meat while knowing the welfare of the animals you
eat is so horrifically neglected? If vegans are ethically bankrupt for not
doing all they can to adhere to their principles, how do you escape the same
charge for failing to adhere to yours?

>>>>> That's what stupid Karen Winter never could
>>>>> quite figure out. She kept insisting that I was under the same moral
>>>>> obligation she was to reduce the death toll my consumption causes, but
>>>>> that's wrong.
>>>>
>>>> You believe there's an inherent, inhumane aspect to killing animals, even
>>>> rodents, so it seems pretty obvious to me that you are under the same moral
>>>> obligation to reduce the death toll your consumption causes.
>>>
>>> No, thinking something has a slight inhumane aspect to it doesn't imply
>>> I think it's morally objectionable.
>>
>> So, doing something considered inhumane isn't morally objectionable?
>
>Not /per se/, no.

Of course it is. Doing something considered inhumane is always morally
objectionable. You're always quick to call vegans ethically bankrupt because
they don't do all they can to avoid animal rights violations, even though
their sense of vicarious moral responsibility forces them to forego animal
products, but when called to act on your beliefs you refuse to do so and
continue to heckle vegans, like you've been doing for over 15 years. Why
don't your rules apply to you?

[Dutch]

Derek wrote:
> No, my sense of vicarious moral responsibility forces me to forego animal
> products. I could never intentionally direct my food producer to kill
> animals on my behalf. The animals that die collaterally during the
> production of my veg aren't intended by me, and so I'm under no obligation
> to stop buying them.

Culpability comes from knowledge, not intent. All of us who buy clothes
that we know are manufactured in those dangerous Bangladeshi sweatshops
are complicit in all that misery and death. The same goes for iPods
manufactured by child labourers in China. It is irrelevant what we
"intend". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Derek]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 13:07:14 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>> No, my sense of vicarious moral responsibility forces me to forego animal
>> products. I could never intentionally direct my food producer to kill
>> animals on my behalf. The animals that die collaterally during the
>> production of my veg aren't intended by me, and so I'm under no obligation
>> to stop buying them.
>
>Culpability comes from knowledge, not intent.

What's the difference in culpability between manslaughter and murder if not
intent, you fool?

[George Plimpton]

I know beyond all dispute that it is.

>>> We've been over this
>>> by looking at the other harms and deaths my lifestyle causes. If I pay
>>> someone to kill animals to eat, like you do, that would mean that I intend
>>> their deaths, not simply by just knowing they die.
>
> Why are you having so much trouble accepting this self-evident fact?

It's not a fact at all. It's part of your attempt at a dodge. It
fails, as it always failed in the past and will always fail in future.

>
>>>> At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you weren't being serious about your lack of intent?
>>
>> You aren't being serious about it. It's perfectly clear you aren't.
>
> I'm very serious about it.

You're not being serious. You're banging on a silly drum about intent,
*even though* you have already acknowledged that it does nothing to
lessen or alter the quality of your moral responsibility for the deaths
that you *know* are caused and continue to be caused by the production
of the food you eat.

It's an attempted dodge - not in rational dispute - and it fails.

>> You know you could not maintain this fiction about no intent if the
>> victims of rights violations were human. If the clothing you bought
>> came from factories in which industrial accidents killed 500 people at
>> once several times a year, you know that you would have to stop buying
>> those brands of clothing.
>
> I'm fully aware that many tens of thousands of human rights holders die in
> industries all around the world every year to provide goods and services,
> despite our best efforts to reduce them,

But there *are* such efforts to reduce them. There are no such efforts
to reduce animal CDs at all, and you're a willing participant.

>> This has always been why CDs destroy any conceivable deontological basis
>> for "animal rights." They occur in massive numbers, there are no
>> consequences of any kind for them, and you know all about them.
>
> Human rights violations and human collateral deaths occur everywhere all
> around the world to produce the goods and services we enjoy, despite our
> best efforts to reduce them,

Very few of them, actually, *precisely because* "best efforts" are made
to reduce them. As far as the blood-drenched vegetables you consume,
however, *NO* effort is made to reduce the CDs attached to them...and
you know it, too. Your knowledge *MORE* than offsets your supposed
intent. In fact, it obliterates it.

You may consider "intent" to be a dead issue now. It is meaningless.

>> Your alleged lack of intent is meaningless.
>
> No,

Yes. It's dead. Your knowledge erases it.

>>>>>>>>> When you eat pork, beef or
>>>>>>>>> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most certainly are, even though I'm fairly certain you wont budge from
>>>>>>> this bizarre position you've adopted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's bizarre about it? I want a product: meat.
>>>>>
>>>>> From animals that are raised, slaughtered and packaged for you. You pay the
>>>>> food producers to perform these tasks, and your intent for these deaths is
>>>>> certain and beyond rational dispute.
>>>
>>> "At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent."
>
> Why does this rule of yours only apply only to vegans and not you?

Because you claim there's a rights violation. That changes everything.

I may be distressed by the manner in which animals I consume are treated
and killed, but I do not believe they have any "right" not to be. You
claim to believe they do. You are under a wholly different moral burden
than I am.

>
>>>>>> I don't care if the
>>>>>> animals are slaughtered or keel over dead on their own.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the meat you buy are from animals that are slaughtered for you. You know
>>>>> this, and while you continue to buy meat from slaughtered animals your
>>>>> intent for their deaths is beyond rational dispute.
>>>
>>> "At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent." Why doesn't
>>> this apply to you?
>
> This is a perfectly valid question regarding your rule, so what's stopping
> you from answering it?
>
>>>>>> I don't even
>>>>>> care if it's the flesh of animals - if someone could find a way to
>>>>>> recycle paper and cardboard and produce a product identical to the meats
>>>>>> I consume, I'd buy it. I'm not talking about something "meat-like" on
>>>>>> the order of "Tofurkey" and so on, I mean something that is fully
>>>>>> indistinguishable from the flesh of animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is, your intent or lack of it doesn't do anything to lessen
>>>>>> your degree of moral responsibility for something you claim to believe
>>>>>> is an absolute wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say or imply that it did.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you did. Nothing could be more obvious.
>>>
>>> You're welcome to believe that if you want, but it isn't true.
>>
>> It is true. Necessarily.
>
> I'm not lying.

You may not be willfully lying, but you aren't speaking the truth. You
say that intent is "everything", and the only reason you would say that,
in a discussion about moral responsibility, is to try to affect the
degree or quality of the responsibility you bear. You *have* to be
saying falsehoods, even if you don't "intend" to do so.

>>>>>> You say rather emptily that you accept such
>>>>>> responsibility, but it has no consequence. Absolutely you are trying to
>>>>>> use this piffle about "intent" to avoid having to face up to this
>>>>>> responsibility in a meaningful way. In other words, your supposed
>>>>>> acceptance of responsibility is just rhetoric - sophistry.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's not true.
>>>>
>>>> It is true.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> It is true. It's obvious.
>
> No, my sense of vicarious moral responsibility forces me to forego animal
> products.

If it meant anything, it would force you to do something to avoid CDs in
vegetable crops. Of course, it doesn't mean anything.

>>>>>> Never lose sight of the fact that my intent regarding the ultimate end
>>>>>> of livestock animals is irrelevant, because I reject that killing
>>>>>> animals for food is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you reject the idea that killing animals for food is wrong, why did you
>>>>> write,
>>>>>
>>>>> “I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>>>>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents.”
>>>>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it a fact that *you* are trying to lessen your degree of moral
>>>>> responsibility for the inherently inhumane deaths of animals on your plate
>>>>> by claiming they're unintentional on your part?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> "Of course [it is]. Nothing could be more obvious."
>
> Even if you don't subscribe to the idea of animal rights and promote animal
> welfare instead, you still continue to buy meat knowing full well that "the
> welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is horrifically
> neglected."

I buy

> Why do you continue to buy meat while knowing the welfare of the animals you
> eat is so horrifically neglected? If vegans are ethically bankrupt for not
> doing all they can to adhere to their principles, how do you escape the same
> charge for failing to adhere to yours?
>
>>>>>> That's what stupid Karen Winter never could
>>>>>> quite figure out. She kept insisting that I was under the same moral
>>>>>> obligation she was to reduce the death toll my consumption causes, but
>>>>>> that's wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> You believe there's an inherent, inhumane aspect to killing animals, even
>>>>> rodents, so it seems pretty obvious to me that you are under the same moral
>>>>> obligation to reduce the death toll your consumption causes.
>>>>
>>>> No, thinking something has a slight inhumane aspect to it doesn't imply
>>>> I think it's morally objectionable.
>>>
>>> So, doing something considered inhumane isn't morally objectionable?
>>
>> Not /per se/, no.
>
> Of course it is.

It isn't. "Inhumane" is kind of a funny word. It means some treatment
that we wouldn't inflict on another human. That's all it means. Most
people extend it to some other cases, but it doesn't mean one ought not
to do it. Some bizarre extremists would say that swatting a fly is
"inhumane". It distresses some people. It doesn't mean it is
necessarily something that ought never be done.

Killing animals distresses people, but it isn't morally wrong /per se/.

[George Plimpton]

Intent counts, but not for as much as you think. Knowledge is far more
important, especially when we're discussing a repeated outcome.

[Dutch]

Try paying attention to my whole messages.

If you know your actions are resulting in harm and you don't stop, you
are just as culpable as you would be if you deliberately and directly
caused the harm.

A good example is causing a forest fire. If you lazily discard a lit
cigarette in a high hazard area with full knowledge that it will very
likely result in a fire and the result is harm, you as culpable as a
common arsonist.

[Rupert]

Even if you just admit that you feel some distress at the thought of the treatment that farm animals have to endure (although you don't think it constitutes a wrongful act) then that could still make it rational for you to become a vegan, if you only confronted the facts about the suffering required to produce your food and how easy it would be for you to become a vegan.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/11/2013 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
> Even if you just admit that you feel some distress at the thought of the treatment that farm animals have to endure (although you don't think it constitutes a wrongful act) then that could still make it rational for you to become a vegan, if you only confronted the facts about the suffering required to produce your food and how easy it would be for you to become a vegan.
>

Why don't "vegans" feel any distress about CDs?

[Rupert]

I would have thought they do. I do.

[Derek]

The rest of the paragraph you deleted without notation shows that you know
it isn't a dodge of any kind.

[restore]

When Rupert suggested you should say that I believe
buying vegetables is morally wrong, you replied, "Nope. Intent matters."
You've been trying to put that cat back into the bag ever since, but it's a
bit late for that now.

[end restore]

>>>> We've been over this
>>>> by looking at the other harms and deaths my lifestyle causes. If I pay
>>>> someone to kill animals to eat, like you do, that would mean that I intend
>>>> their deaths, not simply by just knowing they die.
>>
>> Why are you having so much trouble accepting this self-evident fact?
>
>It's not a fact at all.

It has to be, no matter how strenuously you try to deny it. I know that
collateral deaths in agriculture sometimes occur, but that doesn't mean that
I intend their deaths. That alone proves beyond all reasonable doubt that
knowledge alone doesn't count. It's intent that matters.

>>>>> At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so you weren't being serious about your lack of intent?
>>>
>>> You aren't being serious about it. It's perfectly clear you aren't.
>>
>> I'm very serious about it.
>
>You're not being serious.

The part you snipped away without notation shows that *you* believe
knowledge about their deaths necessarily means intent.

[restore]

However, now that you've admitted that "At some
point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent.", it's certain that you
aren't serious about your lack of intent surrounding the deaths of
livestock, because there can be no doubt that your knowledge about their
deaths reveals your intent, just like you said it does.

[end restore]

So it's clear now, according to *your* rule, that you aren't serious about
your lack of intent.

>>> You know you could not maintain this fiction about no intent if the
>>> victims of rights violations were human. If the clothing you bought
>>> came from factories in which industrial accidents killed 500 people at
>>> once several times a year, you know that you would have to stop buying
>>> those brands of clothing.
>>
>> I'm fully aware that many tens of thousands of human rights holders die in
>> industries all around the world every year to provide goods and services,
>> despite our best efforts to reduce them,
>
>But there *are* such efforts to reduce them. There are no such efforts
>to reduce animal CDs at all, and you're a willing participant.

The part you snipped away without notation explains why people still believe
humans hold rights, even while thousands of rights-holders die for our
convenience, just like the collateral deaths accrued during the farming of
vegetables.

[restore]

and yet I and the millions of
others who believe in human rights still continue to enjoy these products
and services. The death toll from that collapsed factory in Bangladesh looks
set to reach 1400, and yet we all still continue to buy clothes from similar
producers, knowing that many many more will continue to die. So no, sorry,
that argument falls to the floor.

[end restore]

You cannot assume rights do not exist simply because they are routinely
violated or ignored.

>>> This has always been why CDs destroy any conceivable deontological basis
>>> for "animal rights." They occur in massive numbers, there are no
>>> consequences of any kind for them, and you know all about them.
>>
>> Human rights violations and human collateral deaths occur everywhere all
>> around the world to produce the goods and services we enjoy, despite our
>> best efforts to reduce them,
>
>Very few of them, actually, *precisely because* "best efforts" are made
>to reduce them.

You, personally, do not make any effort to reduce the human death toll
associated with your lifestyle. Never mind that some effort is made to
reduce them by third parties. That smokescreen is no other thing to me than
a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. The important thing is that
*you* do not make any effort to reduce them. You know that they run into the
hundreds of thousand every year, and yet you still continue to purchase
those goods and services that cause so much harm nevertheless. By your
logic, then, you don't believe humans hold rights. And, "At some point, your
knowledge that they die becomes intent." But this is nonsense, of course;
you do believe they hold rights and your knowledge about them doesn't mean
that you intend that they should die. Only intent matters, not the knowledge
that they occur.

>>>>>>>>>> When you eat pork, beef or
>>>>>>>>>> chicken, the deaths of those animals are fully-intentional on your part.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most certainly are, even though I'm fairly certain you wont budge from
>>>>>>>> this bizarre position you've adopted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's bizarre about it? I want a product: meat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From animals that are raised, slaughtered and packaged for you. You pay the
>>>>>> food producers to perform these tasks, and your intent for these deaths is
>>>>>> certain and beyond rational dispute.
>>>>
>>>> "At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent."
>>
>> Why does this rule of yours only apply only to vegans and not you?
>
>Because you claim there's a rights violation.

I'm asking why your rule doesn't apply to you. I wasn't talking about animal
rights there. You claim there's no intent on your part to kill animals when
you pay food producers to kill them on your behalf to eat, and in the next
breath claim there is intent when knowledge of their deaths exists.
According to your rule, then, there is intent on your part because you *do*
have knowledge of their deaths, but you refuse to apply this rule to
yourself. You cannot continue to pretend there's no intent on your part,
according to *your* rule.

>I may be distressed by the manner in which animals I consume are treated
>and killed, but I do not believe they have any "right" not to be.

Nevertheless it's clear from your statements regarding the inherent inhumane
aspect in killing animals and the horrific neglect of animal welfare
associated with the production of your meat that you're not making any
effort to stand by your animal welfare position while continuing to buy
meat.

>You claim to believe they do.

You claim to believe animals have a welfare that should be considered rather
than rights, and yet you continue to contribute to this "horrific neglect"
of animal welfare nevertheless. In view of this, when Harrison says,

�I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
to them�
David Harrison 23 Sep 1999 http://tinyurl.com/yh5yc6w

�I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
but I would just ignore their suffering.�
David Harrison Nov 29 1999 http://tinyurl.com/k66pb

�I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
enough to make the effort.�
David Harrison 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy

"I'm not actually responsible for the deaths caused by
meat I eat"
David Harrison 4 Feb 2005 http://tinyurl.com/39wc9rx

isn't it true that perhaps you're guilty of the same hypocrisy?

>You are under a wholly different moral burden than I am.

Our respective burdens are exactly the same in kind, but while I go out of
my way to meet mine you don't do anything to meet yours, and you refuse to
accept any criticism for it.

>>>>>>> I don't care if the
>>>>>>> animals are slaughtered or keel over dead on their own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the meat you buy are from animals that are slaughtered for you. You know
>>>>>> this, and while you continue to buy meat from slaughtered animals your
>>>>>> intent for their deaths is beyond rational dispute.
>>>>
>>>> "At some point, your knowledge that they die becomes intent." Why doesn't
>>>> this apply to you?
>>
>> This is a perfectly valid question regarding your rule, so what's stopping
>> you from answering it?

Oh well.

>>>>>>> I don't even
>>>>>>> care if it's the flesh of animals - if someone could find a way to
>>>>>>> recycle paper and cardboard and produce a product identical to the meats
>>>>>>> I consume, I'd buy it. I'm not talking about something "meat-like" on
>>>>>>> the order of "Tofurkey" and so on, I mean something that is fully
>>>>>>> indistinguishable from the flesh of animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point is, your intent or lack of it doesn't do anything to lessen
>>>>>>> your degree of moral responsibility for something you claim to believe
>>>>>>> is an absolute wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say or imply that it did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you did. Nothing could be more obvious.
>>>>
>>>> You're welcome to believe that if you want, but it isn't true.
>>>
>>> It is true. Necessarily.
>>
>> I'm not lying.
>
>You may not be willfully lying, but you aren't speaking the truth. You
>say that intent is "everything", and the only reason you would say that,
>in a discussion about moral responsibility, is to try to affect the
>degree or quality of the responsibility you bear. You *have* to be
>saying falsehoods, even if you don't "intend" to do so.

No, what I'm trying to explain is that while I acknowledge vicarious moral
responsibility for the deaths accrued during the production of my veg, it
doesn't also mean that I intend them. You're trying to conflate knowledge
with intent, and I think the examples I've provided shows they aren't
comparable.

>>>>>>> You say rather emptily that you accept such
>>>>>>> responsibility, but it has no consequence. Absolutely you are trying to
>>>>>>> use this piffle about "intent" to avoid having to face up to this
>>>>>>> responsibility in a meaningful way. In other words, your supposed
>>>>>>> acceptance of responsibility is just rhetoric - sophistry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> It is true. It's obvious.
>>
>> No, my sense of vicarious moral responsibility forces me to forego animal
>> products.
>
>If it meant anything, it would force you to do something to avoid CDs in
>vegetable crops.

No, I don't believe it would. Collateral deaths are unintentional, by
definition. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which
is intended. The deaths you cause aren't collateral. They're specifically
targeted according to your preferences. You cannot conflate these terms.
They're distinct.

>>>>>>> Never lose sight of the fact that my intent regarding the ultimate end
>>>>>>> of livestock animals is irrelevant, because I reject that killing
>>>>>>> animals for food is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you reject the idea that killing animals for food is wrong, why did you
>>>>>> write,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> �I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>>>>>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents.�
>>>>>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it a fact that *you* are trying to lessen your degree of moral
>>>>>> responsibility for the inherently inhumane deaths of animals on your plate
>>>>>> by claiming they're unintentional on your part?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> "Of course [it is]. Nothing could be more obvious."
>>
>> Even if you don't subscribe to the idea of animal rights and promote animal
>> welfare instead, you still continue to buy meat knowing full well that "the
>> welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is horrifically
>> neglected."

You've removed a very significant quote which proves that you don't live
according to your animal welfare principles.

[restore]

�... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
treated from the time they're born all the way to the

point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true � the

welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
horrifically neglected."

28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm

Why do you continue to buy meat while knowing the welfare of the animals you
eat is so horrifically neglected? If vegans are ethically bankrupt for not
doing all they can to adhere to their principles, how do you escape the same

charge of hypocrisy for failing to adhere to yours?

>>>>>>> That's what stupid Karen Winter never could
>>>>>>> quite figure out. She kept insisting that I was under the same moral
>>>>>>> obligation she was to reduce the death toll my consumption causes, but
>>>>>>> that's wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You believe there's an inherent, inhumane aspect to killing animals, even
>>>>>> rodents, so it seems pretty obvious to me that you are under the same moral
>>>>>> obligation to reduce the death toll your consumption causes.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, thinking something has a slight inhumane aspect to it doesn't imply
>>>>> I think it's morally objectionable.
>>>>
>>>> So, doing something considered inhumane isn't morally objectionable?
>>>
>>> Not /per se/, no.
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
>It isn't. "Inhumane" is kind of a funny word. It means some treatment
>that we wouldn't inflict on another human. That's all it means.

If you honestly believed that the term 'inhumane' pertains only to humans
you would not have said that it pertains to animals, as in,

�I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane

[George Plimpton]

No, you don't. You don't feel any at all. You don't alter your
consumption choices one whit. If you learned that the manufacture of
some product you bought entailed the routine, consequence-free violation
of human rights or some high degree of suffering on a regular basis, you
would stop consuming the product or take pains to find a supplier who
didn't engage in the rights violations. That's the whole reason people
organize boycotts of whole categories of products. I'm aware of such
boycotts over handwoven "Persian" carpets made by child labor in
Pakistan, and over cocoa, which some activists allege is grown using
child and/or slave labor. Those boycotts may not be very effective, but
someone takes the issue seriously enough to organize them, and
undoubtedly some people have changed their consumption as a result.

No "vegan" anywhere in the world has ever changed her consumption of
vegetable crops over CDs, and that includes you.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/12/2013 5:58 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:57:07 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2013 11:16 AM, Derek wrote:

[...]

>>>>> Knowing they die doesn't mean that I intend they die.
>>>>
>>>> That's irrelevant. In fact, your focus on intent is a dodge.
>>>
>>> You know that it isn't.
>>
>> I know beyond all dispute that it is.
>
> The rest of the paragraph you deleted without notation shows that you know
> it isn't a dodge of any kind.

Now you're just getting into the time-wasting wrestling match for which
you were notorious a dozen or so years ago. I don't have time for it.

Your sophistical focus on intent is done solely to try to craft some
qualitative difference between your moral responsibility and mine. The
effort to imagine some such difference fails for two reasons. First,
you believe that animals have rights and I don't. Second, you have full
knowledge that what *you* take to be animals' "rights" are routinely
violated in the course of producing your food, yet you take no steps to
avoid food with that rights-violation history. As I point out for all
"vegans", you don't even attempt to minimize the harm and rights
violations *within* a "vegan" diet.

Your moral responsibility *is* of a different quality than mine: your
responsibility is greater, and your rights violations more outrageous.
You know you're an integral part of a system that involves massive and
consequence-free violation of animal rights. I am part of no such system.

[Rupert]

There aren't any practical steps I could take to change my consumption choices which would have a positive impact on the problem, at least not without reducing my ability to alleviate suffering in other ways.

You claimed you felt some distress at the thought of the inhumane treatment farm animals have to endure, and yet you don't change your consumption choices there, even though there *is* something practical you could do about the problem.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/12/2013 6:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:27:44 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:38:01 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> On 5/11/2013 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Even if you just admit that you feel some distress at the thought of the treatment that farm animals have to endure (although you don't think it constitutes a wrongful act) then that could still make it rational for you to become a vegan, if you only confronted the facts about the suffering required to produce your food and how easy it would be for you to become a vegan.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Why don't "vegans" feel any distress about CDs?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I would have thought they do. I do.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, you don't. You don't feel any at all. You don't alter your
>>
>> consumption choices one whit. If you learned that the manufacture of
>>
>> some product you bought entailed the routine, consequence-free violation
>>
>> of human rights or some high degree of suffering on a regular basis, you
>>
>> would stop consuming the product or take pains to find a supplier who
>>
>> didn't engage in the rights violations. That's the whole reason people
>>
>> organize boycotts of whole categories of products. I'm aware of such
>>
>> boycotts over handwoven "Persian" carpets made by child labor in
>>
>> Pakistan, and over cocoa, which some activists allege is grown using
>>
>> child and/or slave labor. Those boycotts may not be very effective, but
>>
>> someone takes the issue seriously enough to organize them, and
>>
>> undoubtedly some people have changed their consumption as a result.
>>
>>
>>
>> No "vegan" anywhere in the world has ever changed her consumption of
>>
>> vegetable crops over CDs, and that includes you.
>
> There aren't any practical steps I could take to change my consumption choices which would have a positive impact on the problem,

Bullshit. You're just unwilling.

You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.

[Rupert]

What practical steps do you have in mind, then? I'm happy to listen to suggestions.

>
>
> You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
>
> you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.

How do you know?

[George Plimpton]

Ha ha ha! Once again, we see that notorious and disgusting "vegan"
passivity. Back when a.a.e.v. was a more active forum, we used to see
that all the time: "vegans" plaintively begging for help from omnivores
in helping the "vegans" to meet their self-imposed obligations.

Why are you asking me for any help in figuring out which "vegan" foods
are lower in CDs and other animal suffering, you lazy fuck? You already
know the essential fact: that fruits, vegetables, grains and nuts vary
widely in the harmful impact their production has on animals. Why don't
you start doing your own research to determine a "vegan" diet better
than the one you currently follow? Or, perhaps you'll discover -
unlikely in the extreme - that the one you already follow is the best
possible. But you'll never know until you look.

>>
>>
>> You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
>>
>> you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.
>
> How do you know?

Laws of probability.

[Rupert]

I have already explained to you, *very* patiently, many times, why I do not do research to find out the amounts of harm caused by different plant foods. The reason is that it is not an optimal use of my limited time and resources, from the point of view of doing suffering. If I wanted to spend time doing research into how I could reduce suffering more effectively, I would be better off researching other questions, like how to effectively promote veganism, or how to reduce suffering in the wild.

I have made some efforts to find out about it. It would not be a good investment of time from the point of view of reducing suffering to make more of an effort.

>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
>
> >>
>
> >> you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.
>
> >
>
> > How do you know?
>
>
>
> Laws of probability.

You haven't done any research about what the relevant probability distributions are, so you are talking through your hat.

[George Plimpton]

In other words, you just can't be bothered actually to try to live up to
your so-called principles. You claim to want to reduce harm to animals,
but you don't actually do anything positive to do so.

This, of course, is always the problem with "vegans".

> I have made some efforts to find out about it.

No, you haven't. You have made no meaningful and good-faith efforts.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>>
>>
>> Laws of probability.
>
> You haven't done any research about what the relevant probability distributions are, so

I know that there are literally billions of human omnivores in the
world, and that some non-zero number of them have given a lot of thought
to this. Many of them have given far more, and much more rigorous,
thought to it than you have.

[Rupert]

Er, no. Why would that be a reasonable paraphrase? It's not a rational strategy with respect to the goal of reducing suffering. So why would it be required by my principles?

> You claim to want to reduce harm to animals,
>
> but you don't actually do anything positive to do so.
>

I do. And your suggestion of doing research to find out about the harm caused by the different plant foods would not be an optimal strategy for doing so. There are other, better strategies, which I have implemented.

>
>
> This, of course, is always the problem with "vegans".
>

You are a totally irrational person.

>
>
>
>
> > I have made some efforts to find out about it.
>
>
>
> No, you haven't. You have made no meaningful and good-faith efforts.
>

That's false.

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> How do you know?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Laws of probability.
>
> >
>
> > You haven't done any research about what the relevant probability distributions are, so
>
>
>
> I know that there are literally billions of human omnivores in the
>
> world, and that some non-zero number of them have given a lot of thought
>
> to this. Many of them have given far more, and much more rigorous,
>
> thought to it than you have.

If someone gave rigorous thought to the question of how best to reduce animal suffering, it's not very likely that they would remain an omnivore, for several obvious reasons.

[George Plimpton]

Because it's accurate.

>> You claim to want to reduce harm to animals,
>>
>> but you don't actually do anything positive to do so.
>>
>
> I do.

You don't. You never have done. You pompously and narcissistically
made the very public announcement that you don't eat animal parts, and
that was the end of it.

>
>>
>>
>> This, of course, is always the problem with "vegans".
>>
>
> You are a totally irrational person.

No.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have made some efforts to find out about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, you haven't. You have made no meaningful and good-faith efforts.
>>
>
> That's false.

It's not false.

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Laws of probability.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You haven't done any research about what the relevant probability distributions are, so
>>
>>
>>
>> I know that there are literally billions of human omnivores in the
>>
>> world, and that some non-zero number of them have given a lot of thought
>>
>> to this. Many of them have given far more, and much more rigorous,
>>
>> thought to it than you have.
>
> If someone gave rigorous thought to the question of how best to reduce animal suffering, it's not very likely that they would remain an omnivore,

That doesn't follow, and it is contrary to fact.

[Rupert]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 8:02:27 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:

Actually, it's obvious bullshit.

> >> You claim to want to reduce harm to animals,
>
> >> but you don't actually do anything positive to do so.
>
> > I do.
>
>
>
> You don't. You never have done. You pompously and narcissistically
>
> made the very public announcement that you don't eat animal parts, and
>
> that was the end of it.
>

Refraining from eating animal products is doing something. Doing research into which charities are most effective at reducing animal suffering and donating 10 percent of your income is doing something. I do things to reduce animal suffering. If you have a low opinion of my efforts then I really have no rational grounds for taking an interest, unless you can offer concrete constructive suggestions for how I could be doing better.

> >> This, of course, is always the problem with "vegans".
>
> > You are a totally irrational person.
>
> No.
>

You think?

> >>> I have made some efforts to find out about it.
>
> >> No, you haven't. You have made no meaningful and good-faith efforts.
>
> > That's false.
>
> It's not false.
>

How do you know?

> >>>>>> You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
>
> >>>>>> you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.
>
> >>>>> How do you know?
>
> >>>> Laws of probability.
>
> >>> You haven't done any research about what the relevant probability distributions are, so
>
> >> I know that there are literally billions of human omnivores in the
>
> >> world, and that some non-zero number of them have given a lot of thought
>
> >> to this. Many of them have given far more, and much more rigorous,
>
> >> thought to it than you have.
>
> > If someone gave rigorous thought to the question of how best to reduce animal suffering, it's not very likely that they would remain an omnivore,
>
> That doesn't follow, and it is contrary to fact.

And why would that be?

[George Plimpton]

No, it isn't.

>
>>>> You claim to want to reduce harm to animals,
>>
>>>> but you don't actually do anything positive to do so.
>>
>>> I do.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't. You never have done. You pompously and narcissistically
>>
>> made the very public announcement that you don't eat animal parts, and
>>
>> that was the end of it.
>>
>
> Refraining from eating animal products is doing something.

It's doing nothing.

>>>> This, of course, is always the problem with "vegans".
>>
>>> You are a totally irrational person.
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> You think?

It's a certainty.

>>>>> I have made some efforts to find out about it.
>>
>>>> No, you haven't. You have made no meaningful and good-faith efforts.
>>
>>> That's false.
>>
>> It's not false.
>>
>
> How do you know?

Because without intending to do so, you have told us. No, I won't point
you to the specific posts in which you did so.

>>>>>>>> You prove what I said: you're not minimizing, you're not doing the best
>>
>>>>>>>> you can. Somewhere, there are omnivores who are doing better than you.
>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>>>> Laws of probability.
>>
>>>>> You haven't done any research about what the relevant probability distributions are, so
>>
>>>> I know that there are literally billions of human omnivores in the
>>
>>>> world, and that some non-zero number of them have given a lot of thought
>>
>>>> to this. Many of them have given far more, and much more rigorous,
>>
>>>> thought to it than you have.
>>
>>> If someone gave rigorous thought to the question of how best to reduce animal suffering, it's not very likely that they would remain an omnivore,
>>
>> That doesn't follow, and it is contrary to fact.
>
> And why would that be?

We've been through all that before. In fact, due to the density of
nutrition in meat, thereby reducing the need for much food diversity, it
is most easily possible to follow a least-harm diet by being a
thoughtful omnivore.

[Rupert]

No, I've never heard you try to argue that before. I don't see why that would be. You would have to be talking about meats that have low crop inputs, right? So how can you support your claim unless you have some basis for doing a comparison between the death rates for the different foods? I did grass-fed beef vs. tofu in a different thread.

[Dutch]

Rupert wrote:
> It would not be a good investment of time from the point of view of reducing suffering to make more of an effort [to discover which of the foods I consume cause less animal suffering].

Really? Does that apply to meat eaters too? Should I not waste my time
trying to find out which forms of meat production cause more or less
animal suffering?

[Rupert]

In that particular case, I would have thought that the payoff in terms of reducing suffering would be greater, and also it would be easier to find information which would help you make a good choice. Also, remember I was only saying that I was justified in not bothering to do the research because I'm using the scarce time I have available to do research to do other forms of research instead, which I believe are more effective at helping me to figure out how to reduce suffering.

If I had to eat meat for health reasons, as you claim is the case for you, I'd do my best to do very extensive research into how I could minimize my impact on animal suffering, and I'd also continue to contribute significant charitable contributions towards veganism advocacy.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/13/2013 1:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:23:08 PM UTC+2, Dutch wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> It would not be a good investment of time from the point of view of reducing suffering to make more of an effort [to discover which of the foods I consume cause less animal suffering].
>>
>>
>>
>> Really? Does that apply to meat eaters too? Should I not waste my time
>>
>> trying to find out which forms of meat production cause more or less
>>
>> animal suffering?
>
> In that particular case, I would have thought that the payoff in terms of reducing suffering would be greater, and also it would be easier to find information which would help you make a good choice. Also, remember I was only saying that I was justified in not bothering to do the research because I'm using the scarce time I have available to do research to do other forms of research instead, which I believe are more effective at helping me to figure out how to reduce suffering.

Your other research is purely for your financial and professional
success and will not lead to any reduction in suffering.

[Rupert]

No, I'm not talking about my mathematical research. I'm involved with a community of people who called themselves "effective altruists" who are interested in doing research about how to most effectively reduce suffering. They probably would do some research into which plant-based foods caused more harm if they thought that there was a high payoff from that in terms of suffering reduction. But I think they've got other priorities at the moment.

[dh]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:13:11 PM UTC+2, Goo wrote:
>
>> Why don't
>>
>> you start doing your own research to determine a "vegan" diet better
>>
>> than the one you currently follow? Or, perhaps you'll discover -
>>
>> unlikely in the extreme - that the one you already follow is the best
>>
>> possible. But you'll never know until you look.
>>
>
>I have already explained to you, *very* patiently, many times, why I do not do research to find out the amounts of harm caused by different plant foods. The reason is that

You don't care nearly as much as you pretend to, and possibly not even
nearly as much as you would like to.

>it is not an optimal use of my limited time and resources, from the point of view of doing suffering. If I wanted to spend time doing research into how I could reduce suffering more effectively, I would be better off researching other questions, like how to effectively promote veganism, or how to reduce suffering in the wild.

Veganism "helps" livestock in the same way dead people help them as we have
discussed, which is in no way. What Goo is suggesting and you refuse to give any
respectable amount of consideration is in relation to the suffering of wildlife
that you not only contribute to, but encourage by encouraging veganism. You
don't care enough to even look into it even though you encourage it in other
people. There's not much less caring you could do, from my pov. You don't care
enough to try to contribute to decent lives for livestock and you don't care
enough to try to contribute to fewer deaths of wildlife, so you can't care about
much if anything.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:11:11 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:13:11 PM UTC+2, Goo wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Why don't
>
> >>
>
> >> you start doing your own research to determine a "vegan" diet better
>
> >>
>
> >> than the one you currently follow? Or, perhaps you'll discover -
>
> >>
>
> >> unlikely in the extreme - that the one you already follow is the best
>
> >>
>
> >> possible. But you'll never know until you look.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I have already explained to you, *very* patiently, many times, why I do not do research to find out the amounts of harm caused by different plant foods. The reason is that
>
>
>
> You don't care nearly as much as you pretend to, and possibly not even
>
> nearly as much as you would like to.
>
>
>
> >it is not an optimal use of my limited time and resources, from the point of view of doing suffering. If I wanted to spend time doing research into how I could reduce suffering more effectively, I would be better off researching other questions, like how to effectively promote veganism, or how to reduce suffering in the wild.
>
>
>
> Veganism "helps" livestock in the same way dead people help them as we have
>
> discussed, which is in no way. What Goo is suggesting and you refuse to give any
>
> respectable amount of consideration is in relation to the suffering of wildlife
>
> that you not only contribute to, but encourage by encouraging veganism.

Encouraging veganism reduces CDs from plant food production. As I pointed out, it's not within my power to reduce my contribution to the suffering caused by the production of plant-based foods, at least not without foregoing other opportunities to alleviate more suffering in other ways.

> You
>
> don't care enough to even look into it even though you encourage it in other
>
> people.

That's false.

> There's not much less caring you could do, from my pov.

Your point of view isn't valuable. You're an idiot.

> You don't care
>
> enough to try to contribute to decent lives for livestock and you don't care
>
> enough to try to contribute to fewer deaths of wildlife, so you can't care about
>
> much if anything.

I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/13/2013 6:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> Veganism "helps" livestock in the same way dead people help them as we have
> discussed, which is in no way.

In exactly the same way meat eaters "help" future farm animals today by
eating meat, Fuckwit.

[dh]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:11:11 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:13:11 PM UTC+2, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Why don't
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you start doing your own research to determine a "vegan" diet better
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> than the one you currently follow? Or, perhaps you'll discover -
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> unlikely in the extreme - that the one you already follow is the best
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> possible. But you'll never know until you look.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I have already explained to you, *very* patiently, many times, why I do not do research to find out the amounts of harm caused by different plant foods. The reason is that
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't care nearly as much as you pretend to, and possibly not even
>>
>> nearly as much as you would like to.
>>
>>
>>
>> >it is not an optimal use of my limited time and resources, from the point of view of doing suffering. If I wanted to spend time doing research into how I could reduce suffering more effectively, I would be better off researching other questions, like how to effectively promote veganism, or how to reduce suffering in the wild.
>>
>>
>>
>> Veganism "helps" livestock in the same way dead people help them as we have
>>
>> discussed, which is in no way. What Goo is suggesting and you refuse to give any
>>
>> respectable amount of consideration is in relation to the suffering of wildlife
>>
>> that you not only contribute to, but encourage by encouraging veganism.
>
>Encouraging veganism reduces CDs from plant food production. As I pointed out, it's not within my power to reduce my contribution to the suffering caused by the production of plant-based foods, at least not without foregoing other opportunities to alleviate more suffering in other ways.

You don't know if it is because you don't care enough to try to find out.
You can't even acknowledge the fact that sometimes animal products involve fewer
deaths than vegetable products, and since you can't even do THAT you're stuck
with an unrealistic interpretation of reality and everything based upon it is
necessarily screwed. You are in the group of people most clueless about human
influence on animals, as I've pointed out for you but again you don't care.

>> You
>>
>> don't care enough to even look into it even though you encourage it in other
>>
>> people.
>
>That's false.
>
>> There's not much less caring you could do, from my pov.
>
>Your point of view isn't valuable.

How much less do you want people to think you could do?

>You're an idiot.
>
>> You don't care
>>
>> enough to try to contribute to decent lives for livestock and you don't care
>>
>> enough to try to contribute to fewer deaths of wildlife, so you can't care about
>>
>> much if anything.
>
>I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.

You can't appreciate why it's good to contribute to cage free eggs which is
an obvious thing from my pov, meaning that you can't recognise much less
appreciate the obvious if it means contributing to decent lives for livestock.
You can't appreciate ANYTHING that contributes to decent lives for livestock
because your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to. And the one time you acted
like you might like to try, Goo and "Derek" wouldn't allow you to.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:58:47 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:11:11 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:13:11 PM UTC+2, Goo wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Why don't
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you start doing your own research to determine a "vegan" diet better
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> than the one you currently follow? Or, perhaps you'll discover -
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> unlikely in the extreme - that the one you already follow is the best
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> possible. But you'll never know until you look.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I have already explained to you, *very* patiently, many times, why I do not do research to find out the amounts of harm caused by different plant foods. The reason is that
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You don't care nearly as much as you pretend to, and possibly not even
>
> >>
>
> >> nearly as much as you would like to.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >it is not an optimal use of my limited time and resources, from the point of view of doing suffering. If I wanted to spend time doing research into how I could reduce suffering more effectively, I would be better off researching other questions, like how to effectively promote veganism, or how to reduce suffering in the wild.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Veganism "helps" livestock in the same way dead people help them as we have
>
> >>
>
> >> discussed, which is in no way. What Goo is suggesting and you refuse to give any
>
> >>
>
> >> respectable amount of consideration is in relation to the suffering of wildlife
>
> >>
>
> >> that you not only contribute to, but encourage by encouraging veganism.
>
> >
>
> >Encouraging veganism reduces CDs from plant food production. As I pointed out, it's not within my power to reduce my contribution to the suffering caused by the production of plant-based foods, at least not without foregoing other opportunities to alleviate more suffering in other ways.
>
>
>
> You don't know if it is because you don't care enough to try to find out.
>

Yes, I do. I have put effort into trying to find out. I have attempted to do research on the amount of harm caused by the various plant-based foods. Just recently, as a result of having this conversation, I emailed Steven Davis about it and also contacted my effective altruist friends on Facebook about the possibility of getting a new charity that will soon be formed, called Animal Ethics, to do a research project about the matter. I will continue to investigate, as best I am able, what are the most effective means by which I can reduce suffering, and what are the best forms of research to do in terms of improving my knowledge about how to reduce suffering.

> You can't even acknowledge the fact that sometimes animal products involve fewer
>
> deaths than vegetable products,

I'm definitely open to the possibility, but I'm not aware of any specific example. I did my best estimates for the death rates associated with tofu and beef in a different thread, and tofu came out smaller by a factor of two. The death rate associated with rice might be larger, perhaps.

> and since you can't even do THAT you're stuck
>
> with an unrealistic interpretation of reality and everything based upon it is
>
> necessarily screwed. You are in the group of people most clueless about human
>
> influence on animals, as I've pointed out for you but again you don't care.
>

What exactly gives you the idea that I am clueless about human influence on animals?

>
>
> >> You
>
> >>
>
> >> don't care enough to even look into it even though you encourage it in other
>
> >>
>
> >> people.
>
> >
>
> >That's false.
>
> >
>
> >> There's not much less caring you could do, from my pov.
>
> >
>
> >Your point of view isn't valuable.
>
>
>
> How much less do you want people to think you could do?
>

I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads. I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries. I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.

If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.

You seem to be trying to suggest that I'm just kidding myself that I care about animal suffering and that I don't really care all that much. Suppose for the sake of argument that you were right. Okay then, what next? What should I do with this insight that you have kindly given me? Do you think that you make tangible good faith efforts to try to reduce animal suffering? Do you have any thoughts about what I should do if I wanted to have a constructive effect on the problem of animal suffering?

>
>
> >You're an idiot.
>
> >
>
> >> You don't care
>
> >>
>
> >> enough to try to contribute to decent lives for livestock and you don't care
>
> >>
>
> >> enough to try to contribute to fewer deaths of wildlife, so you can't care about
>
> >>
>
> >> much if anything.
>
> >
>
> >I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.
>
>
>
> You can't appreciate why it's good to contribute to cage free eggs which is
>
> an obvious thing from my pov,

Perhaps you could make some effort to explain it to me. My response was that in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case that there was no possible alternative use of my money that was more constructive from the point of view of raising the total level of well-being for sentient organisms. Does that seem like a reasonable statement to make? Or have I got that wrong? And do you think that there is indeed no possible alternative use of my money that would be more constructive from that point of view? Or not? If you do think that, then may I ask what your reasons are for thinking that?

> meaning that you can't recognise much less
>
> appreciate the obvious if it means contributing to decent lives for livestock.
>
> You can't appreciate ANYTHING that contributes to decent lives for livestock
>
> because your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to. And the one time you acted
>
> like you might like to try, Goo and "Derek" wouldn't allow you to.

It is not within the power of Jonathan Ball and Derek Nash to disallow me from doing things.

[dh]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:41:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:58:47 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:11:11 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:13:11 PM UTC+2, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Why don't
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you start doing your own research to determine a "vegan" diet better
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> than the one you currently follow? Or, perhaps you'll discover -
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> unlikely in the extreme - that the one you already follow is the best
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> possible. But you'll never know until you look.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I have already explained to you, *very* patiently, many times, why I do not do research to find out the amounts of harm caused by different plant foods. The reason is that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You don't care nearly as much as you pretend to, and possibly not even
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> nearly as much as you would like to.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >it is not an optimal use of my limited time and resources, from the point of view of doing suffering. If I wanted to spend time doing research into how I could reduce suffering more effectively, I would be better off researching other questions, like how to effectively promote veganism, or how to reduce suffering in the wild.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Veganism "helps" livestock in the same way dead people help them as we have
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> discussed, which is in no way. What Goo is suggesting and you refuse to give any
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> respectable amount of consideration is in relation to the suffering of wildlife
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> that you not only contribute to, but encourage by encouraging veganism.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Encouraging veganism reduces CDs from plant food production. As I pointed out, it's not within my power to reduce my contribution to the suffering caused by the production of plant-based foods, at least not without foregoing other opportunities to alleviate more suffering in other ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't know if it is because you don't care enough to try to find out.
>>
>
>Yes, I do. I have put effort into trying to find out. I have attempted to do research on the amount of harm caused by the various plant-based foods. Just recently, as a result of having this conversation, I emailed Steven Davis about it and also contacted my effective altruist friends on Facebook about the possibility of getting a new charity that will soon be formed, called Animal Ethics, to do a research project about the matter. I will continue to investigate, as best I am able, what are the most effective means by which I can reduce suffering, and what are the best forms of research to do in terms of improving my knowledge about how to reduce suffering.

To start with you can try to find out where specific products are grown and
what the surrounding areas are like. If you find that some breads or cereals are
made from grain grown in one area, and some from grain grown in a different
area, that would be a start. Then try to find out which has the most wildlife
associated with it which would be the one with the most deaths.

>> You can't even acknowledge the fact that sometimes animal products involve fewer
>>
>> deaths than vegetable products,
>
>I'm definitely open to the possibility, but I'm not aware of any specific example.

Grass raised dairy would be the most obvious. If you're not "open" to
acknowledging when grass raised dairy involves fewer deaths than rice or soy
products, then you're not open to it at all which is what I very strongly
suspect is the case.

>I did my best estimates for the death rates associated with tofu and beef in a different thread, and tofu came out smaller by a factor of two. The death rate associated with rice might be larger, perhaps.

Sometimes tofu causes more and sometimes beef does, but again if you can't
get that "far" with it then you can't get anywhere at all since that's as easy,
obvious and basic an aspect of the situation as there is.

>> and since you can't even do THAT you're stuck
>>
>> with an unrealistic interpretation of reality and everything based upon it is
>>
>> necessarily screwed. You are in the group of people most clueless about human
>>
>> influence on animals, as I've pointed out for you but again you don't care.
>>
>
>What exactly gives you the idea that I am clueless about human influence on animals?

You can't acknowledge when the influence is good. Only when it's bad.

>> >> You
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> don't care enough to even look into it even though you encourage it in other
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> people.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's false.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> There's not much less caring you could do, from my pov.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Your point of view isn't valuable.
>>
>>
>>
>> How much less do you want people to think you could do?
>>
>
>I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.

You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination. To me that sux more
than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
decent lives for livestock animals.

>I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.

How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
in poor countries?

>I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>
>If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.

Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......

>You seem to be trying to suggest that I'm just kidding myself that I care about animal suffering and that I don't really care all that much. Suppose for the sake of argument that you were right. Okay then, what next? What should I do with this insight that you have kindly given me?

Consider when livestock have decent lives as well as or more than when they
are horrible. Also consider when animal products involve less deaths than
vegetable products. NOT make excuses why you won't do it, but DO it.

>Do you think that you make tangible good faith efforts to try to reduce animal suffering? Do you have any thoughts about what I should do if I wanted to have a constructive effect on the problem of animal suffering?
>
>>
>>
>> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> You don't care
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> enough to try to contribute to decent lives for livestock and you don't care
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> enough to try to contribute to fewer deaths of wildlife, so you can't care about
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> much if anything.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't appreciate why it's good to contribute to cage free eggs which is
>>
>> an obvious thing from my pov,
>
>Perhaps you could make some effort to explain it to me. My response was that in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case that there was no possible alternative use of my money that was more constructive from the point of view of raising the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.

ONLY if all the money you spend now is the most constructive way of raising
the total level of well-being for sentient organisms. If not, it would just be
something that contributes to decent lives for livestock animals though it may
not be the most contructive way you could do it. It could be though...you don't
know. You don't care enough to find out what level it's on.

>Does that seem like a reasonable statement to make? Or have I got that wrong? And do you think that there is indeed no possible alternative use of my money that would be more constructive from that point of view? Or not? If you do think that, then may I ask what your reasons are for thinking that?

I'll say that since I feel cage free hens in general usually experience
lives of positive value and many of them "good" lives, it seems a better use of
your money to contribute to them directly than to support the elimination of all
domestic animals.

>> meaning that you can't recognise much less
>>
>> appreciate the obvious if it means contributing to decent lives for livestock.
>>
>> You can't appreciate ANYTHING that contributes to decent lives for livestock
>>
>> because your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to. And the one time you acted
>>
>> like you might like to try, Goo and "Derek" wouldn't allow you to.
>
>It is not within the power of Jonathan Ball and Derek Nash to disallow me from doing things.

The first time you gave some slight consideration to lives of positive value
for some few cattle they shut you down and you've been afraid to get anywhere
near it again ever since.

[Rupert]

You're suggesting I try to pinpoint the actual field where a given vegetable or grain product comes from?

>
>
> >> You can't even acknowledge the fact that sometimes animal products involve fewer
>
> >>
>
> >> deaths than vegetable products,
>
> >
>
> >I'm definitely open to the possibility, but I'm not aware of any specific example.
>
>
>
> Grass raised dairy would be the most obvious. If you're not "open" to
>
> acknowledging when grass raised dairy involves fewer deaths than rice or soy
>
> products, then you're not open to it at all which is what I very strongly
>
> suspect is the case.
>

Well, you'd have to do an estimate for the associate death rates and look at the comparison, wouldn't you. I thinking buying 1 kg of milk causes about 0.000009 of a death, if you're only counting the slaughter of dairy cows and not the slaughter of veal calves or bobby calves. So yeah, that probably is smaller than the death rate for one cup of tofu.

>
>
> >I did my best estimates for the death rates associated with tofu and beef in a different thread, and tofu came out smaller by a factor of two. The death rate associated with rice might be larger, perhaps.
>
>
>
> Sometimes tofu causes more and sometimes beef does,

You don't know that, because you don't know what the standard deviation is. It might be true. In any event, it would not be true if your claim that tofu was larger by a factor of "hundreds" were correct, so this is pretty much tantamount to retracting your claim. Which you should stop making.

> but again if you can't
>
> get that "far" with it then you can't get anywhere at all since that's as easy,
>
> obvious and basic an aspect of the situation as there is.
>
>
>
> >> and since you can't even do THAT you're stuck
>
> >>
>
> >> with an unrealistic interpretation of reality and everything based upon it is
>
> >>
>
> >> necessarily screwed. You are in the group of people most clueless about human
>
> >>
>
> >> influence on animals, as I've pointed out for you but again you don't care.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >What exactly gives you the idea that I am clueless about human influence on animals?
>
>
>
> You can't acknowledge when the influence is good. Only when it's bad.
>
>
>
> >> >> You
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> don't care enough to even look into it even though you encourage it in other
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> people.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >That's false.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> There's not much less caring you could do, from my pov.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Your point of view isn't valuable.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How much less do you want people to think you could do?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.
>
>
>
> You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination.

No, veganism advocacy.

> To me that sux more
>
> than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
>
> decent lives for livestock animals.
>

And why would that be?

>
>

> >I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.
>
>
>
> How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
>
> in poor countries?
>

By reducing the market prices of staple foods, making them more affordable to the world's poor.

>
>
> >I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>
> >
>
> >If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.
>
>
>
> Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......
>

When I see the evidence that that would be a more constructive approach to improving the total level of animal well-being than any other alternative use of the same amount of money, then I'll gladly do it.

>
>
> >You seem to be trying to suggest that I'm just kidding myself that I care about animal suffering and that I don't really care all that much. Suppose for the sake of argument that you were right. Okay then, what next? What should I do with this insight that you have kindly given me?
>
>
>
> Consider when livestock have decent lives as well as or more than when they
>
> are horrible. Also consider when animal products involve less deaths than
>
> vegetable products. NOT make excuses why you won't do it, but DO it.
>
>
>
> >Do you think that you make tangible good faith efforts to try to reduce animal suffering? Do you have any thoughts about what I should do if I wanted to have a constructive effect on the problem of animal suffering?
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >You're an idiot.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You don't care
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> enough to try to contribute to decent lives for livestock and you don't care
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> enough to try to contribute to fewer deaths of wildlife, so you can't care about
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> much if anything.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You can't appreciate why it's good to contribute to cage free eggs which is
>
> >>
>
> >> an obvious thing from my pov,
>
> >
>
> >Perhaps you could make some effort to explain it to me. My response was that in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case that there was no possible alternative use of my money that was more constructive from the point of view of raising the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>
>
>
> ONLY if all the money you spend now is the most constructive way of raising
>
> the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.

No, in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case no matter what; my current behaviour has nothing to do with it.

> If not, it would just be
>
> something that contributes to decent lives for livestock animals though it may
>
> not be the most contructive way you could do it. It could be though...you don't
>
> know. You don't care enough to find out what level it's on.
>

I've put some effort into finding the most efficient way of improving animal well-being (including in the sense of reducing suffering) and I've made my choice. If you think I've made the wrong choice you need to produce some evidence to support your point of view.

>
>
> >Does that seem like a reasonable statement to make? Or have I got that wrong? And do you think that there is indeed no possible alternative use of my money that would be more constructive from that point of view? Or not? If you do think that, then may I ask what your reasons are for thinking that?
>
>
>
> I'll say that since I feel cage free hens in general usually experience
>
> lives of positive value and many of them "good" lives, it seems a better use of
>
> your money to contribute to them directly than to support the elimination of all
>
> domestic animals.
>

Why would that be, if the money I donate to EAA is effective at reducing the amount of suffering that takes place on modern farms?

>
>
> >> meaning that you can't recognise much less
>
> >>
>
> >> appreciate the obvious if it means contributing to decent lives for livestock.
>
> >>
>
> >> You can't appreciate ANYTHING that contributes to decent lives for livestock
>
> >>
>
> >> because your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to. And the one time you acted
>
> >>
>
> >> like you might like to try, Goo and "Derek" wouldn't allow you to.
>
> >
>
> >It is not within the power of Jonathan Ball and Derek Nash to disallow me from doing things.
>
>
>
> The first time you gave some slight consideration to lives of positive value
>
> for some few cattle they shut you down and you've been afraid to get anywhere
>
> near it again ever since.

False.

[dh]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

The area. For example in the US if it came from the East coast area or
Florida it probably was in an area where there are places for wildlife to exist
in the surrounding area, meaning that the fields would be replenished with
wildlife from season to season and therefore because of more lives, more deaths
as well. But if it came from some of the places out West wildlife in many of
those areas was killed off years ago with no places for wildlife to exist in the
surrounding areas, meaning the fields would have practically no wildlife left
and no places to replenish the populations in the fields.

>> >> You can't even acknowledge the fact that sometimes animal products involve fewer
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> deaths than vegetable products,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm definitely open to the possibility, but I'm not aware of any specific example.
>>
>>
>>
>> Grass raised dairy would be the most obvious. If you're not "open" to
>>
>> acknowledging when grass raised dairy involves fewer deaths than rice or soy
>>
>> products, then you're not open to it at all which is what I very strongly
>>
>> suspect is the case.
>>
>
>Well, you'd have to do an estimate for the associate death rates and look at the comparison, wouldn't you. I thinking buying 1 kg of milk causes about 0.000009 of a death, if you're only counting the slaughter of dairy cows and not the slaughter of veal calves or bobby calves.

What are bobby calves?

>So yeah, that probably is smaller than the death rate for one cup of tofu.

And even less for rice milk. If you've finally accepted that animal products
EVER involve fewer deaths that would probably be a huge step for you.

>> >I did my best estimates for the death rates associated with tofu and beef in a different thread, and tofu came out smaller by a factor of two. The death rate associated with rice might be larger, perhaps.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sometimes tofu causes more and sometimes beef does,
>
>You don't know that,

Oops. You appear to have unlearned again. How do you learn, and then
unlearn???

>because you don't know what the standard deviation is.

For one thing neither do you, and for another thing is doesn't matter what

the standard deviation is.

>It might be true.

It has to be true. Try to figure out what the odds are that it is never true
and never has been true. Go:

>In any event, it would not be true if your claim that tofu was larger by a factor of "hundreds" were correct,

How do you figure that?

>so this is pretty much tantamount to retracting your claim. Which you should stop making.
>
>> but again if you can't
>>
>> get that "far" with it then you can't get anywhere at all since that's as easy,
>>
>> obvious and basic an aspect of the situation as there is.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> and since you can't even do THAT you're stuck
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> with an unrealistic interpretation of reality and everything based upon it is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> necessarily screwed. You are in the group of people most clueless about human
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> influence on animals, as I've pointed out for you but again you don't care.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What exactly gives you the idea that I am clueless about human influence on animals?
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't acknowledge when the influence is good. Only when it's bad.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> You
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> don't care enough to even look into it even though you encourage it in other
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> people.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >That's false.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> There's not much less caring you could do, from my pov.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Your point of view isn't valuable.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> How much less do you want people to think you could do?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination.
>
>No, veganism advocacy.

The organization you send money to doesn't work for elimination? Who are
they?

>> To me that sux more
>>
>> than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
>>
>> decent lives for livestock animals.
>>
>
>And why would that be?

Because I can actually appreciate when livestock experience lives of
positive value.

>> >I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
>>
>> in poor countries?
>>
>
>By reducing the market prices of staple foods, making them more affordable to the world's poor.

I doubt being a vegan in your country or mine does anything to help people
in poorer countries.

>> >I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......
>>
>
>When I see the evidence that that would be a more constructive approach to improving the total level of animal well-being

So far it doesn't seem to me that you're doing anything to improve the total
level of animal well-being, or any animal well-being at all. Which animals do
you feel you're contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW do you think
you're contributing to it. By promoting veganism you are NOT doing so, so it
would have to be by a different way that DOES contribute to it like buying cage
free eggs. So HOW are you doing it, and don't say by encourging veganism because
that doesn't do it.

>than any other alternative use of the same amount of money, then I'll gladly do it.
>
>>
>>
>> >You seem to be trying to suggest that I'm just kidding myself that I care about animal suffering and that I don't really care all that much. Suppose for the sake of argument that you were right. Okay then, what next? What should I do with this insight that you have kindly given me?
>>
>>
>>
>> Consider when livestock have decent lives as well as or more than when they
>>
>> are horrible. Also consider when animal products involve less deaths than
>>
>> vegetable products. NOT make excuses why you won't do it, but DO it.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Do you think that you make tangible good faith efforts to try to reduce animal suffering? Do you have any thoughts about what I should do if I wanted to have a constructive effect on the problem of animal suffering?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You don't care
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> enough to try to contribute to decent lives for livestock and you don't care
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> enough to try to contribute to fewer deaths of wildlife, so you can't care about
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> much if anything.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You can't appreciate why it's good to contribute to cage free eggs which is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> an obvious thing from my pov,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Perhaps you could make some effort to explain it to me. My response was that in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case that there was no possible alternative use of my money that was more constructive from the point of view of raising the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY if all the money you spend now is the most constructive way of raising
>>
>> the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>
>No, in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case no matter what

Is that true of everything you buy?

>; my current behaviour has nothing to do with it.
>
>> If not, it would just be
>>
>> something that contributes to decent lives for livestock animals though it may
>>
>> not be the most contructive way you could do it. It could be though...you don't
>>
>> know. You don't care enough to find out what level it's on.
>>
>
>I've put some effort into finding the most efficient way of improving animal well-being

WHICH animals are you contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW are
you contributing to it?

>(including in the sense of reducing suffering) and I've made my choice. If you think I've made the wrong choice you need to produce some evidence to support your point of view.

All you've said you contribute to is veganism afaik, and that doesn't
contribute to anything for livestock animals. Buying cage free eggs does and
veganism does not, nor does anything else you've mentioned so far.

>> >Does that seem like a reasonable statement to make? Or have I got that wrong? And do you think that there is indeed no possible alternative use of my money that would be more constructive from that point of view? Or not? If you do think that, then may I ask what your reasons are for thinking that?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll say that since I feel cage free hens in general usually experience
>>
>> lives of positive value and many of them "good" lives, it seems a better use of
>>
>> your money to contribute to them directly than to support the elimination of all
>>
>> domestic animals.
>>
>
>Why would that be, if the money I donate to EAA is effective at reducing the amount of suffering that takes place on modern farms?

So far you haven't said how anything you do improves the well-being of a
single creature, wild or domestic. Are you unaware of that fact?

>> >> meaning that you can't recognise much less
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> appreciate the obvious if it means contributing to decent lives for livestock.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You can't appreciate ANYTHING that contributes to decent lives for livestock
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> because your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to. And the one time you acted
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> like you might like to try, Goo and "Derek" wouldn't allow you to.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It is not within the power of Jonathan Ball and Derek Nash to disallow me from doing things.
>>
>>
>>
>> The first time you gave some slight consideration to lives of positive value
>>
>> for some few cattle they shut you down and you've been afraid to get anywhere
>>
>> near it again ever since.
>
>False.

If you're not afraid then try to move on and get near it again now. Go:

[Rupert]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:12:06 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>

> >You're suggesting I try to pinpoint the actual field where a given vegetable or grain product comes from?
>
>
>
> The area. For example in the US if it came from the East coast area or
>
> Florida it probably was in an area where there are places for wildlife to exist
>
> in the surrounding area, meaning that the fields would be replenished with
>
> wildlife from season to season and therefore because of more lives, more deaths
>
> as well. But if it came from some of the places out West wildlife in many of
>
> those areas was killed off years ago with no places for wildlife to exist in the
>
> surrounding areas, meaning the fields would have practically no wildlife left
>
> and no places to replenish the populations in the fields.
>

> >Well, you'd have to do an estimate for the associate death rates and look at the comparison, wouldn't you. I thinking buying 1 kg of milk causes about 0.000009 of a death, if you're only counting the slaughter of dairy cows and not the slaughter of veal calves or bobby calves.
>
>
>
> What are bobby calves?
>

http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-happens-to-bobby-calves_87.html

>
>
> >So yeah, that probably is smaller than the death rate for one cup of tofu.
>
>
>
> And even less for rice milk. If you've finally accepted that animal products
>
> EVER involve fewer deaths that would probably be a huge step for you.
>

I never suggested it wasn't possible.

> >> Sometimes tofu causes more and sometimes beef does,
>
> >
>
> >You don't know that,
>
>
>
> Oops. You appear to have unlearned again. How do you learn, and then
>
> unlearn???
>
>
>
> >because you don't know what the standard deviation is.
>
>
>
> For one thing neither do you, and for another thing is doesn't matter what
>
> the standard deviation is.

The fact that I don't know it is irrelevant. It does matter what the standard deviation is. If you wanted to be in a position to say that some soybean fields had more collateral deaths associated with a given quantity of soy product from that field than the number of deaths by slaughter associated with a calorically equivalent equantity of grass-fed beef, then you would have to be in a position to give some kind of sensible estimate for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates.

>
>
>
> >It might be true.
>
>
>
> It has to be true. Try to figure out what the odds are that it is never true
>
> and never has been true. Go:
>

Well, to figure out those odds you'd need some kind of probability distribution for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates, which is sort of the point I've been making here.

>
>
> >In any event, it would not be true if your claim that tofu was larger by a factor of "hundreds" were correct,
>
>
>
> How do you figure that?
>

Because it's not realistic to think that the death rate associated with soybean production would vary across two orders of magnitude.

>
>
> >so this is pretty much tantamount to retracting your claim. Which you should stop making.
>

> >> >I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.
>
> >> You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination.
>
> >
>
> >No, veganism advocacy.
>
>
>
> The organization you send money to doesn't work for elimination? Who are
>
> they?
>

I told you, Effective Animal Activism.

http://effectiveanimalactivism.org

>
>
> >> To me that sux more
>
> >>
>
> >> than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
>
> >>
>
> >> decent lives for livestock animals.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >And why would that be?
>
>
>
> Because I can actually appreciate when livestock experience lives of
>
> positive value.
>

So why is whatever benefit is associated with producing such "lives of positive value" for a given quantity of money spent on animal products from animals with such "lives of positive value", greater than the benefit associated with the amount of suffering reduction achieved by donating that same quantity of money towards veganism advocacy?

>
>
> >> >I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.
>
> >> How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
> >> in poor countries?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >By reducing the market prices of staple foods, making them more affordable to the world's poor.
>
>
>
> I doubt being a vegan in your country or mine does anything to help people
>
> in poorer countries.
>

Do you accept that an increase in the number of vegans in rich countries might lead to a reduction in world market prices of certain staple foods?

>
>
> >> >I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>
> >> >If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.
>
> >> Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......
>
>
> >When I see the evidence that that would be a more constructive approach to improving the total level of animal well-being
>
>
>
> So far it doesn't seem to me that you're doing anything to improve the total
>
> level of animal well-being, or any animal well-being at all. Which animals do
>
> you feel you're contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW do you think
>
> you're contributing to it. By promoting veganism you are NOT doing so, so it
>
> would have to be by a different way that DOES contribute to it like buying cage
>
> free eggs. So HOW are you doing it, and don't say by encourging veganism because
>
> that doesn't do it.
>

Promoting veganism reduces the total amount of suffering that takes place on modern factory-farms. It also reduces the amount of harm to wildlife caused by crop production.

>
>
> >than any other alternative use of the same amount of money, then I'll gladly do it.
>
> >> >You seem to be trying to suggest that I'm just kidding myself that I care about animal suffering and that I don't really care all that much. Suppose for the sake of argument that you were right. Okay then, what next? What should I do with this insight that you have kindly given me?
>
> >> Consider when livestock have decent lives as well as or more than when they
> >> are horrible. Also consider when animal products involve less deaths than
> >> vegetable products. NOT make excuses why you won't do it, but DO it.

> >> >Do you think that you make tangible good faith efforts to try to reduce animal suffering? Do you have any thoughts about what I should do if I wanted to have a constructive effect on the problem of animal suffering?

> >> >> >I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.
>

> >> >Perhaps you could make some effort to explain it to me. My response was that in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case that there was no possible alternative use of my money that was more constructive from the point of view of raising the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>
> >> ONLY if all the money you spend now is the most constructive way of raising
> >> the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>
> >No, in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case no matter what
>
>
>
> Is that true of everything you buy?
>

My reasons for buying things can be of various kinds. If I derive some kind of benefit from buying the product, then that can be at least a pro tanto reason for buying the product (which might be outweighed by other reasons). In order for me to have a decisive moral reason to buy cage-free eggs because it encourages people to bring more hens into existence who will lead "decent lives", it would have to be the case that the amount of benefit I produced with a given quantity of money spent in that way would be greater than the amount of benefit I could achieve with any alternative use of the money. If there were some alternative use of the money that were at least as good in terms of producing a morally valuable benefit, then I would not have a decisive moral reason to buy the cage-free eggs rather than put the money to the alternative use. This is true in general. I only have a decisive moral reason to pursue a particular course of action if every alternative course of action is less strongly supported by moral reasons.

> >I've put some effort into finding the most efficient way of improving animal well-being
>
>
>
> WHICH animals are you contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW are
>
> you contributing to it?
>

I am improving the overall total level of nonhuman animal well-being, by bringing about a situation in which fewer nonhuman animals are brought into existence in order to lead lives on factory-farms that contain a lot of suffering, and eventually be slaughtered. The improvement comes from the reduction in the total amount of suffering that takes place.

>
>
> >(including in the sense of reducing suffering) and I've made my choice. If you think I've made the wrong choice you need to produce some evidence to support your point of view.
>
>
>
> All you've said you contribute to is veganism afaik, and that doesn't
>
> contribute to anything for livestock animals. Buying cage free eggs does and
>
> veganism does not, nor does anything else you've mentioned so far.
>

Why is it that reducing the total number of animals brought into existence in order to live lives of suffering on factory-farms is not as worthy a goal as encouraging people to bring more hens into existence who lead "decent lives"?

>
>
> >> >Does that seem like a reasonable statement to make? Or have I got that wrong? And do you think that there is indeed no possible alternative use of my money that would be more constructive from that point of view? Or not? If you do think that, then may I ask what your reasons are for thinking that?
>
> >> I'll say that since I feel cage free hens in general usually experience
>
> >> lives of positive value and many of them "good" lives, it seems a better use of
>
> >> your money to contribute to them directly than to support the elimination of all
>
> >> domestic animals.
>
> >Why would that be, if the money I donate to EAA is effective at reducing the amount of suffering that takes place on modern farms?
>
>
>
> So far you haven't said how anything you do improves the well-being of a
>
> single creature, wild or domestic. Are you unaware of that fact?
>

The course of action pursued improves the outcome, not by making the outcome better for a particular individual who would have existed in either case, but by reducing the number of individuals who come into existence who have lives that are, on the whole, not worth living.

> >> >It is not within the power of Jonathan Ball and Derek Nash to disallow me from doing things.
>
> >> The first time you gave some slight consideration to lives of positive value
> >> for some few cattle they shut you down and you've been afraid to get anywhere
> >> near it again ever since.
>
> >False.
>
> If you're not afraid then try to move on and get near it again now. Go:

What exactly do you want me to do? You want me to contemplate the fact that some cattle might have lives that are on the whole worth living?

[dh]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:12:06 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >You're suggesting I try to pinpoint the actual field where a given vegetable or grain product comes from?
>>
>>
>>
>> The area. For example in the US if it came from the East coast area or
>>
>> Florida it probably was in an area where there are places for wildlife to exist
>>
>> in the surrounding area, meaning that the fields would be replenished with
>>
>> wildlife from season to season and therefore because of more lives, more deaths
>>
>> as well. But if it came from some of the places out West wildlife in many of
>>
>> those areas was killed off years ago with no places for wildlife to exist in the
>>
>> surrounding areas, meaning the fields would have practically no wildlife left
>>
>> and no places to replenish the populations in the fields.
>>
>> >Well, you'd have to do an estimate for the associate death rates and look at the comparison, wouldn't you. I thinking buying 1 kg of milk causes about 0.000009 of a death, if you're only counting the slaughter of dairy cows and not the slaughter of veal calves or bobby calves.
>>
>>
>>
>> What are bobby calves?
>>
>
>http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-happens-to-bobby-calves_87.html
>
>>
>>
>> >So yeah, that probably is smaller than the death rate for one cup of tofu.
>>
>>
>>
>> And even less for rice milk. If you've finally accepted that animal products
>>
>> EVER involve fewer deaths that would probably be a huge step for you.
>>
>
>I never suggested it wasn't possible.

You should have understood that sometimes it's the case and sometimes not
for years.

>> >> Sometimes tofu causes more and sometimes beef does,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You don't know that,
>>
>>
>>
>> Oops. You appear to have unlearned again. How do you learn, and then
>>
>> unlearn???
>>
>>
>>
>> >because you don't know what the standard deviation is.
>>
>>
>>
>> For one thing neither do you, and for another thing is doesn't matter what
>>
>> the standard deviation is.
>
>The fact that I don't know it is irrelevant. It does matter what the standard deviation is. If you wanted to be in a position to say that some soybean fields had more collateral deaths associated with a given quantity of soy product from that field than the number of deaths by slaughter associated with a calorically equivalent equantity of grass-fed beef, then you would have to be in a position to give some kind of sensible estimate for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >It might be true.
>>
>>
>>
>> It has to be true. Try to figure out what the odds are that it is never true
>>
>> and never has been true. Go:
>>
>
>Well, to figure out those odds

There is no possibility that it has never been true.

>you'd need some kind of probability distribution for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates, which is sort of the point I've been making here.
>
>>
>>
>> >In any event, it would not be true if your claim that tofu was larger by a factor of "hundreds" were correct,
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you figure that?
>>
>
>Because it's not realistic to think that the death rate associated with soybean production would vary across two orders of magnitude.

Why? What do you think prevents the number of wildlife animals in different
fields around the world from varying greatly?

>> >so this is pretty much tantamount to retracting your claim. Which you should stop making.
>>
>> >> >I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.
>>
>> >> You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, veganism advocacy.
>>
>>
>>
>> The organization you send money to doesn't work for elimination? Who are
>>
>> they?
>>
>
>I told you, Effective Animal Activism.
>
>http://effectiveanimalactivism.org
>
>>
>>
>> >> To me that sux more
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> decent lives for livestock animals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >And why would that be?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because I can actually appreciate when livestock experience lives of
>>
>> positive value.
>>
>
>So why is whatever benefit is associated with producing such "lives of positive value" for a given quantity of money spent on animal products from animals with such "lives of positive value", greater than the benefit associated with the amount of suffering reduction achieved by donating that same quantity of money towards veganism advocacy?

Veganism does nothing for any domestic animals. Contributing to decent lives
for them does.

>> >> >I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.
>>
>> >> How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
>> >> in poor countries?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >By reducing the market prices of staple foods, making them more affordable to the world's poor.
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt being a vegan in your country or mine does anything to help people
>>
>> in poorer countries.
>>
>
>Do you accept that an increase in the number of vegans in rich countries might lead to a reduction in world market prices of certain staple foods?

I certainly have no reason to think it would.

>> >> >I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>>
>> >> >If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.
>>
>> >> Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......
>>
>>
>> >When I see the evidence that that would be a more constructive approach to improving the total level of animal well-being
>>
>>
>>
>> So far it doesn't seem to me that you're doing anything to improve the total
>>
>> level of animal well-being, or any animal well-being at all. Which animals do
>>
>> you feel you're contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW do you think
>>
>> you're contributing to it. By promoting veganism you are NOT doing so, so it
>>
>> would have to be by a different way that DOES contribute to it like buying cage
>>
>> free eggs. So HOW are you doing it, and don't say by encourging veganism because
>>
>> that doesn't do it.
>>
>
>Promoting veganism reduces the total amount of suffering that takes place on modern factory-farms.

It does nothing to improving the total level of animal well-being for
livestock.

>It also reduces the amount of harm to wildlife caused by crop production.

Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't help any livestock whether it does or whether
it doesn't.

>> >than any other alternative use of the same amount of money, then I'll gladly do it.
>>
>> >> >You seem to be trying to suggest that I'm just kidding myself that I care about animal suffering and that I don't really care all that much. Suppose for the sake of argument that you were right. Okay then, what next? What should I do with this insight that you have kindly given me?
>>
>> >> Consider when livestock have decent lives as well as or more than when they
>> >> are horrible. Also consider when animal products involve less deaths than
>> >> vegetable products. NOT make excuses why you won't do it, but DO it.
>
>> >> >Do you think that you make tangible good faith efforts to try to reduce animal suffering? Do you have any thoughts about what I should do if I wanted to have a constructive effect on the problem of animal suffering?
>
>> >> >> >I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.
>>
>> >> >Perhaps you could make some effort to explain it to me. My response was that in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case that there was no possible alternative use of my money that was more constructive from the point of view of raising the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>>
>> >> ONLY if all the money you spend now is the most constructive way of raising
>> >> the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>>
>> >No, in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case no matter what
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that true of everything you buy?
>>
>
>My reasons for buying things can be of various kinds. If I derive some kind of benefit from buying the product, then that can be at least a pro tanto reason for buying the product (which might be outweighed by other reasons). In order for me to have a decisive moral reason to buy cage-free eggs because it encourages people to bring more hens into existence who will lead "decent lives", it would have to be the case that the amount of benefit I produced with a given quantity of money spent in that way would be greater than the amount of benefit I could achieve with any alternative use of the money.

Like contributing to NOTHING for ANY livestock animals.

>If there were some alternative use of the money that were at least as good in terms of producing a morally valuable benefit, then I would not have a decisive moral reason to buy the cage-free eggs rather than put the money to the alternative use. This is true in general. I only have a decisive moral reason to pursue a particular course of action if every alternative course of action is less
>strongly supported by moral reasons.

You're opposed to doing anything to support any sort of livestock.

>> >I've put some effort into finding the most efficient way of improving animal well-being
>>
>>
>>
>> WHICH animals are you contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW are
>>
>> you contributing to it?
>>
>
>I am improving the overall total level of nonhuman animal well-being, by bringing about a situation in which fewer nonhuman animals are brought into existence

That does nothing to help any livestock. It's a sign of incredible
dishonesty that you're so desperate to try gaining credit for something you
deliberately try to AVOID doing, which is contributing to life of any quality
for livestock with your lifestlye. It's horribly dishonest of you.

>in order to lead lives on factory-farms that contain a lot of suffering, and eventually be slaughtered. The improvement comes from the reduction in the total amount of suffering that takes place.
>
>>
>>
>> >(including in the sense of reducing suffering) and I've made my choice. If you think I've made the wrong choice you need to produce some evidence to support your point of view.
>>
>>
>>
>> All you've said you contribute to is veganism afaik, and that doesn't
>>
>> contribute to anything for livestock animals. Buying cage free eggs does and
>>
>> veganism does not, nor does anything else you've mentioned so far.
>>
>
>Why is it that reducing the total number of animals brought into existence in order to live lives of suffering on factory-farms is not as worthy a goal as encouraging people to bring more hens into existence who lead "decent lives"?
>
>>
>>
>> >> >Does that seem like a reasonable statement to make? Or have I got that wrong? And do you think that there is indeed no possible alternative use of my money that would be more constructive from that point of view? Or not? If you do think that, then may I ask what your reasons are for thinking that?
>>
>> >> I'll say that since I feel cage free hens in general usually experience
>>
>> >> lives of positive value and many of them "good" lives, it seems a better use of
>>
>> >> your money to contribute to them directly than to support the elimination of all
>>
>> >> domestic animals.
>>
>> >Why would that be, if the money I donate to EAA is effective at reducing the amount of suffering that takes place on modern farms?
>>
>>
>>
>> So far you haven't said how anything you do improves the well-being of a
>>
>> single creature, wild or domestic. Are you unaware of that fact?
>>
>
>The course of action pursued improves the outcome, not by making the outcome better for a particular individual

It does NOTHING to help any livestock, and it's horribly dishonest of you to
try pretending that it does trying to gain credit for something you very very
VERY MUCH do NOT deserve.

>who would have existed in either case, but by reducing the number of individuals who come into existence who have lives that are, on the whole, not worth living.
>
>> >> >It is not within the power of Jonathan Ball and Derek Nash to disallow me from doing things.
>>
>> >> The first time you gave some slight consideration to lives of positive value
>> >> for some few cattle they shut you down and you've been afraid to get anywhere
>> >> near it again ever since.
>>
>> >False.
>>
>> If you're not afraid then try to move on and get near it again now. Go:
>
>What exactly do you want me to do? You want me to contemplate the fact that some cattle might have lives that are on the whole worth living?

In the past you said you could do it for some humans, some grass raised
cattle and some free range chickens. Are you now saying that you unlearned?

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:06:15 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:12:06 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >> >You're suggesting I try to pinpoint the actual field where a given vegetable or grain product comes from?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The area. For example in the US if it came from the East coast area or
>
> >>
>
> >> Florida it probably was in an area where there are places for wildlife to exist
>
> >>
>
> >> in the surrounding area, meaning that the fields would be replenished with
>
> >>
>
> >> wildlife from season to season and therefore because of more lives, more deaths
>
> >>
>
> >> as well. But if it came from some of the places out West wildlife in many of
>
> >>
>
> >> those areas was killed off years ago with no places for wildlife to exist in the
>
> >>
>
> >> surrounding areas, meaning the fields would have practically no wildlife left
>
> >>
>
> >> and no places to replenish the populations in the fields.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, you'd have to do an estimate for the associate death rates and look at the comparison, wouldn't you. I thinking buying 1 kg of milk causes about 0.000009 of a death, if you're only counting the slaughter of dairy cows and not the slaughter of veal calves or bobby calves.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What are bobby calves?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-happens-to-bobby-calves_87.html
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >So yeah, that probably is smaller than the death rate for one cup of tofu.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And even less for rice milk. If you've finally accepted that animal products
>
> >>
>
> >> EVER involve fewer deaths that would probably be a huge step for you.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I never suggested it wasn't possible.
>
>
>
> You should have understood that sometimes it's the case and sometimes not
>
> for years.
>

Why?

>
>
> >> >> Sometimes tofu causes more and sometimes beef does,
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >You don't know that,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Oops. You appear to have unlearned again. How do you learn, and then
>
> >>
>
> >> unlearn???
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >because you don't know what the standard deviation is.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> For one thing neither do you, and for another thing is doesn't matter what
>
> >>
>
> >> the standard deviation is.
>
> >
>
> >The fact that I don't know it is irrelevant. It does matter what the standard deviation is. If you wanted to be in a position to say that some soybean fields had more collateral deaths associated with a given quantity of soy product from that field than the number of deaths by slaughter associated with a calorically equivalent equantity of grass-fed beef, then you would have to be in a position to give some kind of sensible estimate for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >It might be true.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It has to be true. Try to figure out what the odds are that it is never true
>
> >>
>
> >> and never has been true. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, to figure out those odds
>
>
>
> There is no possibility that it has never been true.
>

And why would that be?

>
>

> >you'd need some kind of probability distribution for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates, which is sort of the point I've been making here.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >In any event, it would not be true if your claim that tofu was larger by a factor of "hundreds" were correct,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How do you figure that?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Because it's not realistic to think that the death rate associated with soybean production would vary across two orders of magnitude.
>
>
>
> Why? What do you think prevents the number of wildlife animals in different
>
> fields around the world from varying greatly?
>

So you think that some fields contain 5000 animals per hectare?

>
>
> >> >so this is pretty much tantamount to retracting your claim. Which you should stop making.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No, veganism advocacy.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The organization you send money to doesn't work for elimination? Who are
>
> >>
>
> >> they?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I told you, Effective Animal Activism.
>
> >
>
> >http://effectiveanimalactivism.org
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> To me that sux more
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> decent lives for livestock animals.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >And why would that be?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Because I can actually appreciate when livestock experience lives of
>
> >>
>
> >> positive value.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >So why is whatever benefit is associated with producing such "lives of positive value" for a given quantity of money spent on animal products from animals with such "lives of positive value", greater than the benefit associated with the amount of suffering reduction achieved by donating that same quantity of money towards veganism advocacy?
>
>
>
> Veganism does nothing for any domestic animals. Contributing to decent lives
>
> for them does.
>

Veganism reduces the amount of suffering experienced by farm animals. You have no basis for saying that contributing to "decent lives" for livestock is a more valuable investment of money.

>
>
> >> >> >I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
>
> >> >> in poor countries?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >By reducing the market prices of staple foods, making them more affordable to the world's poor.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I doubt being a vegan in your country or mine does anything to help people
>
> >>
>
> >> in poorer countries.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Do you accept that an increase in the number of vegans in rich countries might lead to a reduction in world market prices of certain staple foods?
>
>
>
> I certainly have no reason to think it would.
>

Well, it would obviously result in a reduction in demand for those foods.

>
>
> >> >> >I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >When I see the evidence that that would be a more constructive approach to improving the total level of animal well-being
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So far it doesn't seem to me that you're doing anything to improve the total
>
> >>
>
> >> level of animal well-being, or any animal well-being at all. Which animals do
>
> >>
>
> >> you feel you're contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW do you think
>
> >>
>
> >> you're contributing to it. By promoting veganism you are NOT doing so, so it
>
> >>
>
> >> would have to be by a different way that DOES contribute to it like buying cage
>
> >>
>
> >> free eggs. So HOW are you doing it, and don't say by encourging veganism because
>
> >>
>
> >> that doesn't do it.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Promoting veganism reduces the total amount of suffering that takes place on modern factory-farms.
>
>
>
> It does nothing to improving the total level of animal well-being for
>
> livestock.
>

Why not?

>
>
> >It also reduces the amount of harm to wildlife caused by crop production.
>
>
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't help any livestock whether it does or whether
>
> it doesn't.
>
>
>
> >> >than any other alternative use of the same amount of money, then I'll gladly do it.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >You seem to be trying to suggest that I'm just kidding myself that I care about animal suffering and that I don't really care all that much. Suppose for the sake of argument that you were right. Okay then, what next? What should I do with this insight that you have kindly given me?
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Consider when livestock have decent lives as well as or more than when they
>
> >> >> are horrible. Also consider when animal products involve less deaths than
>
> >> >> vegetable products. NOT make excuses why you won't do it, but DO it.
>
> >
>
> >> >> >Do you think that you make tangible good faith efforts to try to reduce animal suffering? Do you have any thoughts about what I should do if I wanted to have a constructive effect on the problem of animal suffering?
>
> >
>
> >> >> >> >I do contribute to fewer deaths for wildlife, by encouraging veganism. We've already discussed the issue of "contributing to decent lives for livestock"; you would have to establish that it was an optimal use of my money, and that's far from clear.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Perhaps you could make some effort to explain it to me. My response was that in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case that there was no possible alternative use of my money that was more constructive from the point of view of raising the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> ONLY if all the money you spend now is the most constructive way of raising
>
> >> >> the total level of well-being for sentient organisms.
>
> >>
>
> >> >No, in order for me to have a decisive reason to buy cage-free eggs, it would have to be the case no matter what
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Is that true of everything you buy?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >My reasons for buying things can be of various kinds. If I derive some kind of benefit from buying the product, then that can be at least a pro tanto reason for buying the product (which might be outweighed by other reasons). In order for me to have a decisive moral reason to buy cage-free eggs because it encourages people to bring more hens into existence who will lead "decent lives", it would have to be the case that the amount of benefit I produced with a given quantity of money spent in that way would be greater than the amount of benefit I could achieve with any alternative use of the money.
>
>
>
> Like contributing to NOTHING for ANY livestock animals.
>

Like reducing the amount of suffering experienced by livestock animals.

>
>
> >If there were some alternative use of the money that were at least as good in terms of producing a morally valuable benefit, then I would not have a decisive moral reason to buy the cage-free eggs rather than put the money to the alternative use. This is true in general. I only have a decisive moral reason to pursue a particular course of action if every alternative course of action is less
>
> >strongly supported by moral reasons.
>
>
>
> You're opposed to doing anything to support any sort of livestock.
>
>
>
> >> >I've put some effort into finding the most efficient way of improving animal well-being
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> WHICH animals are you contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW are
>
> >>
>
> >> you contributing to it?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I am improving the overall total level of nonhuman animal well-being, by bringing about a situation in which fewer nonhuman animals are brought into existence
>
>
>
> That does nothing to help any livestock. It's a sign of incredible
>
> dishonesty that you're so desperate to try gaining credit for something you
>
> deliberately try to AVOID doing, which is contributing to life of any quality
>
> for livestock with your lifestlye. It's horribly dishonest of you.
>

What I said was not dishonest in any way. It was completely correct.

>
>
> >in order to lead lives on factory-farms that contain a lot of suffering, and eventually be slaughtered. The improvement comes from the reduction in the total amount of suffering that takes place.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >(including in the sense of reducing suffering) and I've made my choice. If you think I've made the wrong choice you need to produce some evidence to support your point of view.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> All you've said you contribute to is veganism afaik, and that doesn't
>
> >>
>
> >> contribute to anything for livestock animals. Buying cage free eggs does and
>
> >>
>
> >> veganism does not, nor does anything else you've mentioned so far.
>

We don't seem to be getting anywhere. The claim that buying cage free eggs is better than veganism is something that needs to be *supported*. I've given you my reasons why I currently prefer to promote veganism. You need to actually *engage* with them, not just say over and over again that veganism does nothing to help any livestock.

> >>
>
> >
>
> >Why is it that reducing the total number of animals brought into existence in order to live lives of suffering on factory-farms is not as worthy a goal as encouraging people to bring more hens into existence who lead "decent lives"?
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Does that seem like a reasonable statement to make? Or have I got that wrong? And do you think that there is indeed no possible alternative use of my money that would be more constructive from that point of view? Or not? If you do think that, then may I ask what your reasons are for thinking that?
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I'll say that since I feel cage free hens in general usually experience
>
> >>
>
> >> >> lives of positive value and many of them "good" lives, it seems a better use of
>
> >>
>
> >> >> your money to contribute to them directly than to support the elimination of all
>
> >>
>
> >> >> domestic animals.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Why would that be, if the money I donate to EAA is effective at reducing the amount of suffering that takes place on modern farms?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So far you haven't said how anything you do improves the well-being of a
>
> >>
>
> >> single creature, wild or domestic. Are you unaware of that fact?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >The course of action pursued improves the outcome, not by making the outcome better for a particular individual
>
>
>
> It does NOTHING to help any livestock, and it's horribly dishonest of you to
>
> try pretending that it does trying to gain credit for something you very very
>
> VERY MUCH do NOT deserve.
>
>
>
> >who would have existed in either case, but by reducing the number of individuals who come into existence who have lives that are, on the whole, not worth living.
>
> >
>
> >> >> >It is not within the power of Jonathan Ball and Derek Nash to disallow me from doing things.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The first time you gave some slight consideration to lives of positive value
>
> >> >> for some few cattle they shut you down and you've been afraid to get anywhere
>
> >> >> near it again ever since.
>
> >>
>
> >> >False.
>
> >>
>
> >> If you're not afraid then try to move on and get near it again now. Go:
>
> >
>
> >What exactly do you want me to do? You want me to contemplate the fact that some cattle might have lives that are on the whole worth living?
>
>
>
> In the past you said you could do it for some humans, some grass raised
>
> cattle and some free range chickens. Are you now saying that you unlearned?

I don't get what the point of the exercise is supposed to be.

[dh]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:09:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

Because it's so obvious everyone should be able to figure it out, ESPECIALLY
someone acting like they have a PhD in math.

>> >> >> Sometimes tofu causes more and sometimes beef does,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >You don't know that,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Oops. You appear to have unlearned again. How do you learn, and then
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> unlearn???
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >because you don't know what the standard deviation is.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> For one thing neither do you, and for another thing is doesn't matter what
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> the standard deviation is.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >The fact that I don't know it is irrelevant. It does matter what the standard deviation is. If you wanted to be in a position to say that some soybean fields had more collateral deaths associated with a given quantity of soy product from that field than the number of deaths by slaughter associated with a calorically equivalent equantity of grass-fed beef, then you would have to be in a position to give some kind of sensible estimate for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >It might be true.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It has to be true. Try to figure out what the odds are that it is never true
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> and never has been true. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, to figure out those odds
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no possibility that it has never been true.
>>
>
>And why would that be?

Because it has to have been true. The question is how often IS it true, not
if it ever has been or not. So far AGAIN I find it impossible to believe you're
too incredibly stupid to comprehend.

>> >you'd need some kind of probability distribution for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates, which is sort of the point I've been making here.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >In any event, it would not be true if your claim that tofu was larger by a factor of "hundreds" were correct,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> How do you figure that?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Because it's not realistic to think that the death rate associated with soybean production would vary across two orders of magnitude.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why? What do you think prevents the number of wildlife animals in different
>>
>> fields around the world from varying greatly?
>>
>
>So you think that some fields contain 5000 animals per hectare?

Probably.

>> >> >so this is pretty much tantamount to retracting your claim. Which you should stop making.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No, veganism advocacy.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The organization you send money to doesn't work for elimination? Who are
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> they?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I told you, Effective Animal Activism.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >http://effectiveanimalactivism.org
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> To me that sux more
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> decent lives for livestock animals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >And why would that be?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Because I can actually appreciate when livestock experience lives of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> positive value.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >So why is whatever benefit is associated with producing such "lives of positive value" for a given quantity of money spent on animal products from animals with such "lives of positive value", greater than the benefit associated with the amount of suffering reduction achieved by donating that same quantity of money towards veganism advocacy?
>>
>>
>>
>> Veganism does nothing for any domestic animals. Contributing to decent lives
>>
>> for them does.
>>
>
>Veganism reduces the amount of suffering experienced by farm animals. You have no basis for saying that contributing to "decent lives" for livestock is a more valuable investment of money.

If I feel that it is, and I do, then I do have basis.

>> >> >> >I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
>>
>> >> >> in poor countries?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >By reducing the market prices of staple foods, making them more affordable to the world's poor.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I doubt being a vegan in your country or mine does anything to help people
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> in poorer countries.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Do you accept that an increase in the number of vegans in rich countries might lead to a reduction in world market prices of certain staple foods?
>>
>>
>>
>> I certainly have no reason to think it would.
>>
>
>Well, it would obviously result in a reduction in demand for those foods.

For which foods?

>> >> >> >I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >When I see the evidence that that would be a more constructive approach to improving the total level of animal well-being
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> So far it doesn't seem to me that you're doing anything to improve the total
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> level of animal well-being, or any animal well-being at all. Which animals do
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you feel you're contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW do you think
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you're contributing to it. By promoting veganism you are NOT doing so, so it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> would have to be by a different way that DOES contribute to it like buying cage
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> free eggs. So HOW are you doing it, and don't say by encourging veganism because
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> that doesn't do it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Promoting veganism reduces the total amount of suffering that takes place on modern factory-farms.
>>
>>
>>
>> It does nothing to improving the total level of animal well-being for
>>
>> livestock.
>>
>
>Why not?

Because it does nothing for them at all. Duh.

Trying to gain credit for something you do NOT deserve is dishonest, even if
you don't tell any blatant lies in the process. People who are conscientious
consumers of animal products can honestly take credit for it, but vegans can
NOT.
. . .

>> >What exactly do you want me to do? You want me to contemplate the fact that some cattle might have lives that are on the whole worth living?
>>
>>
>>
>> In the past you said you could do it for some humans, some grass raised
>>
>> cattle and some free range chickens. Are you now saying that you unlearned?
>
>I don't get what the point of the exercise is supposed to be.

You have shown that you can't appreciate lives of positive value or even
good lives for any livestock animals, though in the past you wanted to pretend
you could have some for some grass raised cattle and some free range chickens.
You've shown repeatedly and consistently that you can not though, so don't try
to pretend you can any more.

[Rupert]

Why does it "have" to have been true?

>
>
> >> >you'd need some kind of probability distribution for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates, which is sort of the point I've been making here.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >In any event, it would not be true if your claim that tofu was larger by a factor of "hundreds" were correct,
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> How do you figure that?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Because it's not realistic to think that the death rate associated with soybean production would vary across two orders of magnitude.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Why? What do you think prevents the number of wildlife animals in different
>
> >>
>
> >> fields around the world from varying greatly?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >So you think that some fields contain 5000 animals per hectare?
>
>
>
> Probably.
>

And what makes you think that?

>
>
> >> >> >so this is pretty much tantamount to retracting your claim. Which you should stop making.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >No, veganism advocacy.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The organization you send money to doesn't work for elimination? Who are
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> they?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I told you, Effective Animal Activism.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >http://effectiveanimalactivism.org
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> To me that sux more
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> decent lives for livestock animals.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >And why would that be?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Because I can actually appreciate when livestock experience lives of
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> positive value.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >So why is whatever benefit is associated with producing such "lives of positive value" for a given quantity of money spent on animal products from animals with such "lives of positive value", greater than the benefit associated with the amount of suffering reduction achieved by donating that same quantity of money towards veganism advocacy?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Veganism does nothing for any domestic animals. Contributing to decent lives
>
> >>
>
> >> for them does.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Veganism reduces the amount of suffering experienced by farm animals. You have no basis for saying that contributing to "decent lives" for livestock is a more valuable investment of money.
>
>
>
> If I feel that it is, and I do, then I do have basis.
>

No, a feeling is not a basis. You have to offer rationally grounded arguments in favour of this feeling.

>
>
> >> >> >> >I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> in poor countries?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >By reducing the market prices of staple foods, making them more affordable to the world's poor.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I doubt being a vegan in your country or mine does anything to help people
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> in poorer countries.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Do you accept that an increase in the number of vegans in rich countries might lead to a reduction in world market prices of certain staple foods?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I certainly have no reason to think it would.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, it would obviously result in a reduction in demand for those foods.
>
>
>
> For which foods?
>

Soy and corn, for example.

>
>
> >> >> >> >I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >When I see the evidence that that would be a more constructive approach to improving the total level of animal well-being
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> So far it doesn't seem to me that you're doing anything to improve the total
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> level of animal well-being, or any animal well-being at all. Which animals do
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you feel you're contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW do you think
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you're contributing to it. By promoting veganism you are NOT doing so, so it
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> would have to be by a different way that DOES contribute to it like buying cage
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> free eggs. So HOW are you doing it, and don't say by encourging veganism because
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> that doesn't do it.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Promoting veganism reduces the total amount of suffering that takes place on modern factory-farms.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It does nothing to improving the total level of animal well-being for
>
> >>
>
> >> livestock.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Why not?
>
>
>
> Because it does nothing for them at all. Duh.
>

It reduces the amount of suffering that takes place.

I'm not trying to gain credit for something I don't deserve.

> People who are conscientious
>
> consumers of animal products can honestly take credit for it, but vegans can
>
> NOT.
>
> . . .
>

For what?

[dh]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

Are you honestly so clueless that you can't figure it out for yourself? Try
to. Go:

>> >> >you'd need some kind of probability distribution for both the mean and standard deviation of both death rates, which is sort of the point I've been making here.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >In any event, it would not be true if your claim that tofu was larger by a factor of "hundreds" were correct,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> How do you figure that?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Because it's not realistic to think that the death rate associated with soybean production would vary across two orders of magnitude.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Why? What do you think prevents the number of wildlife animals in different
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> fields around the world from varying greatly?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >So you think that some fields contain 5000 animals per hectare?
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably.
>>
>
>And what makes you think that?

Because it seems impossible that no fields ever have.

>> >> >> >so this is pretty much tantamount to retracting your claim. Which you should stop making.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >I have read sources of factual information about conditions for animals on modern farms, and motivated by that, have made the decision to become a vegan so as to reduce my contribution to the suffering that takes place on modern farms. I have studied research about the efficacy of online ads promoting vegetarianism, and the expected reduction in suffering that this is likely to bring about, and, motivated by that, I have made the decision to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to a charity which I think will be effective at fundraising for the charities which do such ads.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> You're spending 10% of your income to fund elimination.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >No, veganism advocacy.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The organization you send money to doesn't work for elimination? Who are
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> they?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I told you, Effective Animal Activism.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >http://effectiveanimalactivism.org
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> To me that sux more
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> than spending 1% on it to oppose elimination, or/and 1% of it to contribute to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> decent lives for livestock animals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >And why would that be?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Because I can actually appreciate when livestock experience lives of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> positive value.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >So why is whatever benefit is associated with producing such "lives of positive value" for a given quantity of money spent on animal products from animals with such "lives of positive value", greater than the benefit associated with the amount of suffering reduction achieved by donating that same quantity of money towards veganism advocacy?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Veganism does nothing for any domestic animals. Contributing to decent lives
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> for them does.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Veganism reduces the amount of suffering experienced by farm animals. You have no basis for saying that contributing to "decent lives" for livestock is a more valuable investment of money.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I feel that it is, and I do, then I do have basis.
>>
>
>No, a feeling is not a basis.

Try explaining what you think you have that's better than how you feel.

>You have to offer rationally grounded arguments in favour of this feeling.

Try explaining what you think you have that's better than how you feel.

>> >> >> >> >I have studied research into the effect of increases in the number of vegetarians on the well-being of humans living in poor countries.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> How do you want people to think veganism does anything to help humans living
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> in poor countries?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >By reducing the market prices of staple foods, making them more affordable to the world's poor.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> I doubt being a vegan in your country or mine does anything to help people
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> in poorer countries.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Do you accept that an increase in the number of vegans in rich countries might lead to a reduction in world market prices of certain staple foods?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I certainly have no reason to think it would.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, it would obviously result in a reduction in demand for those foods.
>>
>>
>>
>> For which foods?
>>
>
>Soy and corn, for example.

Try explaining how you want people to think an increase in the number of
vegans in some countries would lower the demand for soy and corn worldwide. Go:

>> >> >> >> >I have friends on Facebook who are interested in doing research about how to reduce wild-animal suffering, and I have raised with them the possibility of doing a research project about the effect of crop production systems on wildlife.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >If you have any thoughts on how I might better use my limited time and resources to try to do something constructive about the problem of animal suffering, then I will happily listen to them.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> Buying cage free eggs would be a direct deposit, but nooooooo......
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >When I see the evidence that that would be a more constructive approach to improving the total level of animal well-being
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> So far it doesn't seem to me that you're doing anything to improve the total
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> level of animal well-being, or any animal well-being at all. Which animals do
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you feel you're contributing to the improved well-being of and HOW do you think
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you're contributing to it. By promoting veganism you are NOT doing so, so it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> would have to be by a different way that DOES contribute to it like buying cage
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> free eggs. So HOW are you doing it, and don't say by encourging veganism because
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> that doesn't do it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Promoting veganism reduces the total amount of suffering that takes place on modern factory-farms.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It does nothing to improving the total level of animal well-being for
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> livestock.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because it does nothing for them at all. Duh.
>>
>
>It reduces the amount of suffering that takes place.

Why do you contemptibly want to keep pretending it does something for
livestock animals when the very reason to become vegan is to AVOID contributing
to anything for livestock animals? Not only is the dishonesty of it horrible,
but the stupidity of it seems horrible from my pov. You're trying to grab credit
for the very thing that being vegan is an attempt to avoid, which is making any
sort of contribution to the lives of livestock animals.

You are and that's dishonest, and now you're lying about the horribly
dishonest thing you've been trying to get away with. Veganism does NOTHING to
help livestock animals, or any animals afawk.

>> People who are conscientious
>>
>> consumers of animal products can honestly take credit for it, but vegans can
>>
>> NOT.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>
>For what?

Contributing to something decent for livestock animals. Are you really too
stupid to comprehend that too? Maybe you'd like to pretend that vegans who
contribute to NOTHING for livestock are really contributing to all kinds of
things for them, while conscientious consumers of animal products who actually
ARE contributing to decent lives for them are not? Yes, I feel certain that's
exactly what you want very very badly to do. You want to grab credit you DO NOT
deserve, while denying it to those who really do deserve it.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:11:55 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >> Because it has to have been true. The question is how often IS it true, not
> >> if it ever has been or not. So far AGAIN I find it impossible to believe you're
> >> too incredibly stupid to comprehend.
>
> >Why does it "have" to have been true?
>
> Are you honestly so clueless that you can't figure it out for yourself? Try
>
> to. Go:
>

You're putting forward the claim that sometimes the death rate associated with tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef and sometimes not. You claim that this "has" to be true, without producing the least scintilla of empirical evidence about the matter. And you accuse me of stupidity when I ask you to produce evidence to back up your claim.

I am quite open to the possibility that it might be true. But I don't think that you have the least clue about the matter one way or the other. How could you? You haven't examined any relevant empirical data.

> >> >So you think that some fields contain 5000 animals per hectare?
>
> >> Probably.
>
> >And what makes you think that?
>
> Because it seems impossible that no fields ever have.
>

And why exactly does it "seem impossible"? Do you really think that this is the right way to investigate such questions, just going by your gut feelings about what "seems impossible"?

> >> >Veganism reduces the amount of suffering experienced by farm animals. You have no basis for saying that contributing to "decent lives" for livestock is a more valuable investment of money.
>
> >> If I feel that it is, and I do, then I do have basis.
>
> >No, a feeling is not a basis.
>
> Try explaining what you think you have that's better than how you feel.
>

You are the one who is trying to tell me that there is something wrong with my behaviour. I am not making any effort to criticize your behaviour. I don't have to provide any justification for my behaviour over and above a personal preference about what kinds of outcomes I want to try to produce, together with evidence that my behaviour is a rational way to achieve those outcomes. If you want to argue that I ought to make a change in which kinds of outcomes I am trying to achieve, then you have to produce some kind of basis for that over and above just the way you "feel". If all we have to go on are our "feelings", then the situation is just that I feel one way about it and you feel another. That's not a basis for having a rational argument about the matter.

> >You have to offer rationally grounded arguments in favour of this feeling.
>
> Try explaining what you think you have that's better than how you feel.
>

If you don't share my desire to reduce the amount of animal suffering that takes place, then I don't believe that I have any rational means to get you to change your mind. I haven't been trying to persuade you to do the same as I am doing. I would think it was good news if you made that decision, but I don't think that I have rational grounds on which to persuade you unless you already share some of my preferences.

> >> >> >Do you accept that an increase in the number of vegans in rich countries might lead to a reduction in world market prices of certain staple foods?
>
> >> >> I certainly have no reason to think it would.
>
> >> >Well, it would obviously result in a reduction in demand for those foods.
>
> >> For which foods?
>
> >Soy and corn, for example.
>
>
>
> Try explaining how you want people to think an increase in the number of
>
> vegans in some countries would lower the demand for soy and corn worldwide. Go:
>

Soy and corn are required as inputs for most animal food products. Most animal food products require a lot more crop inputs to produce a given quantity of protein than plant-based food products. So most people in developed countries who are not vegan consume a diet that requires a lot more crop inputs than that of the typical vegan. If a large number of them made the change to being vegan, then fewer crop inputs would be required to produce food for these people and so the demand for those products would go down.

> >It reduces the amount of suffering that takes place.
>
> Why do you contemptibly want to keep pretending it does something for
>
> livestock animals when the very reason to become vegan is to AVOID contributing
>
> to anything for livestock animals? Not only is the dishonesty of it horrible,
>
> but the stupidity of it seems horrible from my pov. You're trying to grab credit
>
> for the very thing that being vegan is an attempt to avoid, which is making any
>
> sort of contribution to the lives of livestock animals.
>

Veganism does something for livestock animals, in the sense that it reduces the amount of suffering that they experience. You've given me no reason at all to doubt this proposition. If you think I've got it wrong, then I simply ask that you make an effort to argue the point.

>
> >I'm not trying to gain credit for something I don't deserve.
>
>
>
> You are and that's dishonest, and now you're lying about the horribly
>
> dishonest thing you've been trying to get away with. Veganism does NOTHING to
>
> help livestock animals, or any animals afawk.
>

I have made the assertion that being a vegan helps to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by farm animals, by reducing the number of farm animals brought into existence. You have given absolutely no reason to doubt this proposition whatsoever. I made the claim in good faith, and you have not given the least reason to doubt it. You do not have the slightest rational grounds for accusing me of lying. You shouldn't accuse people of lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.

> >For what?
>
>
>
> Contributing to something decent for livestock animals. Are you really too
>
> stupid to comprehend that too? Maybe you'd like to pretend that vegans who
>
> contribute to NOTHING for livestock are really contributing to all kinds of
>
> things for them, while conscientious consumers of animal products who actually
>
> ARE contributing to decent lives for them are not? Yes, I feel certain that's
>
> exactly what you want very very badly to do. You want to grab credit you DO NOT
>
> deserve, while denying it to those who really do deserve it.
>

My claim is that reducing the number of farm animals who are brought into existence to lead lives that are on the whole not worth living is just as worthy a goal as increasing the number of farm animals who are brought into existence to lead lives that are on the whole worth living. In my view, most animals living on modern farms do not have lives that are worth living. I believe that the goal of improving the total level of animal well-being is better served by encouraging veganism.

[dh]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:28:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:11:55 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Because it has to have been true. The question is how often IS it true, not
>> >> if it ever has been or not. So far AGAIN I find it impossible to believe you're
>> >> too incredibly stupid to comprehend.
>>
>> >Why does it "have" to have been true?
>>
>> Are you honestly so clueless that you can't figure it out for yourself? Try
>>
>> to. Go:
>>
>
>You're putting forward the claim that sometimes the death rate associated with tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef and sometimes not. You claim that this "has" to be true, without producing the least scintilla of empirical evidence about the matter. And you accuse me of stupidity when I ask you to produce evidence to back up your claim.
>
>I am quite open to the possibility that it might be true.

I'll always believe you're lying abou that unless you eventually do
something to show that you're not. And since I believe you're lying about it
now, that means I believe you would have to CHANGE to a considerable extent in
order for you to make it true. I don't believe you can even ACT like it's true,
much less honestly make it become true.

>But I don't think that you have the least clue about the matter one way or the other. How could you? You haven't examined any relevant empirical data.

Your boy Davis told us that in soy production over 15 of ONE species of
animal, mice, is killed per hectar. NOT 15 total deaths per hectar as you have
been dishonestly telling me. There are no doubt that many and more of quite a
few other animals SOME of which he gave examples of, IN ADDITION TO the over 15
mouse deaths. To think cattle kill that much as they stand around eating grass
is VERY stupid. I know why you WANT to believe it, but still find it hard to
believe you're honestly stupid enough that you DO believe it. Maybe you honestly
are, but I don't believe you are.

The above explains that I believe you're more dishonest than you are stupid.
I'm curious whether you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more
dishonest than you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are
dishonest. Which do you think?

>> >> >So you think that some fields contain 5000 animals per hectare?
>>
>> >> Probably.
>>
>> >And what makes you think that?
>>
>> Because it seems impossible that no fields ever have.
>>
>
>And why exactly does it "seem impossible"? Do you really think that this is the right way to investigate such questions, just going by your gut feelings about what "seems impossible"?

No, since my "gut feelings" are based on things I've learned over the years,
and also on some of the info you've presented that you enjoy lying that I
haven't read even AFTER I tell you about things I read in it.

>> >> >Veganism reduces the amount of suffering experienced by farm animals. You have no basis for saying that contributing to "decent lives" for livestock is a more valuable investment of money.
>>
>> >> If I feel that it is, and I do, then I do have basis.
>>
>> >No, a feeling is not a basis.
>>
>> Try explaining what you think you have that's better than how you feel.
>>
>
>You are the one who is trying to tell me that there is something wrong with my behaviour. I am not making any effort to criticize your behaviour.

I'm not lying to you and you have no reason to believe I am. In contrast I
CERTAINLY have reason to believe you're lying to me about every one of the
things I've told you I suspect you of lying about. I haven't mentioned all of
them either.

>I don't have to provide any justification for my behaviour over and above a personal preference about what kinds of outcomes I want to try to produce, together with evidence that my behaviour is a rational way to achieve those outcomes. If you want to argue that I ought to make a change in which kinds of outcomes I am trying to achieve, then you have to produce some kind of basis for that over and above just the way you "feel". If all we have to go on are our "feelings", then the situation is just that I feel one way about it and you feel another. That's not a basis for having a rational argument about the matter.
>
>> >You have to offer rationally grounded arguments in favour of this feeling.
>>
>> Try explaining what you think you have that's better than how you feel.
>>
>
>If you don't share my desire to reduce the amount of animal suffering that takes place, then I don't believe that I have any rational means to get you to change your mind. I haven't been trying to persuade you to do the same as I am doing. I would think it was good news if you made that decision, but I don't think that I have rational grounds on which to persuade you unless you already share some of my preferences.

I can feel good that I contribute to cage free egg production instead of not
contributing to anything in regards to livestock animals. Since I believe most
broilers and their parents, and dairy and beef cattle have lives of positive
value I can feel good about contributing to them too, and do it with my
lifestyle. How could you ever persuade a person in that position to not only
stop doing it, but to contribute to organizations that not only can't appreciate
the situation EVER!!!, but want to force it to be eliminated? You might just as
well be saying you want to eliminate all wildlife too, from my pov. Oh, and
remember the only things you've so far, in all this time, said you would allow
to exist are some grass raised cattle, some humans, and some free range
chickens. Also remember that more recently than that you have backed away from
the cattle and the chickens and afaik you would no longer allow any of them to
exist either.

>> >> >> >Do you accept that an increase in the number of vegans in rich countries might lead to a reduction in world market prices of certain staple foods?
>>
>> >> >> I certainly have no reason to think it would.
>>
>> >> >Well, it would obviously result in a reduction in demand for those foods.
>>
>> >> For which foods?
>>
>> >Soy and corn, for example.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try explaining how you want people to think an increase in the number of
>>
>> vegans in some countries would lower the demand for soy and corn worldwide. Go:
>>
>
>Soy and corn are required as inputs for most animal food products. Most animal food products require a lot more crop inputs to produce a given quantity of protein than plant-based food products. So most people in developed countries who are not vegan consume a diet that requires a lot more crop inputs than that of the typical vegan. If a large number of them made the change to being vegan, then fewer crop inputs would be required to produce food for these people and so the demand for those products would go down.

They would have to eat the crop products directly, they wouldn't just stop
eating altogether. Also, in order to support such an idea you need to find out
what percentage of animal feed is byproducts. My guess is it might very well not
make a significant difference, and I certainly believe it would be nowhere near
as much of a difference as you eliminationists would like us to believe it
would.

>> >It reduces the amount of suffering that takes place.
>>
>> Why do you contemptibly want to keep pretending it does something for
>>
>> livestock animals when the very reason to become vegan is to AVOID contributing
>>
>> to anything for livestock animals? Not only is the dishonesty of it horrible,
>>
>> but the stupidity of it seems horrible from my pov. You're trying to grab credit
>>
>> for the very thing that being vegan is an attempt to avoid, which is making any
>>
>> sort of contribution to the lives of livestock animals.
>>
>
>Veganism does something for livestock animals,

What does it do for any of them? Explain what it does for some particular
example(s) of livestock animals.
. . .

>> Maybe you'd like to pretend that vegans who
>>
>> contribute to NOTHING for livestock are really contributing to all kinds of
>>
>> things for them, while conscientious consumers of animal products who actually
>>
>> ARE contributing to decent lives for them are not? Yes, I feel certain that's
>>
>> exactly what you want very very badly to do. You want to grab credit you DO NOT
>>
>> deserve, while denying it to those who really do deserve it.
>>
>
>My claim is that reducing the number of farm animals who are brought into existence to lead lives that are on the whole not worth living

You don't even attempt to make a distinction between those that are and
those that are not worth living. THAT is the difference between being an
eliminationist as you are, and being in favor of decent AW instead of
elimination.

>is just as worthy a goal as increasing the number of farm animals who are brought into existence to lead lives that are on the whole worth living.

You want to eliminate ALL OF THEM, "no matter its quality of live" - Goo

>In my view, most animals living on modern farms do not have lives that are worth living. I believe that the goal of improving the total level of animal well-being is better served by

Eliminating all of them instead of by contributing to decent lives for any
of them....yeah....I know. You might just as well be saying that about wildlife
too, from my pov. Since so many polar bears are starving to death recently and
practically none of the livestock you hate are, why wouldn't it reduce suffering
even better by trying to eliminate polar bears instead of livestock?

[dh]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:02:54 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:28:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:11:55 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Because it has to have been true. The question is how often IS it true, not
>>> >> if it ever has been or not. So far AGAIN I find it impossible to believe you're
>>> >> too incredibly stupid to comprehend.
>>>
>>> >Why does it "have" to have been true?
>>>
>>> Are you honestly so clueless that you can't figure it out for yourself? Try
>>>
>>> to. Go:
>>>
>>
>>You're putting forward the claim that sometimes the death rate associated with tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef and sometimes not. You claim that this "has" to be true, without producing the least scintilla of empirical evidence about the matter. And you accuse me of stupidity when I ask you to produce evidence to back up your claim.
>>
>>I am quite open to the possibility that it might be true.
>
> I'll always believe you're lying abou that unless you eventually do
>something to show that you're not. And since I believe you're lying about it
>now, that means I believe you would have to CHANGE to a considerable extent in
>order for you to make it true. I don't believe you can even ACT like it's true,
>much less honestly make it become true.

You should at least try to make it appear true.

>>But I don't think that you have the least clue about the matter one way or the other. How could you? You haven't examined any relevant empirical data.
>
> Your boy Davis told us that in soy production over 15 of ONE species of
>animal, mice, is killed per hectar. NOT 15 total deaths per hectar as you have
>been dishonestly telling me. There are no doubt that many and more of quite a
>few other animals SOME of which he gave examples of, IN ADDITION TO the over 15
>mouse deaths. To think cattle kill that much as they stand around eating grass
>is VERY stupid. I know why you WANT to believe it, but still find it hard to
>believe you're honestly stupid enough that you DO believe it. Maybe you honestly
>are, but I don't believe you are.
>
> The above explains that I believe you're more dishonest than you are stupid.
>I'm curious whether you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more
>dishonest than you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are
>dishonest. Which do you think?

You should try to answer. I've been wondering about that for years with Goo
too but you know he can't answer it. Can't you answer it either?

You should try to clarify that that's correct too. For a period of time you
would possibly allow some grass raised cattle and free range chickens, but now
you would no longer. Right?

I hope you can comprehend that, because it's very significant.

>>is just as worthy a goal as increasing the number of farm animals who are brought into existence to lead lives that are on the whole worth living.
>
> You want to eliminate ALL OF THEM, "no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>
>>In my view, most animals living on modern farms do not have lives that are worth living. I believe that the goal of improving the total level of animal well-being is better served by
>
> Eliminating all of them instead of by contributing to decent lives for any
>of them....yeah....I know. You might just as well be saying that about wildlife
>too, from my pov. Since so many polar bears are starving to death recently and
>practically none of the livestock you hate are, why wouldn't it reduce suffering
>even better by trying to eliminate polar bears instead of livestock?

Try to answer. This is significant too, though your own cognitive dissonance
may well be trying to prevent you from considering it realistically.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:55:00 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:02:54 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:28:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:11:55 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> >> Because it has to have been true. The question is how often IS it true, not
>
> >>> >> if it ever has been or not. So far AGAIN I find it impossible to believe you're
>
> >>> >> too incredibly stupid to comprehend.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> >Why does it "have" to have been true?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Are you honestly so clueless that you can't figure it out for yourself? Try
>
> >>>
>
> >>> to. Go:
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>You're putting forward the claim that sometimes the death rate associated with tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef and sometimes not. You claim that this "has" to be true, without producing the least scintilla of empirical evidence about the matter. And you accuse me of stupidity when I ask you to produce evidence to back up your claim.
>
> >>
>
> >>I am quite open to the possibility that it might be true.
>
> >
>
> > I'll always believe you're lying abou that unless you eventually do
>
> >something to show that you're not. And since I believe you're lying about it
>
> >now, that means I believe you would have to CHANGE to a considerable extent in
>
> >order for you to make it true. I don't believe you can even ACT like it's true,
>
> >much less honestly make it become true.
>
>
>
> You should at least try to make it appear true.
>
>
>
> >>But I don't think that you have the least clue about the matter one way or the other. How could you? You haven't examined any relevant empirical data.
>
> >
>
> > Your boy Davis told us that in soy production over 15 of ONE species of
>
> >animal, mice, is killed per hectar.

In one particular field where the death rate was 80%. But on average the death rate is only 60%. So he did an estimate for the average.

> NOT 15 total deaths per hectar as you have
>
> >been dishonestly telling me.

What do you think it is? Do you think it's more than 150?

> There are no doubt that many and more of quite a
>
> >few other animals SOME of which he gave examples of, IN ADDITION TO the over 15
>
> >mouse deaths. To think cattle kill that much as they stand around eating grass
>
> >is VERY stupid. I know why you WANT to believe it, but still find it hard to
>
> >believe you're honestly stupid enough that you DO believe it. Maybe you honestly
>
> >are, but I don't believe you are.
>

It is extraordinarily stupid to think that I ever suggested that cattle kill animals in that number by standing around eating grass. Quite obviously I never said any such thing, you silly fool.

> >
>
> > The above explains that I believe you're more dishonest than you are stupid.
>
> >I'm curious whether you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more
>
> >dishonest than you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are
>
> >dishonest. Which do you think?
>
>
>
> You should try to answer. I've been wondering about that for years with Goo
>
> too but you know he can't answer it. Can't you answer it either?
>

I'm not dishonest, and I'm not stupid.

What are you on about? I never said any such thing.

Well, have you made such a distinction?

> THAT is the difference between being an
>
> >eliminationist as you are, and being in favor of decent AW instead of
>
> >elimination.
>
>
>
> I hope you can comprehend that, because it's very significant.
>
>
>
> >>is just as worthy a goal as increasing the number of farm animals who are brought into existence to lead lives that are on the whole worth living.
>
> >
>
> > You want to eliminate ALL OF THEM, "no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>
> >
>
> >>In my view, most animals living on modern farms do not have lives that are worth living. I believe that the goal of improving the total level of animal well-being is better served by
>
> >
>
> > Eliminating all of them instead of by contributing to decent lives for any
>
> >of them....yeah....I know. You might just as well be saying that about wildlife
>
> >too, from my pov. Since so many polar bears are starving to death recently and
>
> >practically none of the livestock you hate are, why wouldn't it reduce suffering
>
> >even better by trying to eliminate polar bears instead of livestock?
>
>
>
> Try to answer. This is significant too, though your own cognitive dissonance
>
> may well be trying to prevent you from considering it realistically.

It would be difficult to eliminate all polar bears, and if we made the attempt we might end up doing more harm than good. Also, I don't think polar bears in the wild suffer as much as animals in factory-farms.

[dh]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:49:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

That's no excuse for what you tried to get away with.

>> NOT 15 total deaths per hectar as you have
>>
>> >been dishonestly telling me.
>
>What do you think it is? Do you think it's more than 150?

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Do you think it never is?

>> There are no doubt that many and more of quite a
>>
>> >few other animals SOME of which he gave examples of, IN ADDITION TO the over 15
>>
>> >mouse deaths. To think cattle kill that much as they stand around eating grass
>>
>> >is VERY stupid. I know why you WANT to believe it, but still find it hard to
>>
>> >believe you're honestly stupid enough that you DO believe it. Maybe you honestly
>>
>> >are, but I don't believe you are.
>>
>
>It is extraordinarily stupid to think that I ever suggested that cattle kill animals in that number by standing around eating grass. Quite obviously I never said any such thing, you silly fool.

So you do have some clue how soybean production kills more than cows do by
eating grass?

>> > The above explains that I believe you're more dishonest than you are stupid.
>>
>> >I'm curious whether you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more
>>
>> >dishonest than you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are
>>
>> >dishonest. Which do you think?
>>
>>
>>
>> You should try to answer. I've been wondering about that for years with Goo
>>
>> too but you know he can't answer it. Can't you answer it either?
>>
>
>I'm not dishonest,

I certainly can't believe that.

>and I'm not stupid.

Then please answer the question. Here it is again otherwise you'll
dishonestly pretend you don't know which question I'm referring to:
do you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more dishonest than
you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are dishonest?

Are you trying to pretend you never said you'd allow them? Or trying to
pretend you never acted like you retracted your allowance of them? You're all
over the place so much it's hard to tell where you think you are now.
LOL...remember you used to try to call yourself a new welfarist...LOL... A
welfarist who wouldn't allow any livestock to exist. What a concept.

I've told you about them in some detail in the past, but for now I'll just
say I believe most broiler chickens and their parents have lives of positive
value, even after reading what you presented.

>> THAT is the difference between being an
>>
>> >eliminationist as you are, and being in favor of decent AW instead of
>>
>> >elimination.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope you can comprehend that, because it's very significant.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>is just as worthy a goal as increasing the number of farm animals who are brought into existence to lead lives that are on the whole worth living.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You want to eliminate ALL OF THEM, "no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>In my view, most animals living on modern farms do not have lives that are worth living. I believe that the goal of improving the total level of animal well-being is better served by
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Eliminating all of them instead of by contributing to decent lives for any
>>
>> >of them....yeah....I know. You might just as well be saying that about wildlife
>>
>> >too, from my pov. Since so many polar bears are starving to death recently and
>>
>> >practically none of the livestock you hate are, why wouldn't it reduce suffering
>>
>> >even better by trying to eliminate polar bears instead of livestock?
>>
>>
>>
>> Try to answer. This is significant too, though your own cognitive dissonance
>>
>> may well be trying to prevent you from considering it realistically.
>
>It would be difficult to eliminate all polar bears, and if we made the attempt we might end up doing more harm than good. Also, I don't think polar bears in the wild suffer as much as animals in factory-farms.

What horrible things do you imagine happening to which livestock animals
that are worse than starving to death? Don't just paste some link, but try to
say what YOU think is so horrible and for which animals.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:00:43 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:49:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >In one particular field where the death rate was 80%. But on average the death rate is only 60%. So he did an estimate for the average.
>
>
>
> That's no excuse for what you tried to get away with.
>

I didn't "try to get away with" anything. Steven Davis' estimate for the average collateral death rate from soybean production is 15 per hectare. I've given you the reasoning behind it. There would be some fields where the death rate is higher, as you yourself have been notably insisting.

> >What do you think it is? Do you think it's more than 150?
>
>
>
> Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Do you think it never is?
>

I'd say I'm justified in saying it must be extremely rare for it to be that high.

>
>
> >> There are no doubt that many and more of quite a
>
> >>
>
> >> >few other animals SOME of which he gave examples of, IN ADDITION TO the over 15
>
> >>
>
> >> >mouse deaths. To think cattle kill that much as they stand around eating grass
>
> >>
>
> >> >is VERY stupid. I know why you WANT to believe it, but still find it hard to
>
> >>
>
> >> >believe you're honestly stupid enough that you DO believe it. Maybe you honestly
>
> >>
>
> >> >are, but I don't believe you are.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >It is extraordinarily stupid to think that I ever suggested that cattle kill animals in that number by standing around eating grass. Quite obviously I never said any such thing, you silly fool.
>
>
>
> So you do have some clue how soybean production kills more than cows do by
>
> eating grass?
>

I quite obviously never said any such thing. There really is no hope for you.

> Then please answer the question. Here it is again otherwise you'll
>
> dishonestly pretend you don't know which question I'm referring to:
>
> do you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more dishonest than
>
> you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are dishonest?
>

I don't really care which one you think.

> >What are you on about? I never said any such thing.
>
>
>
> Are you trying to pretend you never said you'd allow them? Or trying to
>
> pretend you never acted like you retracted your allowance of them?

What gives you the idea that I retracted it?

> >> > You don't even attempt to make a distinction between those that are and
> >> >those that are not worth living.
>
> >Well, have you made such a distinction?
>
>
>
> I've told you about them in some detail in the past, but for now I'll just
>
> say I believe most broiler chickens and their parents have lives of positive
>
> value, even after reading what you presented.
>

That's just making an assertion. It doesn't explain your basis for where you draw the distinction.

> >It would be difficult to eliminate all polar bears, and if we made the attempt we might end up doing more harm than good. Also, I don't think polar bears in the wild suffer as much as animals in factory-farms.
>
>
>
> What horrible things do you imagine happening to which livestock animals
>
> that are worse than starving to death? Don't just paste some link, but try to
>
> say what YOU think is so horrible and for which animals.

Did you read the information I gave you about broiler chickens?

[dh]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:00:43 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:49:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In one particular field where the death rate was 80%. But on average the death rate is only 60%. So he did an estimate for the average.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's no excuse for what you tried to get away with.
>>
>
>I didn't "try to get away with" anything.

Yes you sure did, and you'd still be trying to get away with it if I had not
read what you lied that I hadn't read.

>Steven Davis' estimate for the average collateral death rate from soybean production is 15 per hectare.

Of ONE type of species in ONE operation. There are several operations and
even more ADDITIONAL types of species.

>I've given you the reasoning behind it. There would be some fields where the death rate is higher, as you yourself have been notably insisting.
>
>> >What do you think it is? Do you think it's more than 150?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Do you think it never is?
>>
>
>I'd say I'm justified in saying it must be extremely rare for it to be that high.

I'd say you're not justified in saying that. Try proving me wrong. Go:

>> >> There are no doubt that many and more of quite a
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >few other animals SOME of which he gave examples of, IN ADDITION TO the over 15
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >mouse deaths. To think cattle kill that much as they stand around eating grass
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >is VERY stupid. I know why you WANT to believe it, but still find it hard to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >believe you're honestly stupid enough that you DO believe it. Maybe you honestly
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >are, but I don't believe you are.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It is extraordinarily stupid to think that I ever suggested that cattle kill animals in that number by standing around eating grass. Quite obviously I never said any such thing, you silly fool.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you do have some clue how soybean production kills more than cows do by
>>
>> eating grass?
>>
>
>I quite obviously never said any such thing.

But afawk so far even after thinking about it to this point in your clueless
existence you STILL can't comprehend how cattle eating grass could result in
fewer deaths than the things involved with growing soy.

>There really is no hope for you.

I can already comprehend how cattle would cause fewer deaths, and have been
doing so for years. I could also probably think of some way(s) that soy
production could involve fewer deaths if I cared to.

>> Then please answer the question. Here it is again otherwise you'll
>>
>> dishonestly pretend you don't know which question I'm referring to:
>>
>> do you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more dishonest than
>>
>> you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are dishonest?
>>
>
>I don't really care which one you think.

You don't care that I'm on to your blatant dishonesties then, from my pov.

>> >What are you on about? I never said any such thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you trying to pretend you never said you'd allow them? Or trying to
>>
>> pretend you never acted like you retracted your allowance of them?
>
>What gives you the idea that I retracted it?
>
>> >> > You don't even attempt to make a distinction between those that are and
>> >> >those that are not worth living.
>>
>> >Well, have you made such a distinction?
>>
>>
>>
>> I've told you about them in some detail in the past, but for now I'll just
>>
>> say I believe most broiler chickens and their parents have lives of positive
>>
>> value, even after reading what you presented.
>>
>
>That's just making an assertion. It doesn't explain your basis for where you draw the distinction.

You need to present what you want people to think makes it of negative value
so they can see whether or not they feel the distinction should be made, but not
only can you NOT do it but you're afraid to even try. I challenge you to try
now. Go:

>> >It would be difficult to eliminate all polar bears, and if we made the attempt we might end up doing more harm than good. Also, I don't think polar bears in the wild suffer as much as animals in factory-farms.
>>
>>
>>
>> What horrible things do you imagine happening to which livestock animals
>>
>> that are worse than starving to death? Don't just paste some link, but try to
>>
>> say what YOU think is so horrible and for which animals.
>
>Did you read the information I gave you about broiler chickens?

None of that is worse than starving in sub zero temperatures. Try again. Go:

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:22:25 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:00:43 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:49:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >In one particular field where the death rate was 80%. But on average the death rate is only 60%. So he did an estimate for the average.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's no excuse for what you tried to get away with.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I didn't "try to get away with" anything.
>
>
>
> Yes you sure did, and you'd still be trying to get away with it if I had not
>
> read what you lied that I hadn't read.
>

I didn't "try to get away with anything". I don't have any reason to retract anything I wrote, except that it's interesting that Davis uses an estimate for the total population of field mice as an estimate for the total population, period, and maybe we should email him and ask why he did that. I hadn't noticed that before.

To the best of my memory, I never made any assertion that you hadn't read the quote from Davis that I provided. I could be wrong. If I did make that assertion, then it's obviously not a lie, just a mistaken but reasonable inference from the fact that you declined to engage with it in any meaningful way (for a while at least).

>
>
> >Steven Davis' estimate for the average collateral death rate from soybean production is 15 per hectare.
>
>
>
> Of ONE type of species in ONE operation.

No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.

> There are several operations and
>
> even more ADDITIONAL types of species.
>
>
>
> >I've given you the reasoning behind it. There would be some fields where the death rate is higher, as you yourself have been notably insisting.
>
> >
>
> >> >What do you think it is? Do you think it's more than 150?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Do you think it never is?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'd say I'm justified in saying it must be extremely rare for it to be that high.
>
>
>
> I'd say you're not justified in saying that. Try proving me wrong. Go:
>

You need to have some knowledge about probability distributions and what they typically look like. I am not inclined to give you more free tutoring. Get back to me when you've taken a course in basic statistics.

>
>
> >> >> There are no doubt that many and more of quite a
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >few other animals SOME of which he gave examples of, IN ADDITION TO the over 15
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >mouse deaths. To think cattle kill that much as they stand around eating grass
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >is VERY stupid. I know why you WANT to believe it, but still find it hard to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >believe you're honestly stupid enough that you DO believe it. Maybe you honestly
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >are, but I don't believe you are.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >It is extraordinarily stupid to think that I ever suggested that cattle kill animals in that number by standing around eating grass. Quite obviously I never said any such thing, you silly fool.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So you do have some clue how soybean production kills more than cows do by
>
> >>
>
> >> eating grass?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I quite obviously never said any such thing.
>
>
>
> But afawk so far even after thinking about it to this point in your clueless
>
> existence you STILL can't comprehend how cattle eating grass could result in
>
> fewer deaths than the things involved with growing soy.
>

I believe you must be brain-damaged in some way. I am perfectly well aware that the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass is smaller than the number of deaths caused by soy production. I quite obviously never suggested otherwise.

>
>
> >There really is no hope for you.
>
>
>
> I can already comprehend how cattle would cause fewer deaths, and have been
>
> doing so for years. I could also probably think of some way(s) that soy
>
> production could involve fewer deaths if I cared to.
>
>
>
> >> Then please answer the question. Here it is again otherwise you'll
>
> >>
>
> >> dishonestly pretend you don't know which question I'm referring to:
>
> >>
>
> >> do you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more dishonest than
>
> >>
>
> >> you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are dishonest?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't really care which one you think.
>
>
>
> You don't care that I'm on to your blatant dishonesties then, from my pov.
>

You are mistaken in thinking that I am being deliberately dishonest.

>
>
> >> >What are you on about? I never said any such thing.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Are you trying to pretend you never said you'd allow them? Or trying to
>
> >>
>
> >> pretend you never acted like you retracted your allowance of them?
>
> >
>
> >What gives you the idea that I retracted it?
>
> >
>
> >> >> > You don't even attempt to make a distinction between those that are and
>
> >> >> >those that are not worth living.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, have you made such a distinction?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I've told you about them in some detail in the past, but for now I'll just
>
> >>
>
> >> say I believe most broiler chickens and their parents have lives of positive
>
> >>
>
> >> value, even after reading what you presented.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >That's just making an assertion. It doesn't explain your basis for where you draw the distinction.
>
>
>
> You need to present what you want people to think makes it of negative value
>
> so they can see whether or not they feel the distinction should be made, but not
>
> only can you NOT do it but you're afraid to even try. I challenge you to try
>
> now. Go:
>

I think that it's obvious that the practices described cause a lot of suffering, to the point where I have a personal preference that the lives not happen in the first place.

Let me present you with a thought-experiment. Suppose that you had to choose between ceasing to exist now, or continuing to exist for a further 45 days with the cognitive capacities of a typical broiler chicken, having the life experiences of a typical broiler chicken on a modern farm including eventually being slaughtered. Which would you choose?

>
>
> >> >It would be difficult to eliminate all polar bears, and if we made the attempt we might end up doing more harm than good. Also, I don't think polar bears in the wild suffer as much as animals in factory-farms.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What horrible things do you imagine happening to which livestock animals
>
> >>
>
> >> that are worse than starving to death? Don't just paste some link, but try to
>
> >>
>
> >> say what YOU think is so horrible and for which animals.
>
> >
>
> >Did you read the information I gave you about broiler chickens?
>
>
>
> None of that is worse than starving in sub zero temperatures.

Why not?

> Try again. Go:

[dh]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:22:25 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:00:43 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:49:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >In one particular field where the death rate was 80%. But on average the death rate is only 60%. So he did an estimate for the average.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> That's no excuse for what you tried to get away with.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I didn't "try to get away with" anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes you sure did, and you'd still be trying to get away with it if I had not
>>
>> read what you lied that I hadn't read.
>>
>
>I didn't "try to get away with anything". I don't have any reason to retract anything I wrote, except that it's interesting that Davis uses an estimate for the total population of field mice as an estimate for the total population, period, and maybe we should email him and ask why he did that. I hadn't noticed that before.
>
>To the best of my memory, I never made any assertion that you hadn't read the quote from Davis that I provided. I could be wrong. If I did make that assertion, then it's obviously not a lie, just a mistaken but reasonable inference from the fact that you declined to engage with it in any meaningful way (for a while at least).
>
>>
>>
>> >Steven Davis' estimate for the average collateral death rate from soybean production is 15 per hectare.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of ONE type of species in ONE operation.
>
>No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.

Present the quote and a link then.

>> There are several operations and
>>
>> even more ADDITIONAL types of species.
>>
>>
>>
>> >I've given you the reasoning behind it. There would be some fields where the death rate is higher, as you yourself have been notably insisting.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >What do you think it is? Do you think it's more than 150?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Do you think it never is?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'd say I'm justified in saying it must be extremely rare for it to be that high.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd say you're not justified in saying that. Try proving me wrong. Go:
>>
>
>You need to have some knowledge about probability distributions and what they typically look like. I am not inclined to give you more free tutoring. Get back to me when you've taken a course in basic statistics.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> There are no doubt that many and more of quite a
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >few other animals SOME of which he gave examples of, IN ADDITION TO the over 15
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >mouse deaths. To think cattle kill that much as they stand around eating grass
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >is VERY stupid. I know why you WANT to believe it, but still find it hard to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >believe you're honestly stupid enough that you DO believe it. Maybe you honestly
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >are, but I don't believe you are.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >It is extraordinarily stupid to think that I ever suggested that cattle kill animals in that number by standing around eating grass. Quite obviously I never said any such thing, you silly fool.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> So you do have some clue how soybean production kills more than cows do by
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> eating grass?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I quite obviously never said any such thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> But afawk so far even after thinking about it to this point in your clueless
>>
>> existence you STILL can't comprehend how cattle eating grass could result in
>>
>> fewer deaths than the things involved with growing soy.
>>
>
>I believe you must be brain-damaged in some way. I am perfectly well aware that the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass is smaller than the number of deaths caused by soy production.

Yet you still can't comprehend how animal products can involve fewer deaths
than vegetable products.

>I quite obviously never suggested otherwise.
>
>>
>>
>> >There really is no hope for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can already comprehend how cattle would cause fewer deaths, and have been
>>
>> doing so for years. I could also probably think of some way(s) that soy
>>
>> production could involve fewer deaths if I cared to.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Then please answer the question. Here it is again otherwise you'll
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> dishonestly pretend you don't know which question I'm referring to:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> do you feel it's more insulting toward you to think you're more dishonest than
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you are stupid, or to think you're more stupid than you are dishonest?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't really care which one you think.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't care that I'm on to your blatant dishonesties then, from my pov.
>>
>
>You are mistaken in thinking that I am being deliberately dishonest.

Maybe. Maybe I'm 100% correct about too though.

>> >> >What are you on about? I never said any such thing.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Are you trying to pretend you never said you'd allow them? Or trying to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> pretend you never acted like you retracted your allowance of them?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What gives you the idea that I retracted it?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >> > You don't even attempt to make a distinction between those that are and
>>
>> >> >> >those that are not worth living.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Well, have you made such a distinction?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I've told you about them in some detail in the past, but for now I'll just
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> say I believe most broiler chickens and their parents have lives of positive
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> value, even after reading what you presented.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's just making an assertion. It doesn't explain your basis for where you draw the distinction.
>>
>>
>>
>> You need to present what you want people to think makes it of negative value
>>
>> so they can see whether or not they feel the distinction should be made, but not
>>
>> only can you NOT do it but you're afraid to even try. I challenge you to try
>>
>> now. Go:
>>
>
>I think that it's obvious that the practices described cause a lot of suffering, to the point where I have a personal preference that the lives not happen in the first place.
>
>Let me present you with a thought-experiment. Suppose that you had to choose between ceasing to exist now, or continuing to exist for a further 45 days with the cognitive capacities of a typical broiler chicken, having the life experiences of a typical broiler chicken on a modern farm including eventually being slaughtered. Which would you choose?

I don't know. But if it was between never existing and being a broiler
chicken I'd choose to be a chicken for a while.

>> >> >It would be difficult to eliminate all polar bears, and if we made the attempt we might end up doing more harm than good. Also, I don't think polar bears in the wild suffer as much as animals in factory-farms.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What horrible things do you imagine happening to which livestock animals
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> that are worse than starving to death? Don't just paste some link, but try to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> say what YOU think is so horrible and for which animals.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Did you read the information I gave you about broiler chickens?
>>
>>
>>
>> None of that is worse than starving in sub zero temperatures.
>
>Why not?

Because starving in sub zero temparatures would be worse imo.

>> Try again. Go:

[Rupert]

On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>
> Present the quote and a link then.
>

No. I've already done that. Go and find it.

> >I believe you must be brain-damaged in some way. I am perfectly well aware that the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass is smaller than the number of deaths caused by soy production.
>
> Yet you still can't comprehend how animal products can involve fewer deaths
> than vegetable products.
>

I never said that's not possible, but you haven't established it in the special case of soy products vs. grass-fed beef.

[dh]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.

>On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>>
>> Present the quote and a link then.
>>
>
>No.

Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.

>I've already done that.

You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.

>Go and find it.
>
>> >I believe you must be brain-damaged in some way. I am perfectly well aware that the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass is smaller than the number of deaths caused by soy production.
>>
>> Yet you still can't comprehend how animal products can involve fewer deaths
>> than vegetable products.
>>
>
>I never said that's not possible,

You said you could believe that cattle eating grass never cause less deaths
than heavy farm machinery and chemicals do. That they never have, in fact.

>but you haven't established it in the special case of soy products vs. grass-fed beef.

And you can't say how cattle eathing grass cause more deaths than heavy farm
machinery and chemicals do. You can't even give any possible ways for a person
to consider. Were you unaware of that?

[Rupert]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:12:58 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> .
>
> >On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>
> >>
>
> >> Present the quote and a link then.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No.
>
>
>
> Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.
>

Another option would be to look at the quote which I have already provided and confirm that I am telling the truth.

>
>
> >I've already done that.
>
>
>
> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.
>

No, you have other options, as observed above.

>
>
> >Go and find it.
>
> >
>
> >> >I believe you must be brain-damaged in some way. I am perfectly well aware that the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass is smaller than the number of deaths caused by soy production.
>
> >>
>
> >> Yet you still can't comprehend how animal products can involve fewer deaths
>
> >> than vegetable products.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I never said that's not possible,
>
>
>
> You said you could believe that cattle eating grass never cause less deaths
>
> than heavy farm machinery and chemicals do.

No. I absolutely never said any such thing, as I have repeatedly explained to you. Your stupidity is horrifying.

> That they never have, in fact.
>
>
>
> >but you haven't established it in the special case of soy products vs. grass-fed beef.
>
>
>
> And you can't say how cattle eathing grass cause more deaths than heavy farm
>
> machinery and chemicals do.

I never made any such claim, half-wit.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/24/2013 10:12 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> .

>> On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>>>
>>> Present the quote and a link then.
>>>
>>
>> No.
>
> Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.
>
>> I've already done that.
>
> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.

You know he isn't lying, *Goo*, you liar.

[dh]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:
.
>On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:12:58 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> .
>>
>> >On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Present the quote and a link then.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.
>>
>
>Another option would be to look at the quote which I have already provided and confirm that I am telling the truth.

No it's not an option either, since there's no way for me to know what quote
it is you're trying to get me to believe you think you're trying to talk about.
In fact I don't believe you have any quote in mind at all, just as you had/have
no idea what exactly you want people to think makes life of negative value for
broiler chickens. You have no idea what you think you think regarding any of
this apparently, much less can I have an idea what you think you think.

>> >I've already done that.
>>
>>
>>
>> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.
>>
>
>No, you have other options, as observed above.

The above shows clearly that you have no idea what you want anyone to think
you think you're trying to talk about.

>> >Go and find it.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >I believe you must be brain-damaged in some way. I am perfectly well aware that the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass is smaller than the number of deaths caused by soy production.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Yet you still can't comprehend how animal products can involve fewer deaths
>>
>> >> than vegetable products.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I never said that's not possible,
>>
>>
>>
>> You said you could believe that cattle eating grass never cause less deaths
>>
>> than heavy farm machinery and chemicals do.
>
>No. I absolutely never said any such thing,

You said you can believe that grass raised beef has never caused fewer
animal deaths than tofu. I told you it was a stupid idea at the time and you
couldn't understand why, so you said.

>as I have repeatedly explained to you. Your stupidity is horrifying.

Yours is greater than mine, so think how horrifying yours is to me. Notice
that I keep encouraging you to talk to your dad about some of your stupidities,
and to any sort of teachers or instructors, but you're afraid to do it and
rightly so because if you tell them some of the things you tell me they WILL
think you must be some sort of an idiot even if they don't really believe you
believe all the idiotic seeming things you act like you believe.

>> That they never have, in fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> >but you haven't established it in the special case of soy products vs. grass-fed beef.
>>
>>
>>
>> And you can't say how cattle eathing grass cause more deaths than heavy farm
>>
>> machinery and chemicals do.
>
>I never made any such claim

Do you still think it's possible that grass raised beef might never involves
fewer deaths than tofu?

>, half-wit.
>
>> You can't even give any possible ways for a person
>>
>> to consider.

Try to give some possible ways for us to consider why don't you?

[dh]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:55:51 -0700, Goo lied:
.

>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:12:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>.

>>>On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>>>>
>>>> Present the quote and a link then.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.
>>
>>>I've already done that.
>>
>> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.
>
>You know he isn't lying

He can't present whatever quote he wants people to think he thinks he's
trying to talk about Goob because there is none. He can't tell you what he wants
you to think it is either Goober. Do you think you can figure out what he wants
you to think it is? No, you can't even make an attempt to, Goo.

>>>Go and find it.

There's no "it" to find and we know it, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/25/2013 1:15 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 6/24/2013 3:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/24/2013 10:12 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>

>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> .

>>>> On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison -

>>>> *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Present the quote and a link then.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.
>>>
>>>> I've already done that.
>>>
>>> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.
>>

>> You know he isn't lying, *Goo*, you liar.

>
> He can't present whatever quote he

He can and he has, *Goo*. You're lying.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:15:21 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> .
>
> >On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:12:58 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> .
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Present the quote and a link then.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Another option would be to look at the quote which I have already provided and confirm that I am telling the truth.
>
>
>
> No it's not an option either, since there's no way for me to know what quote
>
> it is you're trying to get me to believe you think you're trying to talk about.
>
> In fact I don't believe you have any quote in mind at all, just as you had/have
>
> no idea what exactly you want people to think makes life of negative value for
>
> broiler chickens. You have no idea what you think you think regarding any of
>
> this apparently, much less can I have an idea what you think you think.
>

I am referring to the quote which I presented from Steven Davis' paper. He claims that, on average the death rate from crop production is approximately 60% of the total wildlife population per year, or 15 per hectare per year.

>
>
> >> >I've already done that.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, you have other options, as observed above.
>
>
>
> The above shows clearly that you have no idea what you want anyone to think
>
> you think you're trying to talk about.
>

No, it doesn't.

>
>
> >> >Go and find it.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I believe you must be brain-damaged in some way. I am perfectly well aware that the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass is smaller than the number of deaths caused by soy production.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Yet you still can't comprehend how animal products can involve fewer deaths
>
> >>
>
> >> >> than vegetable products.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I never said that's not possible,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You said you could believe that cattle eating grass never cause less deaths
>
> >>
>
> >> than heavy farm machinery and chemicals do.
>
> >
>
> >No. I absolutely never said any such thing,
>
>
>
> You said you can believe that grass raised beef has never caused fewer
>
> animal deaths than tofu.

Which is of course a completely different cllaim, for obvious reasons patiently explained to you countless times.

> I told you it was a stupid idea at the time and you
>
> couldn't understand why, so you said.
>

You haven't given any good reasons why it can't be the case.

>
>
> >as I have repeatedly explained to you. Your stupidity is horrifying.
>
>
>
> Yours is greater than mine,

No. I'm afraid not.

> so think how horrifying yours is to me. Notice
>
> that I keep encouraging you to talk to your dad about some of your stupidities,
>
> and to any sort of teachers or instructors, but you're afraid to do it and
>
> rightly so because if you tell them some of the things you tell me they WILL
>
> think you must be some sort of an idiot even if they don't really believe you
>
> believe all the idiotic seeming things you act like you believe.
>

I'm not a student anymore, I'm a post-doctoral researcher. I could talk to my colleagues. What was it you wanted me to talk to them about again? About how buying one slice of cheese would have an expected contribution to the number of life-years experienced by dairy cattle greater than zero?

>
>
> >> That they never have, in fact.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >but you haven't established it in the special case of soy products vs. grass-fed beef.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And you can't say how cattle eathing grass cause more deaths than heavy farm
>
> >>
>
> >> machinery and chemicals do.
>
> >
>
> >I never made any such claim
>
>
>
> Do you still think it's possible that grass raised beef might never involves
>
> fewer deaths than tofu?
>

Yes. It's possible. Because grass-raised beef also involves deaths by slaughter.

>
>
> >, half-wit.
>
> >
>
> >> You can't even give any possible ways for a person
>
> >>
>
> >> to consider.
>
>
>
> Try to give some possible ways for us to consider why don't you?
>

I didn't make the claim.

[dh]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:21:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
.

>On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:15:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:55:51 -0700, Goo lied:
>>.
>>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:12:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>.

>>>>>On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Present the quote and a link then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.
>>>>
>>>>>I've already done that.
>>>>
>>>> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.
>>>
>>>You know he isn't lying
>>

>> He can't present whatever quote he wants people to think he thinks he's
>>trying to talk about Goob because there is none. He can't tell you what he wants
>>you to think it is either Goober. Do you think you can figure out what he wants
>>you to think it is? No, you can't even make an attempt to, Goo.
>

>He can and he has

You can't even make an attempt to find it Goots. There is no "it" to find,

[dh]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

Of course I can't believe you since you can't present the quote.

>> >> >I've already done that.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, you have other options, as observed above.
>>
>>
>>
>> The above shows clearly that you have no idea what you want anyone to think
>>
>> you think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>
>No, it doesn't.

It shows it very clearly. In fact you apparently can't do anything other
than show it very clearly.

>> >> >Go and find it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I believe you must be brain-damaged in some way. I am perfectly well aware that the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass is smaller than the number of deaths caused by soy production.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Yet you still can't comprehend how animal products can involve fewer deaths
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> than vegetable products.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I never said that's not possible,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You said you could believe that cattle eating grass never cause less deaths
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> than heavy farm machinery and chemicals do.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No. I absolutely never said any such thing,
>>
>>
>>
>> You said you can believe that grass raised beef has never caused fewer
>>
>> animal deaths than tofu.
>
>Which is of course a completely different cllaim,

How do you want people to think tofu production ALWAYS involves fewer deaths
than cows produce by eating grass?

>for obvious reasons patiently explained to you countless times.
>
>> I told you it was a stupid idea at the time and you
>>
>> couldn't understand why, so you said.
>>
>
>You haven't given any good reasons why it can't be the case.

Maybe I'll go ask in some math groups telling them a guy who claims to have
a PhD in math can't comprehend why it's stupid to think grass raised beef has
never involved fewer deaths than tofu, and see if they can explain it in a way
that helps you to understand.

>> >as I have repeatedly explained to you. Your stupidity is horrifying.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours is greater than mine,
>
>No. I'm afraid not.
>
>> so think how horrifying yours is to me. Notice
>>
>> that I keep encouraging you to talk to your dad about some of your stupidities,
>>
>> and to any sort of teachers or instructors, but you're afraid to do it and
>>
>> rightly so because if you tell them some of the things you tell me they WILL
>>
>> think you must be some sort of an idiot even if they don't really believe you
>>
>> believe all the idiotic seeming things you act like you believe.
>>
>
>I'm not a student anymore, I'm a post-doctoral researcher. I could talk to my colleagues. What was it you wanted me to talk to them about again? About how buying one slice of cheese would have an expected contribution to the number of life-years experienced by dairy cattle greater than zero?

Ask them if they can tell you why it's stupid to think grass raised beef has
never involved fewer deaths than tofu.

Also, see if they can help you understand how life can be of positive value
to a being while still not being "good".

>> >> That they never have, in fact.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >but you haven't established it in the special case of soy products vs. grass-fed beef.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> And you can't say how cattle eathing grass cause more deaths than heavy farm
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> machinery and chemicals do.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I never made any such claim
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you still think it's possible that grass raised beef might never involves
>>
>> fewer deaths than tofu?
>>
>
>Yes. It's possible. Because grass-raised beef also involves deaths by slaughter.

When you ask them about that tell them the guy you're disagreeing with was
willing to not add in the by-products which would make the number of "deaths per
serving" much higher than if by-products are included. But you insisted that
by-products must be added so the number of deaths per serving/item is possibly
as low as 1/100000 or less.

>> >, half-wit.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> You can't even give any possible ways for a person
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> to consider.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try to give some possible ways for us to consider why don't you?
>>
>
>I didn't make the claim.

Then we accept that you can suggest no way grass raised beef could possibly
never involve fewer deaths than tofu.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/27/2013 2:57 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 6/25/2013 2:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/25/2013 1:15 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/24/2013 3:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2013 10:12 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>

>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> .

>>>>>> On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:23:04 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison -

>>>>>> *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that's the estimate he gives for the mean total death rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Present the quote and a link then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then of course I can only believe you're lying again.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've already done that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You leave me no option but to believe you're lying again.
>>>>

>>>> You know he isn't lying, *Goo*, you liar.

>>>
>>> He can't present whatever quote he
>>

>> He can and he has, *Goo*. You're lying.
>

> You can't even make an attempt to

He did it, *Goo*. You know he did, too, and we know that you know it.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:57:51 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >I am referring to the quote which I presented from Steven Davis' paper. He claims that, on average the death rate from crop production is approximately 60% of the total wildlife population per year, or 15 per hectare per year.
>
>
>
> Of course I can't believe you since you can't present the quote.
>

I've presented the quote before. Here it is again.

"Although accurate estimates of the total number of animals killed by
different agronomic practices from plowing to harvesting are not available,
some studies show that the numbers are quite large. Kerasote (1993)
describes it as follows: “When I inquired about the lives lost on a mechanized
farm, I realized what costs we pay at the supermarket. One Oregon
farmer told me that half of the cottontail rabbits went into his combine
when he cut a wheat field, that virtually all of the small mammals, ground
birds, and reptiles were killed when he harvested his crops. Because
most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at
all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture’s effects
on their populations.” In a study that has been done to examine the
effect of harvesting grain crops, Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that
mouse population density dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
postharvest. This decrease was attributed to both migration out of the field
and to mortality. They estimated the mortality rate to be 52%. In another
study, Nass et al. (1971) reported that the mortality rate of Polynesian
rats was 77% during the harvest of sugar cane in Hawaii. These are the
estimated mortality rates for only a single species, and for only a single
operation (i.e., harvesting). Therefore, an estimate somewhere between 52
and 77% (say 60%) for animals of all kinds killed during the production
year would be reasonable. If we multiply the population density shown in
Tew and Macdonald’s (1993) paper (25/ha) times a 60% mortality rate,
that equals a mortality of 15 animals/ha each year."

> >> The above shows clearly that you have no idea what you want anyone to think
> >> you think you're trying to talk about.
>
> >No, it doesn't.
>
> It shows it very clearly. In fact you apparently can't do anything other
> than show it very clearly.
>

That's obviously false.

> >> >> You said you could believe that cattle eating grass never cause less deaths
> >> >> than heavy farm machinery and chemicals do.
>
> >> >No. I absolutely never said any such thing,
>
> >> You said you can believe that grass raised beef has never caused fewer
> >> animal deaths than tofu.
>
> >Which is of course a completely different cllaim,
>
> How do you want people to think tofu production ALWAYS involves fewer deaths
> than cows produce by eating grass?
>

I absolutely never said any such thing. You appear to have extraordinary difficulties understanding what I am actually saying, despite my patiently explaining it to you time and time again.

I will try again. I am not claiming that it is a possibility that the number of deaths caused to produce a given serving of tofu would be less than the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass associated with a nutritionally equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. In fact, for the purposes of my calculations I have been assuming that the latter number is zero. The point is that there are obviously other deaths associated with the production of the grass-fed beef that need to be taken into account: specifically, the deaths caused by the slaughter of the cows in order to produce the beef. It is a possibility, as far as I am aware, that the number of deaths associated with a given serving of grass-fed beef caused by slaughter of the cows might always be larger than the number of deaths associated with a nutritionally equivalent serving of tofu. I do not claim to know that for sure, but to my mind it is at least a possibility, at least on the basis of the evidence that I have encountered so far. If you have some evidence that it is not the case, then I am happy to examine it.

I have absolutely never drawn any comparison between the death rate associated with soybean production and the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass. And I have explained this to you enough times. Perhaps this time around it will finally penetrate your thick skull. But I don't hold out much hope of that.

> >> >as I have repeatedly explained to you. Your stupidity is horrifying.
>
> >> Yours is greater than mine,
>
> >No. I'm afraid not.
>
> >> so think how horrifying yours is to me. Notice
> >> that I keep encouraging you to talk to your dad about some of your stupidities,
> >> and to any sort of teachers or instructors, but you're afraid to do it and
> >> rightly so because if you tell them some of the things you tell me they WILL
> >> think you must be some sort of an idiot even if they don't really believe you
> >> believe all the idiotic seeming things you act like you believe.
>
> >I'm not a student anymore, I'm a post-doctoral researcher. I could talk to my colleagues. What was it you wanted me to talk to them about again? About how buying one slice of cheese would have an expected contribution to the number of life-years experienced by dairy cattle greater than zero?
>
> Ask them if they can tell you why it's stupid to think grass raised beef has
> never involved fewer deaths than tofu.
>

All right. I'll try and remember to get round to it.

>
>
> Also, see if they can help you understand how life can be of positive value
> to a being while still not being "good".
>

Ok.

> >> Do you still think it's possible that grass raised beef might never involves
> >> fewer deaths than tofu?
>
> >Yes. It's possible. Because grass-raised beef also involves deaths by slaughter.
>
> When you ask them about that tell them the guy you're disagreeing with was
> willing to not add in the by-products which would make the number of "deaths per
> serving" much higher than if by-products are included. But you insisted that
> by-products must be added so the number of deaths per serving/item is possibly
> as low as 1/100000 or less.
>

Why would that be? You think you can get 100000 quarter-pound servings of beef from slaughtering just one cow?

> >I didn't make the claim.
>
> Then we accept that you can suggest no way grass raised beef could possibly
> never involve fewer deaths than tofu.
>

No. Actually that doesn't follow at all. I've really tried to explain it to you as patiently as I can time and time again. And I just did above, yet again. I wonder if there is any chance you will eventually get it.

[dh]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.

>On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:57:51 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I am referring to the quote which I presented from Steven Davis' paper. He claims that, on average the death rate from crop production is approximately 60% of the total wildlife population per year, or 15 per hectare per year.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course I can't believe you since you can't present the quote.
>>
>
>I've presented the quote before. Here it is again.
>

. . .

>Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that
>mouse population density dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
>postharvest. This decrease was attributed to both migration out of the field
>and to mortality. They estimated the mortality rate to be 52%.

It looks to me like they're saying about 13 deaths of just mice.

>In another
>study, Nass et al. (1971) reported that the mortality rate of Polynesian
>rats was 77% during the harvest of sugar cane in Hawaii. These are the
>estimated mortality rates for only a single species, and for only a single
>operation (i.e., harvesting). Therefore, an estimate somewhere between 52
>and 77% (say 60%) for animals of all kinds killed during the production
>year would be reasonable. If we multiply the population density shown in
>Tew and Macdonald’s (1993) paper (25/ha) times a 60% mortality rate,
>that equals a mortality of 15 animals/ha each year."

Well, after saying 13 mice he did say 15 animals total. I'm guessing he must
be an eliminationist, since that's the sort of thing eliminationists like to do.
There are more likely to be 15 different species of animals each with several
members being killed from each species, than just 15 total.

>> >> The above shows clearly that you have no idea what you want anyone to think
>> >> you think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>> >No, it doesn't.
>>
>> It shows it very clearly. In fact you apparently can't do anything other
>> than show it very clearly.
>>
>
>That's obviously false.

It showed clearly until you finally pasted what you were trying to talk
about.

>> >> >> You said you could believe that cattle eating grass never cause less deaths
>> >> >> than heavy farm machinery and chemicals do.
>>
>> >> >No. I absolutely never said any such thing,
>>
>> >> You said you can believe that grass raised beef has never caused fewer
>> >> animal deaths than tofu.
>>
>> >Which is of course a completely different cllaim,
>>
>> How do you want people to think tofu production ALWAYS involves fewer deaths
>> than cows produce by eating grass?
>>
>
>I absolutely never said any such thing. You appear to have extraordinary difficulties understanding what I am actually saying, despite my patiently explaining it to you time and time again.
>
>I will try again. I am not claiming that it is a possibility that the number of deaths caused to produce a given serving of tofu would be less than the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass associated with a nutritionally equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. In fact, for the purposes of my calculations I have been assuming that the latter number is zero. The point is that there are obviously other deaths associated with the production of the grass-fed beef that need to be taken into account: specifically, the deaths caused by the slaughter of the cows in order to produce the beef. It is a possibility, as far as I am aware, that the number of deaths associated with a given serving of grass-fed beef caused by slaughter of the cows might always be larger than the number of deaths associated with a nutritionally equivalent serving of tofu.

You need to explain HOW that could possibly be the case. The fact that you
have no clue at all has been your biggest problem with this. It's like you
saying that you don't think it's impossible that a cow really did jump over the
moon, yet you can't explain how you want people to think one possibly could
have. It's the same thing.

>I do not claim to know that for sure, but to my mind it is at least a possibility,

HOW could it possibly happen?

>at least on the basis of the evidence that I have
>encountered so far. If you have some evidence that it is not the case, then I am happy to examine it.
>
>I have absolutely never drawn any comparison between the death rate associated with soybean production and the number of deaths caused by cattle eating grass. And I have explained this to you enough times.

I do though. You're trying to insist a cow could jump over the moon without
providing any axplanation as to how one possibly could.

>Perhaps this time around it will finally penetrate your thick skull. But I don't hold out much hope of that.

You NEED to explain it before a person even COULD consider the possibility
you suggest. You can't consider it yourself as we can see.

>> >> >as I have repeatedly explained to you. Your stupidity is horrifying.
>>
>> >> Yours is greater than mine,
>>
>> >No. I'm afraid not.
>>
>> >> so think how horrifying yours is to me. Notice
>> >> that I keep encouraging you to talk to your dad about some of your stupidities,
>> >> and to any sort of teachers or instructors, but you're afraid to do it and
>> >> rightly so because if you tell them some of the things you tell me they WILL
>> >> think you must be some sort of an idiot even if they don't really believe you
>> >> believe all the idiotic seeming things you act like you believe.
>>
>> >I'm not a student anymore, I'm a post-doctoral researcher. I could talk to my colleagues. What was it you wanted me to talk to them about again? About how buying one slice of cheese would have an expected contribution to the number of life-years experienced by dairy cattle greater than zero?
>>
>> Ask them if they can tell you why it's stupid to think grass raised beef has
>> never involved fewer deaths than tofu.
>>
>
>All right. I'll try and remember to get round to it.
>
>>
>>
>> Also, see if they can help you understand how life can be of positive value
>> to a being while still not being "good".
>>
>
>Ok.

I'm interested in learning what comes of it.

>> >> Do you still think it's possible that grass raised beef might never involves
>> >> fewer deaths than tofu?
>>
>> >Yes. It's possible. Because grass-raised beef also involves deaths by slaughter.
>>
>> When you ask them about that tell them the guy you're disagreeing with was
>> willing to not add in the by-products which would make the number of "deaths per
>> serving" much higher than if by-products are included. But you insisted that
>> by-products must be added so the number of deaths per serving/item is possibly
>> as low as 1/100000 or less.
>>
>
>Why would that be? You think you can get 100000 quarter-pound servings of beef from slaughtering just one cow?

You wanted to include by-products, so that would include every item produced
from the animal including pet food, leather products, fertilizer, glues and
paints and whatever else in addition to human grade food products. For all we
know each animal could produce 30000 bouillon cubes, for example.

>> >I didn't make the claim.
>>
>> Then we accept that you can suggest no way grass raised beef could possibly
>> never involve fewer deaths than tofu.
>>
>
>No.

We must unless you finally do suggest it.

>Actually that doesn't follow at all. I've really tried to explain it to you as patiently as I can time and time again. And I just did above, yet again. I wonder if there is any chance you will eventually get it.

You're trying to wiggle out of what you would NEED to do in order for anyone
to consider what you're trying to suggest. But since you CAN NOT do it, there is
NOTHING for anyone to consider. Myself for example. I try to consider how what
you suggest could possibly be the case but it seems so completely impossible
that I can't think of any way it could be possible. So I challenge you to try to
explain how YOU think it could be possible but you can't think of any way it
could be possible either. I do get it, and that is exactly the way it is. You
have NOTHING.