EV's Reduce CD's, Probably
firstoftwins
The probable is what usually happens.
Boethius (ca. 480-525)
The Consolation of Philosophy
Chance, too, which seems to rush along with slack reins, is bridled and
governed by law.
Boole, George
An Investigation of the Law of Thought
Probability is expectation founded upon partial knowledge. A perfect
acquaintance with all the circumstances affecting the occurrence of an event
would change expectation into certainty, and leave neither room nor demand for
a theory of probabilities.
Born, Max
The conception of chance enters in the very first steps of scientific activity
in virtue of the fact that no observation is absolutely correct. I think
chance is a more fundamental conception that causality; for whether in a
concrete case, a cause-effect relation holds or not can only be judged by
applying the laws of chance to the observation.
Bulwer, Lytton E.G.
Eugene Aram
Fate laughs at probabilities.
Cicero
Probability is the very guide of life.
Coolidge, Julian Lowell
In H. Eves, Return to Mathematical Circles
[Upon proving that the best betting stragegy for Gambler's Ruin was to bet all
on the first trial.] It is true that a man who does this is a fool. I have
only proved that a man who does anything else is an even bigger fool.
Democritus
Everything existing in the universe is the fruit of chance.
Descartes
Discourse on Method
It is a truth very certain that when it is not in our power to determine what
is true we ought to follow what is most probable.
Doyle, Sir Arther Conan
The Sign of Four
When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth.
Feller, William
An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications
Probability is a mathematical discipline whose aims are akins to those, for
example, of geometry of analytical mechanics. In each field we must carefully
distinguish three aspects of the theory: (a) the formal logical content, (b)
the intuitive background, and (c) the applications. The character, and the
charm, of the whole structure cannot be appreciated without considering all
three aspects in their proper relation.
An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications
All possible definitions of probability fall short of the actual practice.
Gay, John
Lest men suspect your tale untrue,
Keep probability in view.
Kac, Mark
Enigmas of Chance
Steinhaus, with his predilection for metaphors, used to quote a Polish
proverb, `Forturny kolem sie tocza' [Luck runs in circles], to explain why Pi,
so intimately connected with circles, keeps cropping up in probability theory
and statistics, the two disciplines which deal with randomness and luck.
Kolmogorov, Andrey
Foundations of the Theory of Probability
The theory of probability as a mathematical discipline can and should be
developed from axioms in exactly the same way as geometry and algebra.
Laplace, Pierre Simon
Théorie Analytique des Probabilités, 1812
It is remarkable that a science which began with the consideration of games of
chance should have become the most important object of human knowledge.
Théorie Analytique des Probabilités, 1812
The most important questions of life are indeed, for the most part, really
only problems of probability.
Probability theory is nothing but common sense reduced to calculation.
Leucippus (5th century B.C.)
Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity.
Maxwell, James Clerk
The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either
certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have
to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of
Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability which
is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man's mind.
Paley, William
What does chance ever do for us?
Pascal, Blaise
The excitement that a gambler feels when making a bet is equal to the amount
he might win times the probability of winning it.
Pearson, Karl
The record of a month's roulette playing at Monte Carlo can afford us material
for discussing the foundations of knowledge.
Pierce, Charles S.
Quoted in Mathematically Speaking
This branch of mathematics [Probability] is the only one, I believe, in which
good writers frequently get results which are entirely erroneous.
Poe, Edgar Allen
Arsene Dupin, in The Murders in the Rue Morgue
Coincidences, in general, are great stumbling blocks in the way of that class
of thinkers who have been educated to know nothing of the theory of
probabilities---that theory to which the most glorious objects of human
research are indebted for the most glorious of illustrations.
von Neumann, John
Quote in Conic Sections by D. MacHale
Anyone who considers arithmetic methods of producing random digits is, of
course, in a state of sin.
Russell, Bertrand
Calcul des probabilités
How dare we speak of the laws of chance? Is not chance the antithesis of all
law?
--
What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals!
Dutch
> Aristotle
> The probable is what usually happens.
That's quite interesting, but you are still missing the point. EVs only
arguably even *probably* reduce CDs compared to a similiar diet containing
grain-fed meat. They don't reduce CDs when compared to an omnivore's diet
who derives most of his food from local sources where animals enjoy freedom
and are not "finished", and gardens are hand worked.
So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death and
suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if you
accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
firstoftwins
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:trko89c...@news.supernews.com...
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > Aristotle
> > The probable is what usually happens.
> [..]
>
such wise words and replace them with your crap?
> That's quite interesting, but you are still missing the point. EVs only
> arguably even *probably* reduce CDs compared to a similiar diet containing
> grain-fed meat. They don't reduce CDs when compared to an omnivore's diet
> who derives most of his food from local sources where animals enjoy freedom
> and are not "finished", and gardens are hand worked.
>
Evidence please.
> So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death and
> suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if you
> accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
>
I haven't accepted anything of the sort.
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:trko89c...@news.supernews.com...
> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > > Aristotle
> > > The probable is what usually happens.
> > [..]
> >
> Was there any real reason apart from bloody mindedness for you to snip
away
> such wise words and replace them with your crap?
Readability, it's my message, your cut & pasted "wise words" (which I
acknowledged) are right there for everyone to admire, in *your* message.
>
> > That's quite interesting, but you are still missing the point. EVs only
> > arguably even *probably* reduce CDs compared to a similiar diet
containing
> > grain-fed meat. They don't reduce CDs when compared to an omnivore's
diet
> > who derives most of his food from local sources where animals enjoy
freedom
> > and are not "finished", and gardens are hand worked.
> >
> Evidence please.
Do you demand evidence that the sun came up this morning? The diet I am
referring to has ~zero cds *by definition*.
>
> > So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death and
> > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if you
> > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
> >
> I haven't accepted anything of the sort.
For the sake of argument I accepted your premise, and stated a meat diet
with no cds (no grain) would trump yours. If you can't see that, I hold out
little hope for you.
Marielle
<snip>
> > > So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death
and
> > > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if
you
> > > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
>
CD is?
firstoftwins
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:trko89c...@news.supernews.com...
> > > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > > > Aristotle
> > > > The probable is what usually happens.
> > > [..]
> > >
> > Was there any real reason apart from bloody mindedness for you to snip
> away
> > such wise words and replace them with your crap?
>
> Readability, it's my message, your cut & pasted "wise words" (which I
> acknowledged) are right there for everyone to admire, in *your* message.
>
> >
> > > That's quite interesting, but you are still missing the point. EVs only
> > > arguably even *probably* reduce CDs compared to a similiar diet
> containing
> > > grain-fed meat. They don't reduce CDs when compared to an omnivore's
> diet
> > > who derives most of his food from local sources where animals enjoy
> freedom
> > > and are not "finished", and gardens are hand worked.
> > >
> > Evidence please.
>
> Do you demand evidence that the sun came up this morning?
Yes I do.
The diet I am
> referring to has ~zero cds *by definition*.
>
Evidence please! I don't believe it, and it is your claim.
> >
> > > So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death and
> > > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if you
> > > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
> > >
> > I haven't accepted anything of the sort.
>
> For the sake of argument I accepted your premise, and stated a meat diet
> with no cds (no grain) would trump yours. If you can't see that, I hold out
> little hope for you.
>
What sort of hope were you holding anyway?
firstoftwins
"Marielle" <lostm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bbb4b67$0$19398$e4fe...@newszilla.xs4all.nl...
> I am new here, can somebody tell me what CD is? EV=ethical vegetarian, and
> CD is?
>
Collateral Deaths. These are brought about during the production of our food.
The farmer sometimes gets the odd rabbit caught in his combine from time to
time. Some CD's are classed as accidental, as in the case of farming
machinery, but most are due to poisons used in storage, and food transport
etc. You'll find a great deal of discussion in this forum on the subject as
some here seem to think it is the fault of the consumer who trades with the
food producer. Vegetarians and vegans live a cruelty free lifestyle and
apparently it gets up some people's nose, so they in turn charge the
vegetarians and vegans with these CD's as some kind of tit for tat.
rick etter
==============================
LOL I see you're still in a hissy since Aristotle doesn't back you up,
eh killer. The 'odd' rabbit. Thats good twits, just like the rest of
your lys and demonizations. Since you have yet to prove this
unbelievably low number, I make the claim that millions are killed for
your selfish convenience. Cruelty-free? What a hoot!!
firstoftwins
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:3BBB6093...@bright.net...
You made the claim, you now have the burden of proof. Get counting fool.
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the
burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy
of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the
assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true
unless proven otherwise.
rick etter
My 'numbers' are in the same place yours are, twit. So produce them.
>
> Shifting the burden of proof
> The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
==========
LOL That's you twit!! Batter up!!
Shifting the
> burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy
> of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the
> assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true
> unless proven otherwise.
====================
Still don't have a lue as to what you babble on about, eh killer?
--
Canoe North!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
Step outside...The Graphics are Amazing!
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Aristotle
> > > > > The probable is what usually happens.
> > > > [..]
> > > >
> > > Was there any real reason apart from bloody mindedness for you to snip
> > away
> > > such wise words and replace them with your crap?
> >
> > Readability, it's my message, your cut & pasted "wise words" (which I
> > acknowledged) are right there for everyone to admire, in *your* message.
> >
> > >
> > > > That's quite interesting, but you are still missing the point. EVs
only
> > > > arguably even *probably* reduce CDs compared to a similiar diet
> > containing
> > > > grain-fed meat. They don't reduce CDs when compared to an omnivore's
> > diet
> > > > who derives most of his food from local sources where animals enjoy
> > freedom
> > > > and are not "finished", and gardens are hand worked.
> > > >
> > > Evidence please.
> >
> > Do you demand evidence that the sun came up this morning?
>
> Yes I do.
>
> The diet I am
> > referring to has ~zero cds *by definition*.
> >
> Evidence please! I don't believe it, and it is your claim.
I am referring to classes of livestock animals which exist in various parts
of the world, called "free range" animals. Admittedly, some of them step on
bugs but in the ideal case of an animal that just graze and eats scraps as
many do in African and Asian villages, they are raised and harvested without
significant numbers of cds. No earth ever needed to be plowed displacing
wild species, no crop sprayed, no harvest, no dry storage to protect from
mice.
Then there are animals who at times receive the least intrusive all field
crops, hay. People who base their lifestyles on these kinds of resources
cause very low direct or indirect suffering.
But you Derek, you still think they're wrong because you are wedded to this
idea of animals' "right" to live until old age, even though enforcing this
right will result in massively more suffering in animals due to all the loss
of these low cd food resources.
> > > > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if
you
> > > > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
> > > >
> > > I haven't accepted anything of the sort.
> >
> > For the sake of argument I accepted your premise, and stated a meat diet
> > with no cds (no grain) would trump yours. If you can't see that, I hold
out
> > little hope for you.
> >
> What sort of hope were you holding anyway?
I still hope that you will learn broaden your perspective eventually.
Although you still carry the banner, I sense a glimmer of reason in there
from time to time. Stop thinking you are doing something for the animals
sake, you are following a religion, I follow it too, I just know what it is.
firstoftwins
disbelief admirably.
> Then there are animals who at times receive the least intrusive all field
> crops, hay. People who base their lifestyles on these kinds of resources
> cause very low direct or indirect suffering.
>
I don't believe this either. Can you provide any evidence to this wild claim?
> But you Derek, you still think they're wrong because you are wedded to this
> idea of animals' "right" to live until old age, even though enforcing this
> right will result in massively more suffering in animals due to all the loss
> of these low cd food resources.
>
You're making a fool out of yourself now. What makes you think anyone will
believe what you say without any evidence to back your wild claims?
> > > > > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if
> you
> > > > > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
> > > > >
> > > > I haven't accepted anything of the sort.
> > >
> > > For the sake of argument I accepted your premise, and stated a meat diet
> > > with no cds (no grain) would trump yours. If you can't see that, I hold
> out
> > > little hope for you.
> > >
> > What sort of hope were you holding anyway?
>
> I still hope that you will learn broaden your perspective eventually.
> Although you still carry the banner, I sense a glimmer of reason in there
> from time to time. Stop thinking you are doing something for the animals
> sake, you are following a religion, I follow it too, I just know what it is.
>
Stick to the facts and produce evidence to back them if you can.
Adrian MacNair
> So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death and
> suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if you
> accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
It doesn't win out. CDs is something made up by anti-EVs with absoutely no
evidence or numbers. Then, in typical theological-logic, they say "You can't
prove that CD's do not exist!" This is the fallacy of the CD argument. The
onus is not on the EV to prove that CDs exist, it's on the idiot anti-EV's.
A child could dissect the CD argument, it's so pathetically simple.
What's worse, killing animals and eating their meat, something the world can
see, or the supposed collateral damages of vegetable production, something
nobody can prove?
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:trko89c...@news.supernews.com...
> > So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death and
> > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if you
> > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
>
> It doesn't win out. CDs is something made up by anti-EVs with absoutely no
> evidence or numbers. Then, in typical theological-logic, they say "You
can't
> prove that CD's do not exist!" This is the fallacy of the CD argument. The
> onus is not on the EV to prove that CDs exist, it's on the idiot
anti-EV's.
All you ARA regulars, here he is again claiming cds are a fallacy.
> A child could dissect the CD argument, it's so pathetically simple.
> What's worse, killing animals and eating their meat, something the world
can
> see, or the supposed collateral damages of vegetable production, something
> nobody can prove?
A child's dissection of the argument is exactly what you just gave.
firstoftwins
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:trko89c...@news.supernews.com...
> > So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death and
> > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if you
> > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
>
> It doesn't win out. CDs is something made up by anti-EVs with absoutely no
> evidence or numbers. Then, in typical theological-logic, they say "You can't
> prove that CD's do not exist!" This is the fallacy of the CD argument. The
> onus is not on the EV to prove that CDs exist, it's on the idiot anti-EV's.
>
antis.
> A child could dissect the CD argument, it's so pathetically simple.
> What's worse, killing animals and eating their meat, something the world can
> see, or the supposed collateral damages of vegetable production, something
> nobody can prove?
>
--
Sent using an unregistered copy of RMRNews v1.02
Check out our website at http://www.rmrsoft.com/
for other high quality software for EPOC machines.
firstoftwins
> "Adrian MacNair" <antsl...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:trko89c...@news.supernews.com...
> > > So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death and
> > > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if you
> > > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
> >
> > It doesn't win out. CDs is something made up by anti-EVs with absoutely no
> > evidence or numbers. Then, in typical theological-logic, they say "You
> can't
> > prove that CD's do not exist!" This is the fallacy of the CD argument. The
> > onus is not on the EV to prove that CDs exist, it's on the idiot
> anti-EV's.
>
> All you ARA regulars, here he is again claiming cds are a fallacy.
Yes we are Dutch. We never even heard of them before we came to this ng. The
claim that they are as prolific as you claim hasn't been qualified by any
evidence yet. It would be foolish to simply accept what you say without proof.
So where is it?
Dutch
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > "Adrian MacNair" <antsl...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > > So your typical EV diet is not at the top when reducing animal death
and
> > > > suffering, so what the hell is the significance of "EV" when even if
you
> > > > accept the *probably*, a meat-inclusive diet with no CDs wins out.
> > >
> > > It doesn't win out. CDs is something made up by anti-EVs with absoutely
no
> > > evidence or numbers. Then, in typical theological-logic, they say "You
> > can't
> > > prove that CD's do not exist!" This is the fallacy of the CD argument.
The
> > > onus is not on the EV to prove that CDs exist, it's on the idiot
> > anti-EV's.
> >
> > All you ARA regulars, here he is again claiming cds are a fallacy.
>
> Yes we are Dutch. We never even heard of them before we came to this ng. The
> claim that they are as prolific as you claim hasn't been qualified by any
> evidence yet. It would be foolish to simply accept what you say without
proof.
> So where is it?
cds don't require proof, they are as obvious once they are pointed out as they
are underreported. I claim no figures because nobody counts them. I know
intuitively, as you do, that they exist. You can't retreat into denial. The
primary relevance of cds is discounting vegan claims of ethical purity..
Adrian MacNair
> cds don't require proof, they are as obvious once they are pointed out as
they
> are underreported.
Ah, the "we hold these truths to be self-evident" argument.
> I claim no figures because nobody counts them.
People generally do not count figures which are insignificant.
> I know intuitively, as you do, that they exist.
I know intuitiveley, as you do, that you are using a fallacy as a basis for
your argument.
> You can't retreat into denial. The
> primary relevance of cds is discounting vegan claims of ethical purity..
Lying and exaggeration is a fulltime job for you isn't it?
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>cds don't require proof, they are as obvious once they are pointed out as
>>
> they
>
>>are underreported.
>>
>
> Ah, the "we hold these truths to be self-evident" argument.
>
>
>>I claim no figures because nobody counts them.
>>
>
> People generally do not count figures which are insignificant.
They aren't counted because nobody cares about them.
>>I know intuitively, as you do, that they exist.
>>
>
> I know intuitiveley, as you do, that you are using a fallacy as a basis for
> your argument.
I acknowledge the existence of cds even though there is no (or almost
no) documentation of them? That's not a fallacy.
>>You can't retreat into denial. The
>>primary relevance of cds is discounting vegan claims of ethical purity..
>>
>
> Lying and exaggeration is a fulltime job for you isn't it?
I'm not lying or exaggerating, you are denying something you know is true.
Adrian MacNair
> >>cds don't require proof, they are as obvious once they are pointed out
as
> >>
> > they
> >
> >>are underreported.
> >>
> >
> > Ah, the "we hold these truths to be self-evident" argument.
> >
> >
> >>I claim no figures because nobody counts them.
> >>
> >
> > People generally do not count figures which are insignificant.
>
> They aren't counted because nobody cares about them.
Nobody cares about them? Why should EVs care about something the antis
haven't proven yet? Are we to argue over something which hasn't even been
presented with factual evidence? The burden of proof is on you.
That having been said, I believe CD's exist, as it is logical to believe it.
Unlike antis, I want to reduce and minimize CD's. Unlike antis, I am in
favour of minimizing the damage humans do to animals. If antis cared at all
about animals they would provide some kind of hypothesis on how CD's can be
reduced. But they don't care. It's a shallow means of justifying the
unethical treatment of animals. Since CD's exist anyway, since animals die
regardless, why not kill the lot of them? Why not eat as many as you want,
kill as many as you want, torture as many as you want? Mankind is, after
all, superior and therefore obligated to do so, right?
> >>I know intuitively, as you do, that they exist.
> >
> > I know intuitiveley, as you do, that you are using a fallacy as a basis
for
> > your argument.
>
> I acknowledge the existence of cds even though there is no (or almost
> no) documentation of them? That's not a fallacy.
Admitting the existence of CD's is not a fallacy. But going from that to
supposing that CD's exist on a greater scale than the wanton slaughter of
billions of livestock is a lie which is perpetuated by anti-EV liars like
yourself. In truth there is no comparison, and while I am happy to concede
your CD theory, I am unwilling to accept that more animals die as a result
of CDs than in the meat industry, a ludicrous hypothesis baseless in facts
or figures.
I repeat, the CD argument is baseless in facts or figures.
> > Lying and exaggeration is a fulltime job for you isn't it?
>
> I'm not lying or exaggerating, you are denying something you know is true.
You are lying and exaggerating the moment you compare CDs to the meat
machine.
Jonathan Ball
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:3BC9D49F...@email.com...
>>>People generally do not count figures which are insignificant.
>>>
>>They aren't counted because nobody cares about them.
>>
>
> Nobody cares about them? Why should EVs care about something the antis
> haven't proven yet? Are we to argue over something which hasn't even been
> presented with factual evidence? The burden of proof is on you.
This is one of those things you know because it makes sense and has to
be so. When a farmer drives giant equipment into fields to plough them
to a depth of over one foot, and it is known that there are nesting and
burrowing animals in the fields, then it is known that they are killed.
Anyway, Fuckwit Harrison, in one of only two or three useful posts he's
ever made, provided a link to a British Society for Protection of Deer
(or some such name) page that showed a picture of a shredded deer fawn
that been killed during the harvesting of some crop. The Society works
to develop hardware attachments to harvesting machinery that would
prevent that. They, at least, know that animal CDs occur.
>
> That having been said, I believe CD's exist, as it is logical to believe it.
> Unlike antis, I want to reduce and minimize CD's. Unlike antis, I am in
> favour of minimizing the damage humans do to animals. If antis cared at all
> about animals they would provide some kind of hypothesis on how CD's can be
> reduced. But they don't care.
Nor do you. You can blather on all you want, but your behavior shows
that you don't care. It also shows that you're a cretinous hypocrite.
And also a windy son of a bitch.
> It's a shallow means of justifying the
> unethical treatment of animals. Since CD's exist anyway, since animals die
> regardless, why not kill the lot of them? Why not eat as many as you want,
> kill as many as you want, torture as many as you want? Mankind is, after
> all, superior and therefore obligated to do so, right?
That's not what any "AR" opponent mentions CDs for. The topic is
brought up to show what a raging, cretinous hypocrite you are. However,
the demonstration that you're a windy son of a bitch is entirely yours.
>
>
>>>>I know intuitively, as you do, that they exist.
>>>>
>>>I know intuitiveley, as you do, that you are using a fallacy as a basis
>>>
> for
>
>>>your argument.
>>>
>>I acknowledge the existence of cds even though there is no (or almost
>>no) documentation of them? That's not a fallacy.
>>
>
> Admitting the existence of CD's is not a fallacy. But going from that to
> supposing that CD's exist on a greater scale than the wanton slaughter of
> billions of livestock is a lie which is perpetuated by anti-EV liars like
> yourself. In truth there is no comparison, and while I am happy to concede
> your CD theory, I am unwilling to accept that more animals die as a result
> of CDs than in the meat industry, a ludicrous hypothesis baseless in facts
> or figures.
>
> I repeat, the CD argument is baseless in facts
You're wrong. See the BSPD page.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:3BC9D49F...@email.com...
>
>>>>cds don't require proof, they are as obvious once they are pointed out
>>>>
> as
>
>>>they
>>>
>>>
>>>>are underreported.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Ah, the "we hold these truths to be self-evident" argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I claim no figures because nobody counts them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>People generally do not count figures which are insignificant.
>>>
>>They aren't counted because nobody cares about them.
>>
>
> Nobody cares about them? Why should EVs care about something the antis
> haven't proven yet? Are we to argue over something which hasn't even been
> presented with factual evidence? The burden of proof is on you.
>
> That having been said, I believe CD's exist, as it is logical to believe it.
If you believe the phenomenon exists (how can you not?) then why are you
demanding proof?
> Unlike antis, I want to reduce and minimize CD's.
Bully for you. Can I take it that you are not going to deny they exist
any more?
> Unlike antis, I am in
> favour of minimizing the damage humans do to animals.
I'm in favour of that.
> If antis cared at all
> about animals they would provide some kind of hypothesis on how CD's can be
> reduced.
That's not supportable, you claim to care and I don't see any ideas
coming from you. All you do is deny they exist in every other message.
But they don't care. It's a shallow means of justifying the
> unethical treatment of animals.
No justification is possible for unethical treatment of animals, by
definition.
> Since CD's exist anyway, since animals die
> regardless, why not kill the lot of them?
That's not the argument, get that out of your head. Since CDs exist, EVs
are not justified in classifying their diets as categorically causing
less suffering to animals than a meat included diet. The existence of
free range meat proves it.
Why not eat as many as you want,
> kill as many as you want, torture as many as you want? Mankind is, after
> all, superior and therefore obligated to do so, right?
Nope, as usual you are way off the mark.
>
>
>>>>I know intuitively, as you do, that they exist.
>>>>
>>>I know intuitiveley, as you do, that you are using a fallacy as a basis
>>>
> for
>
>>>your argument.
>>>
>>I acknowledge the existence of cds even though there is no (or almost
>>no) documentation of them? That's not a fallacy.
>>
>
> Admitting the existence of CD's is not a fallacy. But going from that to
> supposing that CD's exist on a greater scale than the wanton slaughter of
> billions of livestock is a lie which is perpetuated by anti-EV liars like
> yourself.
You have no idea how many animals are killed, displaced or caused to
suffer in the production of rice, wheat, fruit, beans and other
products. Because you have ignored the phenomenon for so long you
believe it's an insignificant number, I don't. I farm on the prairies
and there are no more songbirds left, because of the grain fields.
In truth there is no comparison, and while I am happy to concede
> your CD theory, I am unwilling to accept that more animals die as a result
> of CDs than in the meat industry, a ludicrous hypothesis baseless in facts
> or figures.
That's not my claim. I wouldn't make a claim like that. More animals die
and suffer in the production of a ton of rice than die in the production
of a ton of moose meat.
> I repeat, the CD argument is baseless in facts or figures.
I repeat, figures are beside the point.
>
>
>>>Lying and exaggeration is a fulltime job for you isn't it?
>>>
>>I'm not lying or exaggerating, you are denying something you know is true.
>>
>
> You are lying and exaggerating the moment you compare CDs to the meat
> machine.
That's not what I'm doing, but how do you know that anyway?
Since we agree that cds do exist (although unknown in quantity in a
given situation)why can you not see that a single animal, grazed all
it's life, producing 1000lb of food with a single death is not
preferable (or at least comparable) to 1000lb of rice that undoubtedly
caused at least several deaths? Do you think it's SO important that the
deaths and suffering are hidden? Is man's primary intent more important
than the amount of suffering he causes?
Adrian MacNair
news:3BC9DA8B...@earthlink.NS.net...
> > Nobody cares about them? Why should EVs care about something the antis
> > haven't proven yet? Are we to argue over something which hasn't even
been
> > presented with factual evidence? The burden of proof is on you.
>
> This is one of those things you know because it makes sense and has to
> be so.
Just like the fact that animals are treated cruelly in the production of
meat. It's one of those things that makes sense and has to be so.
> When a farmer drives giant equipment into fields to plough them
> to a depth of over one foot, and it is known that there are nesting and
> burrowing animals in the fields, then it is known that they are killed.
Point #1: There aren't any statistics as to how many CD animals occur
Point #2: There are alternative methods to farming vegetables. The same
cannot be said for the slaughter of animals for food
Point #3: The meat industry slaughter billions of animals, much of it will
be thrown into garbage bins by wasteful Americans who bit off more than they
could chew. The negligent death of a few animals cannot compare to the
willfull murder of billions of animals.
Point #4: Farmers need to be educated about CDs and options to avoid them.
But the inventors of the CD argument have no suggestion whatsoever so
correct them.
> Anyway, Fuckwit Harrison, in one of only two or three useful posts he's
> ever made, provided a link to a British Society for Protection of Deer
> (or some such name) page that showed a picture of a shredded deer fawn
> that been killed during the harvesting of some crop.
I've seen pictures of people dead on the internet, with captions below that
say where they were killed and how. Unless you can get some corroborating
evidence, some eye-witness evidence, some statistics, aside from some
pictures of a deer cut in half, which for all I know could have been done by
a hunter, I won't be taking your word for it.
> The Society works
> to develop hardware attachments to harvesting machinery that would
> prevent that. They, at least, know that animal CDs occur.
Many people work to minimize the death of animals from negligence. But then
there are those who are participating in the deliberate death of animals in
meat production.
> Nor do you. You can blather on all you want, but your behavior shows
> that you don't care. It also shows that you're a cretinous hypocrite.
It shows that you are worried your sole argument doesn't have a hoof to
stand on.
> And also a windy son of a bitch.
As long as you are being childish, I'll stick to your level and say "takes
one to know one".
> That's not what any "AR" opponent mentions CDs for. The topic is
> brought up to show what a raging, cretinous hypocrite you are. However,
> the demonstration that you're a windy son of a bitch is entirely yours.
The only thing cretinous is the insinuation that the deliberate murder and
torture of animals can compare to the negligent deaths of a few farmland
creatures. It's more laughable than cretinous really.
> > I repeat, the CD argument is baseless in facts
>
> You're wrong. See the BSPD page.
I see no corraborating evidence anywhere.
Sorry Ball, try again.
Adrian MacNair
> > Unlike antis, I want to reduce and minimize CD's.
>
> Bully for you. Can I take it that you are not going to deny they exist
> any more?
I see you conveniently ignored my above points. No problem, I wouldn't
expect anything less from you. And no, I do not deny CD's, I deny that they
compare to the barbaric meat industry.
> > Unlike antis, I am in
> > favour of minimizing the damage humans do to animals.
>
> I'm in favour of that.
But you do not believe that minimizing the damage humans to animals (i.e.:
CDs), that one can live an ethical lifestyle. This is the point of
contention. Or should I say, the point of your confusion.
> > If antis cared at all
> > about animals they would provide some kind of hypothesis on how CD's can
be
> > reduced.
>
> That's not supportable, you claim to care and I don't see any ideas
> coming from you. All you do is deny they exist in every other message.
I do not deny, I clarify that they do not compare to the wilfill murder of
trillions of animals worldwide.
> > But they don't care. It's a shallow means of justifying the
>
> No justification is possible for unethical treatment of animals, by
> definition.
Your definition of unethical, however, seems to differ from mine.
> > Since CD's exist anyway, since animals die
> > regardless, why not kill the lot of them?
>
> That's not the argument, get that out of your head.
Then why are you continuing to pound it in?
> Since CDs exist, EVs
> are not justified in classifying their diets as categorically causing
> less suffering to animals than a meat included diet. The existence of
> free range meat proves it.
Free range meat eliminates the torture, but does not eliminate the needless
death. Truth be known, Anti-EVs create more deaths than EV's could ever
accomplish, since not only do they eat meat but they contribute to CDs like
everybody else.
> > Why not eat as many as you want,
> > kill as many as you want, torture as many as you want? Mankind is, after
> > all, superior and therefore obligated to do so, right?
>
> Nope, as usual you are way off the mark.
But that's exactly what millions of your anti-EV cronies are saying.
Shouldn't you learn who your friends are?
> You have no idea how many animals are killed, displaced or caused to
> suffer in the production of rice, wheat, fruit, beans and other
> products. Because you have ignored the phenomenon for so long you
> believe it's an insignificant number, I don't. I farm on the prairies
> and there are no more songbirds left, because of the grain fields.
Point #1: The grain is for livestock. Nobody would make the idiotic claim
that vegetarians could cause widespread death of animals.
Point #2: It is an insignificant number, and furthermore a result of factory
farming, which not be a vegetarians source of food. A vegetable garden is
all a vegetarian needs. The same cannot be said for the meat murderers.
> That's not my claim. I wouldn't make a claim like that. More animals die
> and suffer in the production of a ton of rice than die in the production
> of a ton of moose meat.
You are an ignoramus beyond redemption, and beyond hope. Your delusions are
beyond that of myth of fiction, your conclusions come from conjectures of
radical anti-EVs to prove a point which hasn't any facts. You are on a
hopelessly weak branch, a very thin sheet of ice, some extremely weak
ground.
> > I repeat, the CD argument is baseless in facts or figures.
>
> I repeat, figures are beside the point.
Since when were facts beside the point in an argument? Dutch, you provide
more credit to the cause of EVism than EV's ever could alone. Your delusions
allow us to see that what we are doing is indeed right.
> > You are lying and exaggerating the moment you compare CDs to the meat
> > machine.
>
> That's not what I'm doing, but how do you know that anyway?
That's precisely what you do all the time.
> Since we agree that cds do exist (although unknown in quantity in a
> given situation)
Where "unknown" represents a number that pales in comparison to the wilull
murder of trillions of animals.
> why can you not see that a single animal, grazed all
> it's life, producing 1000lb of food with a single death is not
> preferable (or at least comparable) to 1000lb of rice that undoubtedly
> caused at least several deaths?
Because one is deliberate and the other negligent. Admit it, eating meat is
a barbaric act not worthy of an advanced species. Admit it, and move on.
> Do you think it's SO important that the deaths and suffering are hidden?
You are an illogical clod. Your arguments are repetitive to the point of
tedium, your convictions as believeable as a cat with a feather in it's
mouth.
> Is man's primary intent more important
> than the amount of suffering he causes?
Yes. Intent is the most important. If a man tries to kill 20 children and
fails, he is more guilty than a man who tries to save 20 children and in the
process kills them all. Understand?
firstoftwins
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:tsjefur...@news.supernews.com...
[The word "obviously" is also often viewed with suspicion. It occasionally gets used
to persuade people to accept false statements, rather than admit that they don't
understand why something is 'obvious'. So don't be afraid to question statements
which people tell you are 'obvious' -- when you've heard the explanation you can
always say something like "You're right, now that I think about it that way, it is
obvious."]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
I claim no figures because nobody counts them. I know
> intuitively, as you do, that they exist.
Ask Jonathan what the word "discursive" means.
You can't retreat into denial. The
> primary relevance of cds is discounting vegan claims of ethical purity..
>
We still can, even in the face of them because the farmer kills them. If you want to
take a pop at a hypocrite; find an ev animal farmer. Saskatchewan must be full of
them. You're wasting your time on me; I don't farm my own food.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:3BC9DCB0...@email.com...
>
>>>Unlike antis, I want to reduce and minimize CD's.
>>>
>>Bully for you. Can I take it that you are not going to deny they exist
>>any more?
>>
>
> I see you conveniently ignored my above points. No problem, I wouldn't
> expect anything less from you.
What points are those?
> And no, I do not deny CD's, I deny that they
> compare to the barbaric meat industry.
You deny it, but offer no rational reason.
>
>
>>>Unlike antis, I am in
>>>favour of minimizing the damage humans do to animals.
>>>
>>I'm in favour of that.
>>
>
> But you do not believe that minimizing the damage humans to animals (i.e.:
> CDs), that one can live an ethical lifestyle. This is the point of
> contention. Or should I say, the point of your confusion.
Ten minutes ago you were denying that cds existed, now minimizing them
is part of your ethical lifestyle, you're a joke.
>>>If antis cared at all
>>>about animals they would provide some kind of hypothesis on how CD's can
>>>
> be
>
>>>reduced.
>>>
>>That's not supportable, you claim to care and I don't see any ideas
>>coming from you. All you do is deny they exist in every other message.
>>
>
> I do not deny, I clarify that they do not compare to the wilfill murder of
> trillions of animals worldwide.
Yes, actually you do deny them repeadedly, and you probably will again.
And yes they ARE comparable to the deaths of animals in meat production.
An animal dies so I can eat.
>
>
>>>But they don't care. It's a shallow means of justifying the
>>>
>>No justification is possible for unethical treatment of animals, by
>>definition.
>>
>
> Your definition of unethical, however, seems to differ from mine.
You finally grasped something.
>
>
>>>Since CD's exist anyway, since animals die
>>>regardless, why not kill the lot of them?
>>>
>>That's not the argument, get that out of your head.
>>
>
> Then why are you continuing to pound it in?
I'm not, it's just seems the only way your deluded brain can understand
the argument.
>
>
>>Since CDs exist, EVs
>>are not justified in classifying their diets as categorically causing
>>less suffering to animals than a meat included diet. The existence of
>>free range meat proves it.
>>
>
> Free range meat eliminates the torture, but does not eliminate the needless
> death.
Define needless. Do you need to eat everything you eat? What about the
deaths associated with the trivial foods you consume?
Truth be known, Anti-EVs create more deaths than EV's could ever
> accomplish, since not only do they eat meat but they contribute to CDs like
> everybody else.
They eat a lot less tofu and many other plant-based products.
>>>Why not eat as many as you want,
>>>kill as many as you want, torture as many as you want? Mankind is, after
>>>all, superior and therefore obligated to do so, right?
>>>
>>Nope, as usual you are way off the mark.
>>
>
> But that's exactly what millions of your anti-EV cronies are saying.
> Shouldn't you learn who your friends are?
Nope, you're missing the target... again. It's about not making claims
of ethical superiority you can't substantiate with at least common
sense. (see next paragraph)
>>You have no idea how many animals are killed, displaced or caused to
>>suffer in the production of rice, wheat, fruit, beans and other
>>products. Because you have ignored the phenomenon for so long you
>>believe it's an insignificant number, I don't. I farm on the prairies
>>and there are no more songbirds left, because of the grain fields.
>>
>
> Point #1: The grain is for livestock.
The grain I farm is for human consumption.
> Nobody would make the idiotic claim
> that vegetarians could cause widespread death of animals.
Herbicides, pesticides, bladed disks,combines.. lots of opportuinites
for killing there.
> Point #2: It is an insignificant number,
You have a count? What gives you the idea that life is scarce in fields
where food exists in great quantities?
> and furthermore a result of factory
> farming, which not be a vegetarians source of food. A vegetable garden is
> all a vegetarian needs.
Have you ever grown a vegetable garden? Ever had to deal with slugs,
moles, sparrows?
> The same cannot be said for the meat murderers.
It's can't be said for veg*ns either.
>
>
>>That's not my claim. I wouldn't make a claim like that. More animals die
>>and suffer in the production of a ton of rice than die in the production
>>of a ton of moose meat.
>>
>
> You are an ignoramus beyond redemption, and beyond hope. Your delusions are
> beyond that of myth of fiction, your conclusions come from conjectures of
> radical anti-EVs to prove a point which hasn't any facts. You are on a
> hopelessly weak branch, a very thin sheet of ice, some extremely weak
> ground.
No answer for that point, just insults? How many deaths are involved in
1000lb of moose meat?
>>>I repeat, the CD argument is baseless in facts or figures.
>>>
>>I repeat, figures are beside the point.
>>
>
> Since when were facts beside the point in an argument? Dutch, you provide
> more credit to the cause of EVism than EV's ever could alone. Your delusions
> allow us to see that what we are doing is indeed right.
Am I to gather that you have gone back to denying the existence of cds?
>
>
>>>You are lying and exaggerating the moment you compare CDs to the meat
>>>machine.
>>>
>>That's not what I'm doing, but how do you know that anyway?
>>
>
> That's precisely what you do all the time.
How do you know how many deaths and suffering are the result of row
agriculture?
>
>
>>Since we agree that cds do exist (although unknown in quantity in a
>>given situation)
>>
>
> Where "unknown" represents a number that pales in comparison to the wilull
> murder of trillions of animals.
Where did you get "trillions"? Out of your imagination? It's actually
billions, most of which are chickens.
Where did you get the impression that number of cds "pales in
comparison" Do you know how many animals can die in harvesting a rice
field? Any clue at all?
>
>
>>why can you not see that a single animal, grazed all
>>it's life, producing 1000lb of food with a single death is not
>>preferable (or at least comparable) to 1000lb of rice that undoubtedly
>>caused at least several deaths?
>>
>
> Because one is deliberate and the other negligent.
So your ethical plateau is based upon negligent killing over deliberate
killing?
Admit it, eating meat is
> a barbaric act not worthy of an advanced species. Admit it, and move on.
It's not, it's your twisted religion that you are intent on foisting on
everyone like the smug bore that you are.
>
>
>>Do you think it's SO important that the deaths and suffering are hidden?
>>
>
> You are an illogical clod. Your arguments are repetitive to the point of
> tedium, your convictions as believeable as a cat with a feather in it's
> mouth.
Answer the question you just dodged.
>
>
>> Is man's primary intent more important
>>than the amount of suffering he causes?
>>
>
> Yes. Intent is the most important. If a man tries to kill 20 children and
> fails, he is more guilty than a man who tries to save 20 children and in the
> process kills them all. Understand?
I understand. How do attempt to save the lives of the animals that die
for your cheap convenient food supply?
Adrian MacNair
> > I see you conveniently ignored my above points. No problem, I wouldn't
> > expect anything less from you.
>
> What points are those?
The ones you continue to dismiss with your rhetoric. Gee, you really are
slow Dutch.
> > And no, I do not deny CD's, I deny that they
> > compare to the barbaric meat industry.
>
> You deny it, but offer no rational reason.
I don't deny it. I just don't give it the attention it doesn't deserve.
> > But you do not believe that minimizing the damage humans to animals
(i.e.:
> > CDs), that one can live an ethical lifestyle. This is the point of
> > contention. Or should I say, the point of your confusion.
>
> Ten minutes ago you were denying that cds existed, now minimizing them
> is part of your ethical lifestyle, you're a joke.
More lies from the pro. I wasn't denying them. I was pointing out that:
1. The burden of proof lies on the accuser
2. Based on the "theory" that CDs exist, minimizing them would be a natural
thing for an EV to do
3. EVism is possible even with CDs
4. CDs are a smoke screen created by meat eaters and anti-EVs to justify
their torture and murder of animals
> > I do not deny, I clarify that they do not compare to the wilfill murder
of
> > trillions of animals worldwide.
>
> Yes, actually you do deny them repeadedly, and you probably will again.
No, you really need to go back to school, Dutch. But I suspect you haven't
had much education in the first place.
> And yes they ARE comparable to the deaths of animals in meat production.
No, no they're not. Please remove your head from your ass.
> An animal dies so I can eat.
Sure, and humans die so you can eat too. It's called capitalism. You really
are a naive little twit aren't you kid?
> > Your definition of unethical, however, seems to differ from mine.
>
> You finally grasped something.
>
> > Then why are you continuing to pound it in?
>
> I'm not, it's just seems the only way your deluded brain can understand
> the argument.
Rick Etter and company do not believe that EVism is possible, whether you
minimize CDs or not. Mercer and his idiotic vivisectionist argument, and you
and your grain elevator argument, are nothing but a smokescreen designed to
argue that EVism is impossible.
I just happen to think you are wrong, not to mention deficient of some
serious moral values.
> > Free range meat eliminates the torture, but does not eliminate the
needless
> > death.
>
> Define needless.
Animals do not need to directly die for you to eat delicious, healthy,
enjoyable food. The diet of the meat eaters causes the needless deaths of
billions of animals, who are nothing more than slaves in a sick and twisted
cycle of murder.
> Do you need to eat everything you eat?
Obviously not. There's a lot of room for improvement.
> What about the
> deaths associated with the trivial foods you consume?
They can be minimized or eliminated altogether through careful selection.
Not that they compare to the insane murder of animals.
> > Truth be known, Anti-EVs create more deaths than EV's could ever
> > accomplish, since not only do they eat meat but they contribute to CDs
like
> > everybody else.
>
> They eat a lot less tofu and many other plant-based products.
In other words, as you are admitting, anti-EV meat eaters cause far more
deaths than EV's.
Thank you for admitting defeat.
> > But that's exactly what millions of your anti-EV cronies are saying.
> > Shouldn't you learn who your friends are?
>
> Nope, you're missing the target... again. It's about not making claims
> of ethical superiority you can't substantiate with at least common
> sense. (see next paragraph)
The ethical superiority is assumed by yourselves, but now that you mention
it, I certainly do see vegetarianism as an advanced form of society. It is
primitive and barbaric to eat meat. I'm embarressed to think that the
majority of people still do.
> > Point #1: The grain is for livestock.
>
> The grain I farm is for human consumption.
You farm grain?
> > Nobody would make the idiotic claim
> > that vegetarians could cause widespread death of animals.
>
> Herbicides, pesticides, bladed disks,combines.. lots of opportuinites
> for killing there.
And lots of opportunities for minimizing CDs. Next useless point?
> > Point #2: It is an insignificant number,
>
> You have a count?
No I don't. Remember, the burden of facts and figures lies with you the
accuser.
> What gives you the idea that life is scarce in fields
> where food exists in great quantities?
What gives you the idea that all food sources come from fields which contain
herbicides, pesticides, combines, and the rest of your assumptions?
> > and furthermore a result of factory
> > farming, which not be a vegetarians source of food. A vegetable garden
is
> > all a vegetarian needs.
>
> Have you ever grown a vegetable garden? Ever had to deal with slugs,
> moles, sparrows?
Yes and Yes. There is enough vegetables for all. My mother used to grow
large vegetable gardens and never killed a slug, spider, caterpillar, or
ant. Sounds like you are attempting to beat Rick Etter for foot-in-mouth
award of the year.
> > The same cannot be said for the meat murderers.
>
> It's can't be said for veg*ns either.
Yes it can.
> No answer for that point, just insults?
You don't have any points. What else do you understand except for insults?
> How many deaths are involved in
> 1000lb of moose meat?
Factory farming tortures and kills far more animals than we could
"accidently" kill in veggie production. You really are a naive kid Dutch.
> > Since when were facts beside the point in an argument? Dutch, you
provide
> > more credit to the cause of EVism than EV's ever could alone. Your
delusions
> > allow us to see that what we are doing is indeed right.
>
> Am I to gather that you have gone back to denying the existence of cds?
I am, as I have always been, refusing to accept your smokescreen of an
argument. CDs exist. It's as obvious as human CDs. If you get a job, someone
else who didn't get the job might go broke, lose his apartment, live on the
streets, and die in the winter of cold. Surely that's human CDs as a result
of you getting your job? But are you responsible for his murder? Of course
not. Only a fucking idiot like yourself would assume such.
> > That's precisely what you do all the time.
>
> How do you know how many deaths and suffering are the result of row
> agriculture?
Broken record. Smokescreen. Parrot.
> > Where "unknown" represents a number that pales in comparison to the
wilull
> > murder of trillions of animals.
>
> Where did you get "trillions"? Out of your imagination?
I'm sure more than trillions of animals have been killed for meat eaters.
Why, doesn't Australia kill 260 million sheep a year
> It's actually
> billions, most of which are chickens.
Billions, trillions, let's just call it murder.
> Where did you get the impression that number of cds "pales in
> comparison" Do you know how many animals can die in harvesting a rice
> field? Any clue at all?
Why don't you tell us? It's your argument, after all. Instead of whining
like a little kid, why don't you go our and research it. Come back in 5
years and report your findings.
> > Because one is deliberate and the other negligent.
>
> So your ethical plateau is based upon negligent killing over deliberate
> killing?
Yes. Are you so thick that you need to be told things 260 times before they
sink in?
> > Admit it, eating meat is
> > a barbaric act not worthy of an advanced species. Admit it, and move on.
>
> It's not, it's your twisted religion that you are intent on foisting on
> everyone like the smug bore that you are.
I have no problem with people eating what they want. It's when they enslave
an entire species, torture it and slaughter it and all its genetic progeny,
that's when I have a serious problem with it.
> > You are an illogical clod. Your arguments are repetitive to the point of
> > tedium, your convictions as believeable as a cat with a feather in it's
> > mouth.
>
> Answer the question you just dodged.
I didn't dodge anything.
> > Yes. Intent is the most important. If a man tries to kill 20 children
and
> > fails, he is more guilty than a man who tries to save 20 children and in
the
> > process kills them all. Understand?
>
>
> I understand. How do attempt to save the lives of the animals that die
> for your cheap convenient food supply?
By eating responsibly. I've already taken the most important step by
becoming a vegetarian. If you think that I'm foisting my superior opinions
on everyone, and they are somehow bothered by them, then surely this is an
indication of guilt in their lifestyle? The truth hurts, and never more when
it comes to eating. It's harder to eat your meat when you know it was
screaming as it died.
Whoever
--------
> More lies from the pro. I wasn't denying them. I was pointing out that:
>
> 1. The burden of proof lies on the accuser
No, it lies with the person making the claim.
> 2. Based on the "theory" that CDs exist, minimizing them would be a natural
> thing for an EV to do
Then show us the evidence that you are minimizing.
> 3. EVism is possible even with CDs
Only by redefining the notion of "ethical" vegetarianism.
> 4. CDs are a smoke screen created by meat eaters and anti-EVs to justify
> their torture and murder of animals
EV and AR opponents neither murder nor torture animals.
Your use of the English language, however, amounts to just
that.
------
> It's harder to eat your meat when you know it was
> screaming as it died.
Geoff Jennings was right on the money in how he described you.
"You're going to be one of those annoying super crusading,
patronizing vegetarians on your moral highhorse that annoy the
fuck out of me and do more to hurt the image of vegetarians
than help it."
Alex
wrote:
>Adrian MacNair wrote:
>
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:3BC9D49F...@email.com...
>
>>>>People generally do not count figures which are insignificant.
>>>>
>>>They aren't counted because nobody cares about them.
>>>
>>
>> Nobody cares about them? Why should EVs care about something the antis
>> haven't proven yet? Are we to argue over something which hasn't even been
>> presented with factual evidence? The burden of proof is on you.
>
>This is one of those things you know because it makes sense and has to
>be so. When a farmer drives giant equipment into fields to plough them
>to a depth of over one foot, and it is known that there are nesting and
>burrowing animals in the fields, then it is known that they are killed.
>
>Anyway, Fuckwit Harrison, in one of only two or three useful posts he's
>ever made, provided a link to a British Society for Protection of Deer
>(or some such name) page that showed a picture of a shredded deer fawn
>that been killed during the harvesting of some crop.
it was actually my post, and the website was mainly about silage. I posted
several others describing similar inventions for hay cutting. These grass
fields seem to provide a lot of cover for wildlife, they have many times
higher density of nesting birds in particular than wheat/corn/soy crop
fields. On the other hand, they are not ploughed and sprayed, and might
have no profitable use if not used for animals. *icides kill insects that
all kinds of animals depend on, the damage has to be inferred from the
reduced populations. One can assume mechanised ploughing and harvesting
either directly kills some such animals as dormice and harvest mice or
deprives them of food.
Jonathan Ball
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:34:16 GMT, Jonathan Ball
<jon...@earthlink.NS.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Adrian MacNair wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3BC9D49F...@email.com...
>>>
>>>>>People generally do not count figures which are insignificant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>They aren't counted because nobody cares about them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Nobody cares about them? Why should EVs care about something the antis
>>>haven't proven yet? Are we to argue over something which hasn't even
been
>>>presented with factual evidence? The burden of proof is on you.
>>>
>>This is one of those things you know because it makes sense and has to
>>be so. When a farmer drives giant equipment into fields to plough them
>>to a depth of over one foot, and it is known that there are nesting and
>>burrowing animals in the fields, then it is known that they are killed.
>>
>>Anyway, Fuckwit Harrison, in one of only two or three useful posts he's
>>ever made, provided a link to a British Society for Protection of Deer
>>(or some such name) page that showed a picture of a shredded deer fawn
>>that been killed during the harvesting of some crop.
>>
>
> it was actually my post,
I should have known fuckwit couldn't make an *original* good post.
Dutch
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:34:16 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Adrian MacNair wrote:
> >
> >> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >
> >>>>
> >>>They aren't counted because nobody cares about them.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nobody cares about them? Why should EVs care about something the antis
> >> haven't proven yet? Are we to argue over something which hasn't even been
> >> presented with factual evidence? The burden of proof is on you.
> >
> >This is one of those things you know because it makes sense and has to
> >be so. When a farmer drives giant equipment into fields to plough them
> >to a depth of over one foot, and it is known that there are nesting and
> >burrowing animals in the fields, then it is known that they are killed.
> >
> >Anyway, Fuckwit Harrison, in one of only two or three useful posts he's
> >ever made, provided a link to a British Society for Protection of Deer
> >(or some such name) page that showed a picture of a shredded deer fawn
> >that been killed during the harvesting of some crop.
>
> it was actually my post, and the website was mainly about silage. I posted
> several others describing similar inventions for hay cutting. These grass
> fields seem to provide a lot of cover for wildlife, they have many times
> higher density of nesting birds in particular than wheat/corn/soy crop
> fields.
Why would silage, or hay for that matter, have "many times higher density of
wildlife"?
> On the other hand, they are not ploughed and sprayed,
Is that the answer to my question? In that case, silage/hay would appear to be
more animal-friendly than wheat/corn/soy crops.
> and might
> have no profitable use if not used for animals.
Not only no profitable use, no use to humans at all.
Alex
I don't know the reason, it seems to be the case though; probably *icides
and ploughing
>> On the other hand, they are not ploughed and sprayed,
>
>Is that the answer to my question? In that case, silage/hay would appear to be
>more animal-friendly than wheat/corn/soy crops.
>
yes, just as rice farms are. It's a sort of conundrum, obviously the more
'animal-friendly' environment will tend to allow more CDs.
you may not have considered silage effluent as a source of farm pollution.
>> and might
>> have no profitable use if not used for animals.
>
>Not only no profitable use, no use to humans at all.
>
they are useful for wildlife conservation. The EU pays farmers to take land
out of production
Dutch
Of course, most are killed by the ploughing, spraying gets the rest, not
much left by harvest time. Either way, we nuke em all pretty much..
> >> On the other hand, they are not ploughed and sprayed,
> >
> >Is that the answer to my question? In that case, silage/hay would appear
to be
> >more animal-friendly than wheat/corn/soy crops.
> >
> yes, just as rice farms are. It's a sort of conundrum, obviously the more
> 'animal-friendly' environment will tend to allow more CDs.
> you may not have considered silage effluent as a source of farm pollution.
The "animal friendliness" is an illusion then, just as in EVism.
> >> and might
> >> have no profitable use if not used for animals.
> >
> >Not only no profitable use, no use to humans at all.
> >
> they are useful for wildlife conservation. The EU pays farmers to take
land
> out of production
One might argue that the most earth/animal friendly way to raise food is to
hunt grazing animals. Leave the ground, don't dig it up.
[..]