The 'vegan' shuffle

[George Plimpton]

I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.

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

This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.

[Dutch]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:-8Gdnf9aJOHb7dPS...@giganews.com...

That is an excellent blog. Too bad the formatting in the comments section is
so messed up.

[George Plimpton]

It is a good blog, isn't it?

I think that formatting is due to the way that site has implemented the
commenting technology. A newspaper with which I have some familiarity
uses what appears to be the same technology for its comments, and they
don't seem to have that problem. See the comments following this story:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4300809/monkees-singer-davy-jones-dies.html

[George Plimpton]

On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:

> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?

Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.

[dh]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:

>"veganism" is not a reliable means

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

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

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

[George Plimpton]

On 3/1/2012 2:46 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
>> "veganism" is not a reliable means
>
> · Vegans contribute to the

Shut up, Fuckwit.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Show us some photographic proof of all the millions of animals killed
by grain farming, Gooberdoodle.

[Rupert]

On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
> >> again to share here.
>

> >>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-fo...

>
> >> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
> >> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals.  I really like the
> >> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle."  By that, he means the
> >> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
> >> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
> >> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
> >> either one.
>
> > Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?
>
> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.

Why not?

[Rupert]

You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.

If you were able to provide evidence for it, you would. One can only
conclude that you are making the claim in the absence of any real
evidence.

[George Plimpton]

How would it?

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?

Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.

There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.

Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence. You have to make a wholly
implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice. Now
I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef. You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
believe it.

[Rupert]

Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering. Also, most animal products require more collateral
deaths from plant-based agriculture in order to produce the same
amount of protein than would be required by simply growing plant-based
food and feeding it directly to humans.

Therefore, it would seem to be a pretty good rule of thumb that
someone who only buys the products of plant-based agriculture is
likely to be requiring significantly less suffering and premature
death in order to produce the food they eat than someone who eats
animal products.

[Rupert]

I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>
> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals.  There
> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>
> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence.  You have to make a wholly
> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.

I never said anything about rice.

But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

>  Now
> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> believe, because I know:  you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> CDs than the beef.

No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.

(I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)

In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
tofu.

>  You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
> believe it.

I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
sufficient information.

Suppose I wanted to go about buying some beef which had a smaller CD
count per serving than a typical calorically equivalent serving of
rice. How exactly would you suggest I go about doing that, given that
I live in the European Union at the moment? How would I be sure that
the beef was not partially grain-fed?

[George Plimpton]

On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
>>>>>> again to share here.
>>
>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-fo...
>>
>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
>>>>>> either one.
>>
>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?
>>
>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.
>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> How would it?
>
> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
> of suffering.

Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat. You know nothing about it.

Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.

[Rupert]

I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.

> You know nothing about it.
>

That's not true.

> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
> farmed orange?  Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
> just state it, right now.

Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.

[George Plimpton]

But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.

>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>>
>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>>
>> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence. You have to make a wholly
>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
> I never said anything about rice.

Fuck off.

> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.

>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>> CDs than the beef.
>
> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> evidence one way or the other.

No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.

>
> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)

Obviously.

>
> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
> tofu.

Fine.

>> You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
>> believe it.
>
> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
> sufficient information.

That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.

[Rupert]

I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area. Probably a lot of deaths would be caused by
farming one hectare of rice, yes. But I don't know how many servings
of rice that would produce. You would need to do some calculations
before you had any real idea.

If you think you have some idea, then why don't you just tell me the
calculations you made? I don't see how you could have any idea unless
you've done some calculations.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
> >> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
> >> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
> >> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
> >> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
> >> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>
> >> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
> >> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals.  There
> >> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
> >> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>
> >> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence.  You have to make a wholly
> >> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> >> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
> > I never said anything about rice.
>
> Fuck off.
>

You fuck off, you pointless waste of space.

My remark was correct: I never said anything about rice.

> > But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> > calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>
> You ought to have.  If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.
>

Wrong.

If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea. You can't have just magically pulled it out of thin air,
there must have been some process of reasoning that led to it.

> >>  Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >> believe, because I know:  you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >> CDs than the beef.
>
> > No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> > evidence one way or the other.
>
> No, that's false.  You do not lack any belief one way or another.  We
> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
> agriculture kills animals.  You have *some* sense as to what might be a
> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.
>

Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.

If you think you know, then just bring on the evidence.

>
>
> > (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
> > cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)
>
> Obviously.
>
>
>
> > In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
> > tofu.
>
> Fine.
>
> >>   You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
> >> believe it.
>
> > I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
> > sufficient information.
>
> That's false.  You have information on what might be plausible numbers.

No, I don't.

If you do, then by all means tell me more.

[George Plimpton]

We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you fuckwit. The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.

>> You know nothing about it.
>>
>
> That's not true.

It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.

>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
>> just state it, right now.
>
> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.

Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. It's all about your
self-image rather than about any real consideration for reducing animal
harm.

[George Plimpton]

That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.

>>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
>>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
>>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
>>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
>>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
>>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>>
>>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
>>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
>>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
>>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>>
>>>> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence. You have to make a wholly
>>>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>>>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>>
>>> I never said anything about rice.
>>
>> Fuck off.
>>
>
> You fuck off,

No, you fuck off, you little prick.

>>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
>>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>>
>> You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No - right.

> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
> this idea.

I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.

>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>>>> CDs than the beef.
>>
>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>>> evidence one way or the other.
>>
>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.
>>
>
> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
> rice and grass-fed beef.

Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
comparison. Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
comparison is still many-to-none.

>>
>>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
>>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)
>>
>> Obviously.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
>>> tofu.
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>>>> You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
>>>> believe it.
>>
>>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
>>> sufficient information.
>>
>> That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.
>
> No, I don't.

You do.

> If you do, then by all means tell me more.

Already done.

[Rupert]

I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.

> >>   You know nothing about it.
>
> > That's not true.
>
> It is true.  You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
> causes more animal harm.  You don't know anything about the amount of
> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.
>

I know something. Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.
Also, almost all animal products involve additional suffering on
factory farms. So I have good reason to think that cutting out animal
products is a good rule of thumb if I want to reduce the amount of
suffering required in order to produce my diet.

It's difficult to get more detailed information than that. I have
already invested some time and energy into trying to acquire more
detailed information and found it unproductive. I have no reason to
think that investing further time and energy into trying to get more
detailed information would enable me to achieve a substantial further
reduction in the amount of suffering required to produce my diet. So,
from the point of view of minimising the amount of suffering required
to produce my diet (short of extreme measures such as committing
suicide or dropping out of technological civilisation and joining and
commune) it is rational for me to stick with the rule of thumb "be
vegan".

> >> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
> >> farmed orange?  Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
> >> just state it, right now.
>
> > Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>
> Yes, obviously - my whole point.  You don't know, and more to the point,
> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.

I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. If I had
good reason to think that I could find out easily enough and that it
would have a significant bearing on the amount of suffering required
in order to produce my food, then I would be motivated to find out.
But that is not the case, so I have no especially good reason to worry
about the issue.

>  It's all about your
> self-image rather than about any real consideration for reducing animal
> harm.

Nonsense.

[Rupert]

I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out. That's why I asked David Harrison if he actually had any
evidence about the matter. I showed an interest. So it's nonsense to
say that I don't care to know. I would be interested in knowing. If
you think that you have reliable information about the matter then by
all means share it.

I don't have any gut feeling for how a serving of grass-fed beef
compares with a calorically equivalent serving of rice, and I don't
see how you could reasonably expect me to have an opinion about the
matter. If you think you can offer some kind of rational foundation
for having an opinion about the matter, then let's hear it.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
> >>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
> >>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
> >>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
> >>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
> >>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>
> >>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
> >>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals.  There
> >>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
> >>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>
> >>>> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence.  You have to make a wholly
> >>>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> >>>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
> >>> I never said anything about rice.
>
> >> Fuck off.
>
> > You fuck off,
>
> No, you fuck off, you little prick.
>

Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus.

> >>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> >>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>
> >> You ought to have.  If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No - right.
>

Actually, you were wrong again, Ball, sorry.

> > If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
> > this idea.
>
> I have done.  I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.
>

So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?
What do you mean by "many" anyway? If you think you're in a position
to actually offer a range of numbers then why don't you just do it.

> >>>>   Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >>>> believe, because I know:  you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >>>> CDs than the beef.
>
> >>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >>> evidence one way or the other.
>
> >> No, that's false.  You do not lack any belief one way or another.  We
> >> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
> >> agriculture kills animals.  You have *some* sense as to what might be a
> >> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.
>
> > Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
> > rice and grass-fed beef.
>
> Bullshit.  As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,

How many? Give me a range.

> versus
> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef.  You can do the
> comparison.

No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison. If you think you have some reliable estimates for
ranges of numbers then tell me what they are.

> Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
> comparison is still many-to-none.
>

I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway. The
farmers still need to kill predators to protect the cattle.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
> >>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)
>
> >> Obviously.
>
> >>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
> >>> tofu.
>
> >> Fine.
>
> >>>>    You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
> >>>> believe it.
>
> >>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
> >>> sufficient information.
>
> >> That's false.  You have information on what might be plausible numbers.
>
> > No, I don't.
>
> You do.
>

Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?

> > If you do, then by all means tell me more.
>
> Already done.

Liar.

[George Plimpton]

I have done, numerous times.

>>>> You know nothing about it.
>>
>>> That's not true.
>>
>> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
>> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.
>>
>
> I know something.

You don't know anything. You've already admitted to Fuckwit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.

> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.

No, you don't know that, because you have no fucking idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.

>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
>>>> just state it, right now.
>>
>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>>
>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>
> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.

You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.

[George Plimpton]

You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
about knowing the answer, period. You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.

>>
>>
>>>>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
>>>>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
>>>>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
>>>>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
>>>>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
>>>>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>>
>>>>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
>>>>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
>>>>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
>>>>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>>
>>>>>> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence. You have to make a wholly
>>>>>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>>>>>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>>
>>>>> I never said anything about rice.
>>
>>>> Fuck off.
>>
>>> You fuck off,
>>
>> No, you fuck off, you little prick.
>>
>
> Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus.

Go suck the green festering flesh of your mother's cunt. Oh, wait - you
already did that, which is why you're psychotic.

>>>>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
>>>>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>>
>>>> You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> No - right.
>>
>
> Actually,

Actually, I was right, once again.

>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
>>> this idea.
>>
>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.
>>
>
> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?

Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.

>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>>>>>> CDs than the beef.
>>
>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>>>>> evidence one way or the other.
>>
>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.
>>
>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
>>> rice and grass-fed beef.
>>
>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,
>
> How many? Give me a range.

According to diderot, many thousands.

>
>> versus
>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
>> comparison.
>
> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
> the comparison.

You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.

>> Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
>> comparison is still many-to-none.
>>
>
> I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway.

Plausibly, it does. A steer wanders of rangeland feeding until it's old
enough and big enough to slaughter. How, plausibly, would that steer
cause any CDs by grazing?

>>
>>>>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
>>>>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)
>>
>>>> Obviously.
>>
>>>>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
>>>>> tofu.
>>
>>>> Fine.
>>
>>>>>> You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
>>>>>> believe it.
>>
>>>>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
>>>>> sufficient information.
>>
>>>> That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.
>>
>>> No, I don't.
>>
>> You do.
>>
>
> Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?

Why, yes, actually.

[Rupert]

Really?

> >>>>    You know nothing about it.
>
> >>> That's not true.
>
> >> It is true.  You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
> >> causes more animal harm.  You don't know anything about the amount of
> >> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.
>
> > I know something.
>
> You don't know anything.

Wrong.

>  You've already admitted to Fuckwit you have no
> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
> example.
>

Yes, that is true.

> > Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
> > required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.
>
> No, you don't know that, because you have no fucking idea how many CDs
> are incurred by either one.
>

Yes, I do know that. Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown in order to produce a calorically equivalent
serving than plant food products.

> >>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
> >>>> farmed orange?  Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
> >>>> just state it, right now.
>
> >>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>
> >> Yes, obviously - my whole point.  You don't know, and more to the point,
> >> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>
> > I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.
>
> You don't care.  That's all we needed to know.  Concession noted.

I didn't concede anything. You dishonestly snipped what I wrote.

[George Plimpton]

Yes, and you know it already, too.

>>>>>> You know nothing about it.
>>
>>>>> That's not true.
>>
>>>> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
>>>> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.
>>
>>> I know something.
>>
>> You don't know anything.
>
> Wrong.

No, right.

>> You've already admitted to Fuckwit you have no
>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
>> example.
>>
>
> Yes, that is true.

So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.

>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.
>>
>> No, you don't know that, because you have no fucking idea how many CDs
>> are incurred by either one.
>>
>
> Yes, I do know that.

No, you don't.

> Because almost all animal products require *more*
> plant food to be grown

No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.

>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
>>>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
>>>>>> just state it, right now.
>>
>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>>
>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>>
>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.
>>
>> You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.
>
> I didn't concede anything.

You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.

[Rupert]

How interesting.

> >>>>>>     You know nothing about it.
>
> >>>>> That's not true.
>
> >>>> It is true.  You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
> >>>> causes more animal harm.  You don't know anything about the amount of
> >>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.
>
> >>> I know something.
>
> >> You don't know anything.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, right.
>
> >>   You've already admitted to Fuckwit you have no
> >> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
> >> example.
>
> > Yes, that is true.
>
> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
> against you.  You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
> case crushes you.
>

You have not made any "plausibility case". To do that you would have
to actually argue the point instead of just making assertions.

I can make a comparison between plant foods and most animal foods,
without knowing the collateral death rates for plant foods, for
obvious reasons which I have already given.

> >>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
> >>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.
>
> >> No, you don't know that, because you have no fucking idea how many CDs
> >> are incurred by either one.
>
> > Yes, I do know that.
>
> No, you don't.
>
> > Because almost all animal products require *more*
> > plant food to be grown
>
> No.  Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
> food to be grown.
>

This is false. It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.

> >>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
> >>>>>> farmed orange?  Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
> >>>>>> just state it, right now.
>
> >>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>
> >>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point.  You don't know, and more to the point,
> >>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>
> >>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.
>
> >> You don't care.  That's all we needed to know.  Concession noted.
>
> > I didn't concede anything.
>
> You sure did.  You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.

No, I didn't.

[Rupert]

False.

>  You don't care to know *which*
> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
> claim to be "minimizing".  You don't care about any of it.  You just
> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.
>

You're a fool.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
> >>>>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
> >>>>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
> >>>>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
> >>>>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
> >>>>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>
> >>>>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
> >>>>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals.  There
> >>>>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
> >>>>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>
> >>>>>> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence.  You have to make a wholly
> >>>>>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> >>>>>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
> >>>>> I never said anything about rice.
>
> >>>> Fuck off.
>
> >>> You fuck off,
>
> >> No, you fuck off, you little prick.
>
> > Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus.
>
> Go suck the green festering flesh of your mother's cunt.  Oh, wait - you
> already did that, which is why you're psychotic.
>

You have a weird imagination.

> >>>>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> >>>>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>
> >>>> You ought to have.  If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> No - right.
>
> > Actually,
>
> Actually, I was right, once again.
>

Much joy may this belief bring you.

> >>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
> >>> this idea.
>
> >> I have done.  I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
> >> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
> >> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.
>
> > So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?
>
> Easily:  if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.
>

It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.

Is it your opinion that I can buy beef that I can be sure is 100%
grass-fed in the European Union?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>    Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >>>>>> believe, because I know:  you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >>>>>> CDs than the beef.
>
> >>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >>>>> evidence one way or the other.
>
> >>>> No, that's false.  You do not lack any belief one way or another.  We
> >>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
> >>>> agriculture kills animals.  You have *some* sense as to what might be a
> >>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.
>
> >>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
> >>> rice and grass-fed beef.
>
> >> Bullshit.  As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
> >> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,
>
> > How many? Give me a range.
>
> According to diderot, many thousands.
>

So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>
>
> >> versus
> >> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef.  You can do the
> >> comparison.
>
> > No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
> > the comparison.
>
> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
> products cause many.
>

"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

> >> Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
> >> comparison is still many-to-none.
>
> > I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway.
>
> Plausibly, it does.  A steer wanders of rangeland feeding until it's old
> enough and big enough to slaughter.  How, plausibly, would that steer
> cause any CDs by grazing?
>

You snipped a sentence which has a bearing on your question.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
> >>>>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)
>
> >>>> Obviously.
>
> >>>>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
> >>>>> tofu.
>
> >>>> Fine.
>
> >>>>>>     You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
> >>>>>> believe it.
>
> >>>>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
> >>>>> sufficient information.
>
> >>>> That's false.  You have information on what might be plausible numbers.
>
> >>> No, I don't.
>
> >> You do.
>
> > Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?
>
> Why, yes, actually.

So what are the plausible numbers?

[George Plimpton]

No, it's actually quite basic.

>>>>>>>> You know nothing about it.
>>
>>>>>>> That's not true.
>>
>>>>>> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
>>>>>> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
>>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.
>>
>>>>> I know something.
>>
>>>> You don't know anything.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> No, right.
>>
>>>> You've already admitted to Fuckwit you have no
>>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
>>>> example.
>>
>>> Yes, that is true.
>>
>> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
>> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
>> against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
>> case crushes you.
>>
>
> You have not made any "plausibility case".

I have.

>>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
>>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.
>>
>>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no fucking idea how many CDs
>>>> are incurred by either one.
>>
>>> Yes, I do know that.
>>
>> No, you don't.
>>
>>> Because almost all animal products require *more*
>>> plant food to be grown
>>
>> No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
>> food to be grown.
>>
>
> This is false.

It's not false.

> It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
> pound of pork.

Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.

But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
results are radically different.

If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which
humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food
production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
significant net gain.

Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar. They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.

>
>>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
>>>>>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
>>>>>>>> just state it, right now.
>>
>>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
>>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>>
>>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.
>>
>>>> You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.
>>
>>> I didn't concede anything.
>>
>> You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.
>
> No, I didn't.

You did, of course.

[George Plimpton]

Nope - true.

>> You don't care to know *which*
>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
>> claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.
>>
>
> You're a fool.

Concession noted and accepted.

>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
>>>>> this idea.
>>
>>>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.
>>
>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?
>>
>> Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.
>>
>
> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
> involve less suffering and premature death.

It does.

>>>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef.
>>
>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other.
>>
>>>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.
>>
>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef.
>>
>>>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,
>>
>>> How many? Give me a range.
>>
>> According to diderot, many thousands.
>>
>
> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?
>
>>
>>
>>>> versus
>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
>>>> comparison.
>>
>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
>>> the comparison.
>>
>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
>> products cause many.
>>
>
> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

[Mr.Smartypants]

What are they being fed, Gooberdoodle?

[Rupert]

Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>      You know nothing about it.
>
> >>>>>>> That's not true.
>
> >>>>>> It is true.  You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
> >>>>>> causes more animal harm.  You don't know anything about the amount of
> >>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.
>
> >>>>> I know something.
>
> >>>> You don't know anything.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> No, right.
>
> >>>>    You've already admitted to Fuckwit you have no
> >>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
> >>>> example.
>
> >>> Yes, that is true.
>
> >> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
> >> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
> >> against you.  You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
> >> case crushes you.
>
> > You have not made any "plausibility case".
>
> I have.
>

What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"?

Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason
to think that that is false.

> They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.
>

It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
still be required in order to produce the food.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
> >>>>>>>> farmed orange?  Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
> >>>>>>>> just state it, right now.
>
> >>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>
> >>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point.  You don't know, and more to the point,
> >>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>
> >>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.
>
> >>>> You don't care.  That's all we needed to know.  Concession noted.
>
> >>> I didn't concede anything.
>
> >> You sure did.  You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.
>
> > No, I didn't.
>
> You did, of course.

So you appear to believe for some strange reason.

[Rupert]

You appear to have lost touch with reality.

And how exactly do I know that?

[George Plimpton]

You did, of course. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to
know. You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions.

[George Plimpton]

Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
sorty of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.

[Rupert]

I see.

It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.

[Rupert]

[George Plimpton]

It is false. The conversion ratio is not of protein into protein, you
fucking liar.

>>>> They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.
>>
>>> It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
>>> relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
>>> having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
>>> about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
>>> still be required in order to produce the food.

We're talking about the environmental effects, you sleazy fat fuck.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
>>>>>>>>>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
>>>>>>>>>>>> just state it, right now.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
>>>>>>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.
>>
>>>>>>>> You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.
>>
>>>>>>> I didn't concede anything.
>>
>>>>>> You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.
>>
>>>>> No, I didn't.
>>
>>>> You did, of course.
>>
>>> So you appear to believe
>>
>> You did, of course. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to
>> know. You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions.
>
> Much joy may this belief bring you.

It is the truth.

[George Plimpton]

>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.
>>
>
> I see.

We all see it.

It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

[Rupert]

It's not false.

> >>>>    They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.
>
> >>> It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
> >>> relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
> >>> having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
> >>> about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
> >>> still be required in order to produce the food.
>
> We're talking about the environmental effects, you sleazy fat fuck.
>

Actually, the original context was that we were talking about CDs. I
never said anything about the environmental effects.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
> >>>>>>>>>>>> farmed orange?  Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> just state it, right now.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point.  You don't know, and more to the point,
> >>>>>>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.
>
> >>>>>>>> You don't care.  That's all we needed to know.  Concession noted.
>
> >>>>>>> I didn't concede anything.
>
> >>>>>> You sure did.  You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.
>
> >>>>> No, I didn't.
>
> >>>> You did, of course.
>
> >>> So you appear to believe
>
> >> You did, of course.  You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to
> >> know.  You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions.
>
> > Much joy may this belief bring you.
>
> It is the truth.

Where did I concede that I don't know and don't want to know?

[Rupert]

You have all sorts of very interesting insights, Ball.

So you appear to believe.

[George Plimpton]

These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.

Because it is.

[Rupert]

So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
with reality?

You reckon?

[George Plimpton]

Guaranteed.

[Rupert]

How do you know?

[George Plimpton]

I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Tell him what hogs eat, Goober.

[Rupert]

I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish. If you
think I have some way of knowing I am happy to listen, but you
obviously do not wish to offer any arguments. I don't know why you
think you have any resaon to believe that I am not sincere in asking
you to offer arguments.

[George Plimpton]

You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.

[Glen]

On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

snip

>>
>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>
> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent

> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> wild-caught fish causes none.

Eating meat causes the death of animals. There's no getting away
from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan. There's
only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> snip
>>>
>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>
>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>
> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
the deaths of animals, too.

> There's no getting away
> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

"Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals. Furthermore,
organic or "sustainable" farming absolutely depends on animal manure,
and that manure only exists because of animal husbandry.

So, vegetable production unquestionably causes animal suffering and
death, and organic or "sustainable" vegetable production depends on the
manure from animals that exist in order to be exploited for human use.
"vegan" are fully implicated in animal suffering and death.

> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
killed, in order to produce your food.

> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

No, I want "vegans" to acknowledge that their belief system is flawed
beyond salvage. "veganism" is predicated on illogical nonsense.

[dh]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

>If you were able to provide evidence for it, you would. One can only
>conclude that you are making the claim in the absence of any real
>evidence.

If we factor in all by-products and divide the deaths among them TOO it
comes out to a much smaller number than if we don't. If we don't but only factor
in servings of human quality food as we SHOULD, then the number per serving goes
up for food and becomes N/A for things made from byproducts, but the number per
serving still stays at probably around 100 times less. How many deaths per
serving of tofu did you estimate, do you remember?

>> Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

[Glen]

On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>> snip
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>
>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>
>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>
> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
> the deaths of animals, too.

That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>> There's no getting away
>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>
> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
>
> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
> killed, in order to produce your food.

No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty

and death on your plate.

>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>
> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>
> No

Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."
The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
not a fact at all.

If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
and death, like it does, I would still drive. The difference between
doing something which always causes death and something which
only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
admit to it because your guilt stops you.

[dh]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:
>>
>> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence.  You have to make a wholly
>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
>I never said anything about rice.

We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
produce none.

>But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
>calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!

>>  Now
>> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>> believe, because I know:  you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>> CDs than the beef.
>
>No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>evidence one way or the other.

In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
far along with it, doctor?

>(I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
>cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)

Start with that.

>In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
>tofu.

It looks like we're on rice too now. Rice is worse then either. It's
probably the worst of all. What could be worse? How?

>>  You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
>> believe it.
>
>I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
>sufficient information.

Sometimes beef will involve more and sometimes the soy will.

>Suppose I wanted to go about buying some beef which had a smaller CD
>count per serving than a typical calorically equivalent serving of
>rice. How exactly would you suggest I go about doing that, given that
>I live in the European Union at the moment? How would I be sure that
>the beef was not partially grain-fed?

Go inquire from some cattle farmers in the area. If they don't have any to
sell you, or know anyone who does, they could still help you move in the
direction of finding someone who does know. While you're around the cattle see
if the farmer will let you observe them a little bit, and if so see if you can
appreciate that some or all of them appear to have lives of positive value, or
if you see some you feel do and some you feel don't maybe then you could learn
to appreciate the distinction. That is if you want to see it first hand as you
SHOULD! If there are any grass raised dairys in the area you would almost
certainly do better to begin with that, and it's better than beef anyway
ethically. So a great opportunity for you is to drop by a dairy farm probably in
the evening around 4 or 5 or in the morning when there are people around
milking, and ask them if any dairies in the area are grass raised. Also if there
is some sort of agricultural department in your area or someplace not too far
away you should call them and they might be able to tell you where to get grass
raised animal products and free range eggs too. If you could go to a battery
farm and ask them where to get cage free eggs, and see if they would let you
look at the birds to see what you think, then go to the cage free place or a
place where they raise the parents of either broilers or layers (because the
parents are kept cage free for better breeding) and see what you think. If you
do that successfully even you might learn to appreciate a distinction you as yet
claim to be unable to.

[Dutch]

"Glen" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:jj33ef$rbq$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>
>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>
>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>
>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>> the deaths of animals, too.
>
> That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
> it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>
>>> There's no getting away
>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>
>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>
> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

So what? Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?

>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
>>
>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>
> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
> and death on your plate.

That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
food. The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
make non-vegans feel guilty. It doesn't work by the way, it just makes you
look like a huge idiot.

>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>
>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>
> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

It is a fact. Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
studies done on that.

>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>
>> No
>
> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters

How did it make you feel when you used that term? Do you think it made me
feel guilty?

> trying to
> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers,

We are all killers of animals, full stop. I'm not saying that defend any
cruelty, I'm saying it to try and wake you out of your sleepwalking.

> so leave me alone."
> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
> not a fact at all.

They are a fact.

> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
> drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

You are misconstruing "plausible", it doesn't mean a slim possibility.
Driving your car through a busy schoolyard is analogous to driving a
harvester through a field of grain or rice.

The difference between
> doing something which always causes death and something which
> only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
> admit to it because your guilt stops you.

The food you eat always causes misery and death to animals. Grow up and deal
with it and stop trying to shift the burden of guilt onto others.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>
>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>
>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>
>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>> the deaths of animals, too.
>
> That isn't true.

It *is* true.

> It /may/ cause some deaths

It does.

> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

It is a fact. Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

As many? You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>>> There's no getting away
>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>
>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>
> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
that be?

>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
>>
>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>
> No. I don't believe you.

You just don't *want* to believe it. Pretty interesting - Woopert has
been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
course, and here you are to prove him wrong.

> You're only saying that because you
> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
> and death on your plate.

No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
free 'lifestyle'." "veganism is all about sanctimonious
self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>
>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>
> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
animals.

By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
is already dead.

>
>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>
>> No
>
> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
> not a fact at all.

No, the deaths you cause are a fact. When I have written of
plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>
> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
> drive.

Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
minute?

> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
it. You're a filthy hypocrite.

[Glen]

On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>
>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>
>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>
>> That isn't true.
>
> It *is* true.

No it isn't. Not in every case. It's a plausible effect but it isn't a
certain fact that vegetarian food causes animal deaths. You want
to make it a fact to make your guilt go away.

>> It /may/ cause some deaths
>
> It does.

No it doesn't. Evidence please.

>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>
> It is a fact.

It's *your* fact. A /fact/ that needs evidence to support it.

>Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.
Do your own work and don't blame anyone but yourself when
you come back empty handed.

>
>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>
> As many?

Numbers are irrelevant. Kill one man and you're a murderer.
Kill a whole battalion and you're a hero. Kill every man and
you're a god.

>You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

I have no need to verify your irrelevancies. You do.

>>>> There's no getting away
>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>
>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>
>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>
> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
> that be?

Intent. Look it up.

>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
>>>
>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>
>> No. I don't believe you.
>
> You just don't *want* to believe it.

I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening. I
also know as a fact that at least one animal was harmed and
killed mercilessly to produce the rotting corpse you ate today.

Pretty interesting - Woopert has
> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>

I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
production causes it. I don't deny that some people are occasionally
killed in road incidents. What I would reject would be the claim that
all road trips kill people.

>
>> You're only saying that because you
>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>> and death on your plate.
>
> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
> free 'lifestyle'."

But it *IS* cruelty free on my part. If any animals are killed they
aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.

"veganism is all about sanctimonious
> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
convictions if that's what you mean. Yes. Meat eating is all about
greed and not having the strength to admit it, and that alone makes

it loathsome and immoral.

>
>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>
>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>
>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>
> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
> animals.

Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
this /fact/ shouldn't it. I'm not just going to take your word on it. I
want facts supported by evidence.

> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
> is already dead.

You killed it. You want to pretend you didn't because your guilt
would suffocating you if you admitted it. You live in a delusion.

>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."
>
> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

No but yours is. You don't believe you're responsible for the deaths
you cause and yet you want vegans to believe they're responsible
for the deaths they don't cause. Your position is repulsive because
it's a lie.

>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>> not a fact at all.
>
> No, the deaths you cause are a fact.

Evidence. You need evidence to support a fact. If you don't produce
evidence to support it I cannot accept it as fact.

>When I have written of
> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

I know what you wrote, and that wasn't it.

>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>> drive.
>
> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
> minute?

I don't believe that. You obviously do. So how does it feel to be
a murderer George? Why are you still emitting carbon while under
the understanding that it kills animals and no doubt people?

>
>> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.
>
> Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
> it. You're a filthy hypocrite.

You're a murderer. Admit that you're a murderer. Denounce human
rights from the highest rooftop, you filthy hypocrite.

[Glen]

On 05/03/2012 20:18, Dutch wrote:
> "Glen"<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:jj33ef$rbq$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>
>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>
>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>
>> That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
>> it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>
>>>> There's no getting away
>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>
>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>
>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>
> So what?

So that means a lot to me. I don't want to kill farm animals. The
surest way to stop killing them is to stop eating them.

>Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?

No.

>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
>>>
>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>
>> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>> and death on your plate.
>
> That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
> food.

Yes he does but he won't admit it. He won't admit anything. He even
refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.

"By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of

animals - the meat is already dead." - George

>The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
> make non-vegans feel guilty.

But you *ARE* guilty. You can't escape that guilt.

> It doesn't work by the way

I think it does.

>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>
>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>
>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>
> It is a fact.

No it isn't.

>Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
> fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
> used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
> studies done on that.

There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.
It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.

>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters
>
> How did it make you feel when you used that term? Do you think it made me
> feel guilty?

Yes but you're already racked with it anyway. You deserve it.

>> trying to
>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers,
>
> We are all killers of animals, full stop.

That proves my point. But my response is no, we are not all killers.

>I'm not saying that defend any
> cruelty,

Yes you are. Of course you are. You feed off the misery, pain,
blood and death of peaceful animals. You do it because you've
told yourself it's alright to do it because the animal can never
criticise you. You're now trying to get away from my criticism
by telling me I'm not in a position to criticise you because I'm
a killer as well. Well tough shit. I'm not a dumb animal and
I *DO* criticise you.

>> so leave me alone."
>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>> not a fact at all.
>
> They are a fact.

Not until it's supported by evidence.

>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>> drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.
>
> You are misconstruing "plausible"

No I'm not.
plausible
1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy
of approval or acceptance
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible

> The difference between
>> doing something which always causes death and something which
>> only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
>> admit to it because your guilt stops you.
>
> The food you eat always causes misery and death to animals.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>>
>>> That isn't true.
>>
>> It *is* true.
>
> No it isn't.

It is.

> Not in every case. It's a plausible effect but it isn't a
> certain fact that vegetarian food causes animal deaths. You want
> to make it a fact to make your guilt go away.

No, that's not the reason. I've told you the reason: to get you off
your phony moral pedestal.

>>> It /may/ cause some deaths
>>
>> It does.
>
> No it doesn't.

It does.

>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>>
>> It is a fact.
>
> It's *your* fact.

It's a fact. It's a fact that is conceded by any "vegan" who has
seriously looked at it.

>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
>
> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.

You have made no serious effort to verify that the foods you eat cause
no death. You go to absurd, obscene lengths to ensure there isn't one
molecule of animal bits in your food - why won't you do *ANYTHING* to
ensure that your vegetables don't cause any death? You've done
*nothing* to ensure that.

>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>
>> As many?
>
> Numbers are irrelevant.

They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

You didn't even read the article I linked to start the thread, did you?
You should read it:
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one

>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
>
> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.

You absolutely have a requirement to verify your claims. You claim your
diet doesn't cause any animal death. Prove it.

>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>
>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>
>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>>
>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>> that be?
>
> Intent.

Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime. Injuring or killing people
due to reckless endangerment and willful disregard for safety is a
crime. That's exactly what happens when farmers slaughter animals of
the field in the course of vegetable farming.

"vegans" claim they cause no harm to animals through their diets.
That's false.

>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>> food.
>>>>
>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>
>>> No. I don't believe you.
>>
>> You just don't *want* to believe it.
>
> I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
> order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening.

You do *not* know that. Saying that you do is a lie.

>> Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>
> I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
> vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
> production causes it.

*Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production, including the
vegetables you eat. You don't even have any idea within the broad
category of vegetables which ones cause a lot of death and which ones
cause not so much. You can't be bothered. It isn't about the animals
at all - it's about you and your convenience and your casual,
unwarranted assumption of ethical superiority. In fact, your ethics is
shit.

>>> You're only saying that because you
>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>> and death on your plate.
>>
>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
>> free 'lifestyle'."
>
> But it *IS* cruelty free on my part.

No, it isn't. The fact you don't personally kill any animals is
irrelevant. Animals die to put food on your plate. *I* don't kill the
animals I eat, either, so I'm no more "cruel" than you are.

> If any animals are killed they
> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.

Of course I can. I don't kill any animals.

The simple fact is, you commission the deaths of animals. You willingly
and cheerfully buy food from farmers who kill animals with no concern at
all.

>
>
>> "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.
>
> I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
> convictions

You don't have any convictions. You are congratulating yourself for
following a morally empty rule. It's as morally empty as "chew 12 times
before swallowing." It's just a rule - no ethics behind it.

>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>
>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>
>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>
>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>> animals.
>
> Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
> this /fact/ shouldn't it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

From a former rice farmer:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/BLidk7BYAOo/GOmWEfsbmhAJ

>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
>> is already dead.
>
> You killed it.

I didn't. Someone in a slaughterhouse did it.

> You want to pretend you didn't because your guilt
> would suffocating you if you admitted it.

Nope, no guilt. I've told you several times: I'm not trying to make
you feel guilty for the animal deaths you cause, and I'm not trying to
expiate any guilt of my own. I'm showing you that your absurd and
sanctimonious self-exaltation isn't warranted.

>
>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>>

>>>> No, I want "vegans" to acknowledge that their belief system is flawed
>>>> beyond salvage. "veganism" is predicated on illogical nonsense.
>>>

>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."
>>
>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.
>
> No but yours is.

It isn't. I don't lie about or try to conceal the deaths my diet
causes, but you do.

> You don't believe you're responsible for the deaths
> you cause

False. I cheerfully acknowledge them (can you guess why?)

> and yet you want vegans to believe they're responsible
> for the deaths they don't cause.

You *do* cause animal deaths. This is not in rational dispute.

>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>> not a fact at all.
>>
>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact.
>
> Evidence.

http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1785156&page=320

See earlier citations. Steven Davis, the professor at Oregon State,
gave reliable estimates for field animal deaths.

>> When I have written of
>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.
>
> I know what you wrote, and that wasn't it.

It was.

>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>> drive.
>>
>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
>> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
>> minute?
>
> I don't believe that.

What don't you believe - that driving your car contributes to global
warming? Don't be an idiot - of course it does!

>>
>>> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.
>>
>> Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
>> it. You're a filthy hypocrite.
>
> You're a murderer.

No, I'm a killer. So are you. But I admit it, while you frantically
and shrilly deny it.

[George Plimpton]

So, if you kill animals and leave the corpses in the field to rot,
that's okay, but eating them is immoral? How does that work?

>
>> Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?
>
> No.

So, why do you keep killing mice?

>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>> food.
>>>>
>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>
>>> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>> and death on your plate.
>>
>> That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
>> food.
>
> Yes he does but he won't admit it.

I do admit it.

> He even refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.

Bullshit. Of course I admit them. What about it?

>
> "By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of
> animals - the meat is already dead." - George

That's correct: the *eating* doesn't cause the deaths. The meat is
already dead long before I buy it.

>> The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
>> make non-vegans feel guilty.
>
> But you *ARE* guilty.

So are you.

> You can't escape that guilt.

Neither can you. The difference is, omnivores admit theirs. "vegans"
fatuously try to deny theirs, so they can continue to propagate the
fiction that they lead "cruelty-free" lives.

>
>> It doesn't work by the way
>
> I think it does.

It doesn't. Animals die so that you can eat. This is not in rational
dispute.

>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>
>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>
>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>
>> It is a fact.
>
> No it isn't.

It is. Animals die in vegetable production.

http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1785156&page=320

>> Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
>> fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
>> used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
>> studies done on that.
>
> There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.

It is a certainty.

> It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.

It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals, and *you* don't
care to know which vegetables cause differing amounts of animal death.
You don't eat any animals, and that's good enough for you, but your
conclusion - that your diet doesn't cause any animals to die - is a lie.

>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters
>>
>> How did it make you feel when you used that term? Do you think it made me
>> feel guilty?
>
> Yes but you're already racked with it anyway. You deserve it.

It didn't make him feel guilty at all.

What your use of the term did was prove your sanctimony, your view of
yourself as morally superior because you don't put animal parts in your
mouth - you leave them to rot in the field.

>>> trying to
>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers,
>>
>> We are all killers of animals, full stop.
>
> That proves my point. But my response is no, we are not all killers.

Yes, "we" are, and that includes you. Your diet causes animal death -
not in rational dispute.

>> I'm not saying that defend any
>> cruelty,
>
> Yes you are.

He's not.

>>> so leave me alone."
>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>> not a fact at all.
>>
>> They are a fact.
>
> Not until it's supported by evidence.

http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1785156&page=320
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-keg/93764-700-lb-mich-black-bear-killed-combine.html

>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>> drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.
>>
>> You are misconstruing "plausible"
>
> No I'm not.

You are.

What is plausible is that a meat-including diet could cause fewer animal
deaths that a typical "vegan" diet. What is a *fact* is that vegetable
agriculture causes animal death.

>> The difference between
>>> doing something which always causes death and something which
>>> only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
>>> admit to it because your guilt stops you.
>>
>> The food you eat always causes misery and death to animals.
>
> I don't believe you.

You are closing your eyes to it, in order to try to sustain the myth of
your moral superiority, but it is nonetheless true.

[George Plimpton]

Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:

[George Plimpton]

http://www.okrangelandswest.okstate.edu/files/wildlife%20pdfs/NREM-5006.pdf

[Rupert]

On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> >>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.
>
> >>>>>>> So you appear to believe.
>
> >>>>>> Because it is.
>
> >>>>> You reckon?
>
> >>>> Guaranteed.
>
> >>> How do you know?
>
> >> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.
>
> > I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> > premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> > compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>
> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> wild-caught fish causes none.

No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.

[Rupert]

I never made that claim about all vegans. I do not claim to know what
proportion of vegans are aware of the collateral deaths issue. However
Derek, at least three of my friends, myself, Peter Singer, Gary
Francione, Joan Dunayer, are examples of vegans who are fully aware of
it. That is all I ever said.

One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
to humans in the future. It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

[Rupert]

On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
> animals.  What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>

He is incorrect.

[Rupert]

On Mar 5, 8:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:
>
> >> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence.  You have to make a wholly
> >> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> >> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
> >I never said anything about rice.
>
>     We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
> the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
> produce none.
>
> >But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> >calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>
>     Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
> difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
> more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!
>
> >>  Now
> >> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >> believe, because I know:  you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >> CDs than the beef.
>
> >No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >evidence one way or the other.
>
>     In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
> far along with it, doctor?
>

If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
should stop making that claim.

[Rupert]

On Mar 5, 8:07 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>

This is false; you obviously lack the capacity to understand why.

> If we don't but only factor
> in servings of human quality food as we SHOULD, then the number per serving goes
> up for food and becomes N/A for things made from byproducts, but the number per
> serving still stays at probably  around 100 times less. How many deaths per
> serving of tofu did you estimate, do you remember?
>

I never gave an estimate for that.

[Glen]

Yes it is. You're racked with guilt.

>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths
>>>
>>> It does.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
> It does.
>
>
>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>>>
>>> It is a fact.
>>
>> It's *your* fact.
>
> It's a fact.

No it's only your baseless fact.

It's a fact that is conceded by any "vegan" who has
> seriously looked at it.
>
>
>>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
>>
>> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.
>
> You have made no serious effort to verify that the foods you eat cause
> no death.

It's your claim that every food I eat causes animal deaths in crop
production. You haven't supported that claim. It's baseless and it's
not my job to support your baseless claims. Do your own work.

>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>>
>>> As many?
>>
>> Numbers are irrelevant.
>
> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
______________________________________________________
Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
to his own method. From Wiki;

[Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:

"...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."

The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law

Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
_____________________________________________________

> You didn't even read the article I linked to start the thread, did you?
> You should read it:
> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one

That's the position of a broken vegan. Not a genuine one.

>>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
>>
>> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.
>
> You absolutely have a requirement to verify your claims. You claim your
> diet doesn't cause any animal death. Prove it.

I never made that claim. I don't deny that /some/ animals die. You claim
that animals die during the production of everything I eat. That's what I
deny and I'll keep denying it until you provide evidence to support your
baseless claim. Are we clear on that now?

>
>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>>
>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>>>
>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>>> that be?
>>
>> Intent.
>
> Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime.

I'm not even guilty of that. Read Derek's post.

>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>>> food.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>>
>>>> No. I don't believe you.
>>>
>>> You just don't *want* to believe it.
>>
>> I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
>> order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening.
>
> You do *not* know that. Saying that you do is a lie.

I live on a farm in the middle of a very large farming community.
It's my father's farm and his father's before him. It's not a proper
working farm any more because he had a stroke about 2 years ago.
My sister and her husband keep some of it going but it's nothing
like it was. We've sold all the machinery and will sell the farm
when he dies. When I say no animals died during the production
of my food it's a fact.

>>> Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>>
>> I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
>> vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
>> production causes it.
>
> *Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production,

Yes, *some* sometimes but not all times.


flushed

>> If any animals are killed they
>> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.
>
> Of course I can. I don't kill any animals.

Yes you do. I don't though. You can't say the same.

> The simple fact is, you commission the deaths of animals.

No you do. I don't.

>>> "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.
>>
>> I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
>> convictions
>
> You don't have any convictions.

Yes I do and I live by them.

You are congratulating yourself for
> following a morally empty rule. It's as morally empty as "chew 12 times
> before swallowing." It's just a rule - no ethics behind it.
>
>
>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>>
>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>>
>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>>
>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>>> animals.
>>
>> Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
>> this /fact/ shouldn't it.
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

Davis' guesswork was debunked years ago. http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf

> From a former rice farmer:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/BLidk7BYAOo/GOmWEfsbmhAJ

I read that /story/ and then read the comments underneath it.
____________________________________________________________
This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay, from a hunter, come book
seller called Robert (Bob) A Sykes. - It has no validity.
________________________________________________________________
"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
are not the high speed machines described in this article.

At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
eagles resting in our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We
see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would
not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com
__________________________________________________________

An elaborate hoax.

<flushed>

[Glen]

I don't kill them.

>>> Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?
>>
>> No.
>
> So, why do you keep killing mice?

I don't.

>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>>> food.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>>
>>>> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>>> and death on your plate.
>>>
>>> That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
>>> food.
>>
>> Yes he does but he won't admit it.
>
> I do admit it.

No you don't. You said that meat eating doesn't cause them
because they're dead already - killed by someone else.

>
>> He even refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.
>
> Bullshit. Of course I admit them. What about it?

They're dead before you eat them and you believe that
takes away your guilt. You won't admit that you killed
them and that you're to blame.

>> "By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of
>> animals - the meat is already dead." - George
>
> That's correct: the *eating* doesn't cause the deaths. The meat is
> already dead long before I buy it.

Then the eating of vegetables doesn't cause any deaths. The
animals are already dead long before I buy my food. You said

it.

>>> The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
>>> make non-vegans feel guilty.
>>
>> But you *ARE* guilty.
>
> So are you.

No. You are.

>> You can't escape that guilt.
>
> Neither can you.

I don't have any guilt to escape from.

>The difference is, omnivores admit theirs.

No they/you say that the animals are dead already before they eat
them. That's not admitting your death count.

> "vegans"
> fatuously try to deny theirs, so they can continue to propagate the
> fiction that they lead "cruelty-free" lives.

There's nothing to deny. Vegans don't kill them.

>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>>
>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>>
>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>>
>>> It is a fact.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> It is. Animals die in vegetable production.
>
> http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1785156&page=320

Yes they do occasionally die but not in the numbers I've seen
reported here.

>>> Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
>>> fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
>>> used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
>>> studies done on that.
>>
>> There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.
>
> It is a certainty.

No that's not true. I don't believe that. The deaths you're talking
about are merely /plausible./ (having an appearance of truth or
reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance) You said
it yourself. You admitted it.

>> It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.
>
> It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals,

I've never denied that they occasionally die. What I deny is
your baseless assertion that animal deaths are involved in
every vegetarian meal I eat.There's a very good chance that
the food I eat has no deaths attached to it at all. You can't
say the same. You *demand* animal deaths at every meal
unless it's a vegetarian one.

<flush>

[Glen]

I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
deny is George's baseless claim that all the food I eat is /contaminated/
with it.

[Rupert]

Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
long as you acknowledge that that's fine.

[Glen]

It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
they /have/ to die. I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
small part of it going without killing animals to produce vegetables
and fruits all year round. If they can do it so can others. I'm not
interested in keeping it going. I just want to get rid of it.

[Rupert]

It's not very realistic to think that food that you buy at the
supermarket would have been produced without causing suffering and
death.

[George Plimpton]

Of course you do. You can't *NOT* know it.

[George Plimpton]

You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
animal deaths. "glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
Correct him, please.

More likely than not, yes.

> It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
> and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
> activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

I never made such a claim.

[George Plimpton]

That's all??? That's the best you can manage?

Well, "glen", there you go. Rupert McCallum, the "smartest 'vegan' in
Usenet" - he has a Ph.D. in mathematics, you know - is telling you that
your "vegan 'lifestyle'" does indeed cause harm to animals; no doubt
about it. You do not live a "cruelty-free 'lifestyle'" by any stretch
of the imagination.

[George Plimpton]

No. You are wrong, again.

>>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths
>>>>
>>>> It does.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>>
>>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>>>>
>>>> It is a fact.
>>>
>>> It's *your* fact.
>>
>> It's a fact.
>
> No it's only

It's a fact, "glen". Rupert has confirmed it for you. Listen to him.

>> It's a fact that is conceded by any "vegan" who has
>> seriously looked at it.

Ask Rupert, "glen".

>>>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
>>>
>>> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.
>>
>> You have made no serious effort to verify that the foods you eat cause
>> no death.
>
> It's your claim that every food I eat causes animal deaths in crop
> production.

It is *your* claim that they don't. Prove it.

>>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>>>
>>>> As many?
>>>
>>> Numbers are irrelevant.
>>
>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>
> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you.

Sorry, you commission the deaths. Not in dispute.

>
>> You didn't even read the article I linked to start the thread, did you?
>> You should read it:
>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>
>
> That's the position of a broken vegan. Not a genuine one.

It's the untenable and fake moral position of *every* "vegan", "glen".
The *fact* of animal collateral deaths in agriculture - CDs - means that
"vegans" are not living a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", as they all begin
by claiming, so they are *not* respecting so-called "animal rights".
The fact that a well-chosen meat-including diet can cause fewer CDs than
most "vegan" diets means they aren't minimizing their harm, so they are
not doing the best they could from a utilitarian perspective.

"glen", my boy, the problem here is that you have been caught out in the
worst possible hypocrisy, and your palpable anger and terror over this
is evidence of crippling cognitive dissonance. You just can't come to
grips with the fact - it is a *FACT*, "glen", my boy - that the easy,
*LAZY* claim you thought you established to moral superiority is deader
than a Texas salad bar.

>>>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
>>>
>>> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.
>>
>> You absolutely have a requirement to verify your claims. You claim your
>> diet doesn't cause any animal death. Prove it.
>
> I never made that claim.

You did, you fucking shit-4-braincell liar. You claimed to have eaten a
specific meal that caused no animal death or suffering:

"I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening."

You do *NOT* know that as a fact, you fucking liar. You bought
commercially produced vegetables and whatever else you ate last night,
and you have no idea how it was produced. You lied.

>>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>>>>
>>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of
>>>> small
>>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>>>> that be?
>>>
>>> Intent.
>>
>> Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime.
>
> I'm not even guilty of that.

You are complicit in it. As much as I like Derek, and I do, he is wrong
about this denial of shared responsibility.

Anyway, why did you bring up "intent" if you're not worried about
vicarious moral responsibility? This has been discussed to death here,
and there has never been a credible refutation of it; "vegans" just deny
it even as they accuse others of it. Of *course* you share moral
responsibility for the CDs caused by your diet, because you *could*
avoid them if you really wanted to do so. You *choose* to incur that
responsibility.

>>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>>>> food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. I don't believe you.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't *want* to believe it.
>>>
>>> I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
>>> order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening.
>>
>> You do *not* know that. Saying that you do is a lie.
>
> I live on a farm in the middle of a very large farming community.

Good for you. You don't grow all your own food. You don't even grow a
major portion of it.

>>>> Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>>>
>>> I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
>>> vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
>>> production causes it.
>>
>> *Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production,
>
> Yes, *some* sometimes but not all times.

Some *ALL* the time.


> flushed

Restored, you sniveling little bitch:

*Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production, including
the vegetables you eat. You don't even have any idea within the
broad category of vegetables which ones cause a lot of death and
which ones cause not so much. You can't be bothered. It isn't
about the animals at all - it's about you and your convenience and
your casual, unwarranted assumption of ethical superiority. In
fact, your ethics is shit.

You *really* don't want to address that, do you, "glen" my boy? You
make *NO* effort to choose, within all "vegan" diets, that which causes
the least harm. No, your smug, sanctimonious self-congratulation for
making the ethically meaningless and purely symbolic gesture of
refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth is all you do. You
start by lying that you are causing no animal deaths, then you retreat
to saying or implying you are "minimizing", and in the end you are
reduced to saying "I'm doing better than you", and *NONE* of them is
true simply based on the fact that you refrain from putting animal bits
in your mouth. You're a fucking sanctimonious liar, "glen" my boy.

>
>>> If any animals are killed they
>>> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.
>>
>> Of course I can. I don't kill any animals.
>
> Yes you do.

I don't. I don't kill a single one.

>> The simple fact is, you commission the deaths of animals.
>
> No you do. I don't.

Sorry, "glen" my boy. If you don't, then I do; if I do, then you do.
We both have *exactly* the same relationship with the unknown farmers
and ranchers who produce our food. It is impersonal, they are unknown
to us, we don't "ask" them to do any specific thing, but we both know
full well what they do, and we both know full well that it includes -
*always* - the killing of animals.

Sorry, "glen" my boy, but you bear moral responsibility for the deaths
of animals, exactly the same as I do, and by exactly the same mechanism.
The difference, "glen" my boy, is that I don't deny it; you, a
dishonest sanctimonious lying shitbag, do. That means I'm better than you.

>
>
>>>> "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.
>>>
>>> I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
>>> convictions
>>
>> You don't have any convictions.
>
> Yes I do and I live by them.

You don't. You merely follow a silly rule that is not based on any
valid ethics at all.

>> You are congratulating yourself for
>> following a morally empty rule. It's as morally empty as "chew 12 times
>> before swallowing." It's just a rule - no ethics behind it.

*NO* ethics, "glen" my boy. It's ethically empty.

>>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>>>> animals.
>>>
>>> Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
>>> this /fact/ shouldn't it.
>>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
>>
>
> Davis' guesswork was debunked years ago.
> http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf

Davis may not have proved that a meat-including diet will always cause
fewer CDs than a "vegan" diet, but he *DID* establish that animals of
the field die in the course of vegetable agriculture, and that sniveling
shitworm Matheny did *not* refute that, nor did he even attempt to
refute it.

You fucked up, "glen" my boy - yet again.

>
>> From a former rice farmer:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/BLidk7BYAOo/GOmWEfsbmhAJ
>>
>
> I read that /story/ and then read the comments underneath it.
> ____________________________________________________________
> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay, from a hunter, come book
> seller called Robert (Bob) A Sykes. - It has no validity.

That's an empty claim by another sanctimonious, lying "vegan".

A self-serving *dry* rice farmer whose business depends crucially on
hoodwinking ecotopian "vegans" like you. In no way does he *guarantee*
that no animals are killed. He talks a lot of blabber about saving
wildfowl, but makes no mention of rodents or amphibians or reptiles.


> An elaborate hoax.

No, "glen" my boy.

Yes, of course you had to erase desperately the testimony of a Tennessee
farmer who talked about killing *eleven* fawns in a four acre patch of land:
http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1785156&page=320


Note that that farmer wasn't even discussing it in the context of trying
to debunk the absurd "vegan" claim to a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'" - he
was inquiring of other farmers how me might avoid killing them.

You're doomed, "glen" my boy - flushed out as a fulsome and
sanctimonious liar.

[George Plimpton]

You share moral responsibility for the deaths. You are complicit. You
are guilty - not in rational dispute.

>>>> Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> So, why do you keep killing mice?
>
> I don't.

You do, "glen" my boy. See above.

>
>>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>>>> food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
>>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>>>> and death on your plate.
>>>>
>>>> That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him
>>>> his
>>>> food.
>>>
>>> Yes he does but he won't admit it.
>>
>> I do admit it.
>
> No you don't.

I do.

> You said that meat eating doesn't cause them
> because they're dead already - killed by someone else.

I was fucking with your tiny brain, "glen" my boy. I was engaging, for
rhetorical effect, in the same bullshit sophistry you do.

The reality, "glen" my boy, is that *everyone* causes harm to animals -
and humans - merely by existing and consuming.

>>
>>> He even refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.
>>
>> Bullshit. Of course I admit them. What about it?
>
> They're dead before you eat them and you believe that
> takes away your guilt. You won't admit that you killed
> them and that you're to blame.

I do admit it, of course. I was using your own illogic on you to
illustrate a point. The animals killed in the course of producing your
vegetables are just as dead as the animals I eat. The only difference
is in the disposition of the corpses.

>
>>> "By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of
>>> animals - the meat is already dead." - George
>>
>> That's correct: the *eating* doesn't cause the deaths. The meat is
>> already dead long before I buy it.
>
> Then the eating of vegetables doesn't cause any deaths. The
> animals are already dead long before I buy my food. You said
> it.

It was a rhetorical stunt, "glen" my boy, employed to illustrate the
absurdity of your claim.

It is a *fact*, "glen" my boy: we both cause the deaths of animals by
our consumption choices, you every bit as much as I.

>>>> The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
>>>> make non-vegans feel guilty.
>>>
>>> But you *ARE* guilty.
>>
>> So are you.
>
> No. You are.

So are you, "glen" my boy.

>>> You can't escape that guilt.
>>
>> Neither can you.
>
> I don't have any guilt to escape from.

Of course you have, "glen" my boy.

>> The difference is, omnivores admit theirs.
>
> No they/you say that the animals are dead already before they eat
> them.

See above, "glen" my boy.

>> "vegans" fatuously try to deny theirs, so they can continue to propagate the
>> fiction that they lead "cruelty-free" lives.
>
> There's nothing to deny. Vegans don't kill them.

You share in the moral responsibility for their deaths, "glen" my boy.

>>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>> It is a fact.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>
>> It is. Animals die in vegetable production.
>>
>> http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1785156&page=320
>>
>
> Yes they do occasionally die but not in the numbers I've seen
> reported here.

Oooooohhhhhhh! So, animals *do* die in the course of producing the
foods you eat! What took you so long, "glen" my boy?

>>>> Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
>>>> fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals.
>>>> Machines
>>>> used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have
>>>> been
>>>> studies done on that.
>>>
>>> There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.
>>
>> It is a certainty.
>
> No that's not true.

It is true, "glen" my boy.

>>> It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.
>>
>> It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals,
>
> I've never denied that they occasionally die.

Yes, you did, "glen" my boy. It was a lie.

You're done, and you know it. You know that your moral pose is
destroyed. You can't maintain it. You know it's bullshit, "glen" my boy.

[George Plimpton]

It is, and soon you'll have to acknowledge it.

[George Plimpton]

It's *not* fine, because he still denies any moral responsibility for it.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/6/2012 6:07 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, Glen<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>> *any*
>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>
>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>
>>> I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>> deny is George's baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>> /contaminated/
>>> with it.
>>
>> Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
>> long as you acknowledge that that's fine.
>
> It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
> they /have/ to die.

They *do* die, and you're doing nothing to prevent it. You just keep
trying to cling to the fiction that because you're not the hands-on
killer, you don't have any moral responsibility for the deaths. That
position is false - you *do* have moral responsibility.

> I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
> about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
> small part of it going without killing animals

Bullshit. They kill animals.

> to produce vegetables and fruits all year round.

*NOT* enough for all of you to live on year round. It isn't even the
majority of what you eat.

Your moral pedestal is destroyed. You don't cause zero deaths, you
don't cause the lowest possible number of deaths, and you don't cause
fewer than *all* omnivores. You have nothing left.

[George Plimpton]

And of course, the majority of the food he eats was commercially produced.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Goo, I have been asking for several years for photographic proof of
the collateral deaths that you allege. When can I expect you to supply
it?

[Derek]

Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it, and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur, as we can see by the above post I made
last year.

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless. They don't
even believe their own bullshit. You'll never get an honest
discussion here. You'll never get an honest answer from them.

Take Dutch, for example. When he first came here he claimed to
be a vegetarian and an advocate for animal rights. Like you he
used to believe;

"There is a whole different mindset between tolerating
collateral death in your life and seeking out direct
sacrifice for your subsistence."
Dutch Aug 26 2000 http://tinyurl.com/7dduf

and

"The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it
enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that
their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis
attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n
diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually
unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility.
It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the
v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
Dutch Dec 13 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
production.

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
better that they live that life than that they not live at
all"
Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

"Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
animal-rights agenda.
Rupert 12 May 2007 http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp

He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
agenda.

George also believes that;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
general if everyone were vegetarian."
4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug

and

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja

He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.

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

He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
it.

"... 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

So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,
intentionally misrepresented to avoid tackling your real
position, heckled for having the guts to live by your
convictions and called a liar at every opportunity. If
you want to discuss these issues with someone who's
been on these animal-related groups for a long time and
knows what he's talking about, contact me through my new
email address (check headers). If there's anything I can't
address or fail to address to your satisfaction I will gladly
introduce you to others who will only be too glad to talk to
you.

[Dutch]

"Derek" <dere...@groupmail.com> wrote

> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.

That's bad advice.

> Their only objective
> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan diet can
be healthy, and for the most part causes a relatively low environmental
impact. Where their efforts fail, massively and laughably, is in convincing
any well-informed person that following a vegan lifestyle is a moral
imperative, or that is critical for good health. Vegans typically overshoot
badly. Vegan efforts are also worthless in a lot of small ways, such as in
the silly aversion to micrograms of animal parts in sauces.

[George Plimpton]

Vegetables generally have that history.

> and there's
> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
> for the deaths that may occur,

Absolutely wrong, Derek. This idea of shared or vicarious moral
responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
established beyond rational dispute. It's the motivation behind
boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
"cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.

> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal. The
objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled. "vegans" are not
behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.


> [...]

>
> George also believes that;
>
> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
> livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
> general if everyone were vegetarian."
> 4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug

That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
omnivorous diets.

>
> and
>
> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> feed for the animals you eat.
>
> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja

Same again.

However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
"lifestyle" is "cruelty free." Eventually he'll have to abandon that
claim, as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
abandon it, anyway - and then he'll have to play the counting game, and
then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
"rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".

> He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
> inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.
>
> "I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
> aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh

Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.

>
> He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
> an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
> it.
>
> "... 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

That's high-volume commercial meat packing plants as they currently
operate. I think kosher and halal slaughterhouses don't operate that
way, which is a big part of why that meat is much more expensive.

> So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
> extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,

Not by me, he won't.

[Derek]

No, I don't believe that.

>> and there's
>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>> for the deaths that may occur,
>
>Absolutely wrong, Derek.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
rule of English law that dictates,

"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit

under the contract...."

>This idea of shared or vicarious moral
>responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
>established beyond rational dispute.

Yes, and it goes directly against your view.

>It's the motivation behind
>boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
>practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
>is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
>exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
>a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
>for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
>"cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.
>
>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>
>The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal.

And you've failed to do that.

>The
>objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled.

Obviously not, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You've managed to convince the weak-willed participants
who didn't understand their position here over the years, but
you've never been able to convince the more able vegans who
genuinely believe animals hold inalienable rights against us
not to be reduced to that of a mere utility for our own ends.

>"vegans" are not
>behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.

I disagree.

>
>> [...]
>>
>> George also believes that;
>>
>> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
>> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
>> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
>> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
>> livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
>> general if everyone were vegetarian."
>> 4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug
>
>That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
>omnivorous diets.

No, the context "ALWAYS" stands on its own here.

>> and
>>
>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
>> feed for the animals you eat.
>>
>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
>> 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja
>
>Same again.

Yep.

>However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
>counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
>"lifestyle" is "cruelty free."

And it is on his part. The cruelty is not his and doesn't come
from him. The callous food producer is responsible for the
cruelty, and it stays with him.

>Eventually he'll have to abandon that claim,

No, I don't think he will, and I don't think he needs to.

>as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
>abandon it, anyway

Rupert thinks he knows what he's talking about, but we both
know he doesn't really have a clue. That's why he flip flops
from deontology to utilitarianism all the time. It's why he
switched from being an abolitionist advocating rights for
animals to a 'new welfarist' position promoting farmed
livestock, openly reinforcing the idea that killing animals
for food and medical research is perfectly acceptable.

>- and then he'll have to play the counting game,

I'm not sure he'll do that, either. Further up this thread he
wrote, "Numbers are irrelevant."

>and
>then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
>"rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
>reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".
>
>
>> He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
>> inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.
>>
>> "I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh
>
>Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
>death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
>at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.

But, according to you, should anyone with a strong moral sense
on this issue try to avoid causing the deaths of farmed animals
by forswearing meat, they're smug, sanctimonious hypocrites
without a coherent stopping rule because non-farmed animals
are killed during crop production. I don't follow that connection.
Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
because you wear a leather watch strap, for example? And
would your failure to foreswear leather have any bearing on
the matter anyway?

[Derek]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

>"Derek" <dere...@groupmail.com> wrote
>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.
>
>That's bad advice.
>
>> Their only objective
>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>
>Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan diet can
>be healthy,

You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
convincing.

[George Plimpton]

As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
*legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility. It also
looks at an incident in isolation, but the relationship of food
consumers buying produce whose production they *know* causes animals to
suffer and die is ongoing.

>> This idea of shared or vicarious moral
>> responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
>> established beyond rational dispute.
>
> Yes, and it goes directly against your view.

No, it doesn't.

>
>> It's the motivation behind
>> boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
>> practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
>> is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
>> exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
>> a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
>> for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
>> "cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.
>>
>>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
>>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>>
>> The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal.
>
> And you've failed to do that.

Ha ha ha! No, I haven't - I dynamited the pedestal.

>> The objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled.
>
> Obviously not, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Obviously it is, because you're using the same failed arguments.

> You've managed to convince the weak-willed participants
> who didn't understand their position here over the years, but
> you've never been able to convince the more able vegans who
> genuinely believe animals hold inalienable rights against us
> not to be reduced to that of a mere utility for our own ends.
>
>> "vegans" are not
>> behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.
>
> I disagree.

Irrelevant. Most people convicted of crimes continue to insist they're
"innocent", as well, but the convictions typically stand.

>>> [...]
>>>
>>> George also believes that;
>>>
>>> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
>>> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
>>> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
>>> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
>>> livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
>>> general if everyone were vegetarian."
>>> 4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug
>>
>> That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
>> omnivorous diets.
>
> No, the context "ALWAYS" stands on its own here.

Nope.

>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
>>> feed for the animals you eat.
>>>
>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
>>> 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja
>>
>> Same again.
>
> Yep.

Yep.


>
>> However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
>> counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
>> "lifestyle" is "cruelty free."
>
> And it is on his part.

It is not. He is in a voluntary, unnecessary, ongoing relationship with
killers. If he and *everyone* else stopped buying from animal-killing
producers, then animal-killing producers would either have to change
their methods or go out of business.

His "lifestyle" is not "cruelty free" - his pursuit of it leads to
animal death.

> The cruelty is not his and doesn't come
> from him.

<yawn> Same as meat eaters.

He doesn't commit the so-called cruelty, but he knows of it and rewards
the farmer for it by continuing to buy from him.

>> Eventually he'll have to abandon that claim,
>
> No, I don't think he will, and I don't think he needs to.

He does need to, and if engages with Rupert much longer, he will.

>
>> as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
>> abandon it, anyway
>
> Rupert thinks he knows what he's talking about, but we both
> know he doesn't really have a clue.

He does have a complete clue regarding the connection between vegetable
farming and animal death.

> That's why he flip flops
> from deontology to utilitarianism all the time.

Yes, that's the "vegan shuffle" that started the thread.

> It's why he
> switched from being an abolitionist advocating rights for
> animals to a 'new welfarist' position promoting farmed
> livestock, openly reinforcing the idea that killing animals
> for food and medical research is perfectly acceptable.
>
>> - and then he'll have to play the counting game,
>
> I'm not sure he'll do that, either. Further up this thread he
> wrote, "Numbers are irrelevant."

So, he won't have any basis for claiming virtue at all, then! Not only
won't he be on a pedestal, he'll be in a hole.

>> and
>> then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
>> "rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
>> reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".
>>
>>
>>> He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
>>> inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.
>>>
>>> "I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
>>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh
>>
>> Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
>> death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
>> at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.
>
> But, according to you, should anyone with a strong moral sense
> on this issue try to avoid causing the deaths of farmed animals
> by forswearing meat, they're smug, sanctimonious hypocrites
> without a coherent stopping rule because non-farmed animals
> are killed during crop production.

They're only smug sanctimonious hypocrites if they claim to be living a
"cruelty free 'lifestyle'", or if they claim to be minimizing when
they've never measured.

> I don't follow that connection.

Sure you do, if by "follow" you mean comprehend.

> Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
> fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
> sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
> criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
> because you wear a leather watch strap, for example?

What's the relationship between dog fighting and consumption of cattle
products?

[dh]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
sometimes involves less. For you to finally confess that you're aware of that
one fact would be a huge step for you but you still have not taken it, much less
have you gotten to the position of being able to determine in which cases soy
produces more and in which cases beef does. Notice that this is yet another
distinction that you not only are unable to make, but you don't even want to
accept that the situations which create the distinctions exist, even though it's
obvious that they do.

When you go look into grass raised dairy while at the same time getting to
see some first hand examples of dairy cows on a farm, while you think about the
value of life to them also think about the fact that they contribute to less
deaths than soy, and WAY fewer deaths than rice. That *could* be a big learning
day for you, and it could lead to many many more if you find a place where you
can regularly get some grass raised dairy, and enjoy seeing cows enjoying lives
of positive value (most days, hopefully :-), and maybe you could finally learn
what that means too.
. . .

[dh]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:

>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>
>> He is incorrect.
>
>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I

>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is /contaminated/
>with it.

derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products

[Rupert]

>   Dutch  Dec 13 2000http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

>
> Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
> gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
> promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
> killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
> if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
> production.
>
> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
>   for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
>   better that they live that life than that they not live at
>   all"

>   Rupert 24 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

>
> "Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
>   in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
>   I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
>   animal-rights agenda.

>   Rupert 12 May 2007http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp

>
> He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
> about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
> cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
> agenda.
>

Making these statements is not "promoting animal cruelty" to any
greater extent than Derek promotes animal cruelty when he buys plant-
based food products.

Derek is stating that I am psychotic because I experienced a psychotic
illness in 2001. Derek is not ashamed of stigmatising people who have
a history of mental illness.

[Rupert]

On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
> >> animals.  What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>
> > He is incorrect.
>
> That's all???  That's the best you can manage?
>

Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
all that needs to be said.

[Rupert]

On the basis of what evidence do I know it?

[Rupert]

I did.

It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.

[Rupert]

On Mar 6, 11:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>

I don't have any way of knowing, do I?

You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
with one serving of tofu. If you do not have any idea of any range
into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
comparisons.

[Derek]

No, it addresses both. If you can remember, I also brought
another piece from the European Journal of Social Psychology
on how to assign vicarious responsibility.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
causing of the damage]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2420170314/abstract

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.

>It also
>looks at an incident in isolation, but the relationship of food
>consumers buying produce whose production they *know* causes animals to
>suffer and die is ongoing.

I know that animals occasionally die in crop production, just
like I know some people occasionally die from police brutality.
I continue to pay the food producer and the police as independent
contractors and, as such, not being in a "superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and able to control that person's
causing of the damage" I am not morally or legally responsible
for what they do.

>>> This idea of shared or vicarious moral
>>> responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
>>> established beyond rational dispute.
>>
>> Yes, and it goes directly against your view.
>
>No, it doesn't.

I'm afraid it does. You cannot foist vicarious moral responsibility
on those who are "not in a superior relationship to the person who
caused the damage and is able to control that person's causing of
the damage."

>>> However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
>>> counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
>>> "lifestyle" is "cruelty free."
>>
>> And it is on his part.
>
>It is not. He is in a voluntary, unnecessary, ongoing relationship with
>killers.

And that relationship is that of an employer and his subcontractor
as described above. There's no cruelty on his part, and so he can
reasonably say that his lifestyle is cruelty-free.

>> The cruelty is not his and doesn't come from him.
>
><yawn> Same as meat eaters.

Meat eaters demand animals be killed in order to eat them.
The farmers they employ are subject to their command as
to the manner in which they shall do their work when
producing meat.

>He doesn't commit the so-called cruelty,

Exactly. Unlike the meat eater, the farmers he employs are
not subject to his command as to the manner in which
they shall do their work when producing his vegetables. His
subcontractor kills animals against his will while producing
his vegetables.

>> Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
>> fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
>> sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
>> criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
>> because you wear a leather watch strap, for example?
>
>What's the relationship between dog fighting and consumption of cattle
>products?

Getting dogs to fight to their death and getting farm animals to
live and die in horrendous circumstances involve abject cruelty
on the part of the person who finds enjoyment from the result of
either practice, it can be argued.

[Derek]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:13:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mar 6, 7:25 pm, Derek <derekn...@groupmail.com> wrote:

>> Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
>> gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
>> promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
>> killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
>> if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
>> production.
>>
>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
>>   for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
>>   better that they live that life than that they not live at
>>   all"

>>   Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

>>
>> "Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
>>   in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
>>   I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
>>   animal-rights agenda.

>>   Rupert 12 May 2007 http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp

>>
>> He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
>> about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
>> cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
>> agenda.
>
>Making these statements

... presents a false dilemma, and you know it. New welfarism
demands we either continue using animal welfare practices
or do nothing to alleviate the suffering. It reinforces the idea
that animals can be exploited and drives home the message
that happy meat is preferable to doing nothing at all. It excludes
abolition.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>
>>> He is incorrect.
>>
>> That's all??? That's the best you can manage?
>>
>
> Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
> all that needs to be said.

It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.

[George Plimpton]

Barely.

Nope. Not in the least. "vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
particular kind, even though they are causing it. I never made any
claim not to be causing harm anywhere. I never claimed to be causing no
harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. Recognizing that some harm
to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
desirable, I am always open to suggestions. I recycle as much waste as
I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. I always
turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. I set my
thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. I suggest
these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.

Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
I'm doing what is right. That comparison, more than anything else, is
what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
invidious comparison, and that's immoral.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

Sorry, Woopert - we've been over all this before, and now you're just
trying to refight battles you've already lost.