Man is a HERBIVORE!!?
watchman
study the iron stores in man. What it seems to have become is the DEFINITIVE
answer to an age old question .. 'Is man an omnivore?' This test is specific
in that it discerns that the 'transferrin' in the body.. that protein (soccer
ball) which holds the iron in the body 'leaks' when it is gnerally 35% full
in ALL humans. This PROVES there is an upper safe limit to the iron levels
NORMALLY allowed by the human body and these levels are acheived BY MEAT
EATING ONLY. A vegetarian iron levels will NEVER reach this point and this
test is unique in that it has DISCERNED what the upper limit is. The iron
work tests are 'out there' and it is simply a matter of correlating them and
PROVING this fact 'on paper'. No additional blood work studies have to be
done? They have already BEEN done? I believe? Anyone got any ideas?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=10845658&form=6&d
b I posted this same question a month or two ago but maybe to the wrong
lists. You would think PROVING man to be a herbivore would be EXCELLENT to
those with 'vested' interest? It would be just a matter of hiring the right
'researcher?' who KNOWS 'how' to access the right studies and just do the
calculations? No big deal.. just 'finding' someone to do it? Who loves ya.
Tom -- Jesus was a Vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman Iron In
Disease http://www.waste.org/~lanshark/vegan/iron.html Iron In Disease
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no3/weinberg.htm
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
JM
(watchman <watc...@nucleus.com>) wrote:
>I have a proposal. This article speaks to a new test which was developed to
>study the iron stores in man. What it seems to have become is the DEFINITIVE
>answer to an age old question .. 'Is man an omnivore?' This test is specific
If man was an omnivore then he wouldn't eat meat.
Adam Knisely
to
> >study the iron stores in man. What it seems to have become is the
DEFINITIVE
> >answer to an age old question .. 'Is man an omnivore?' This test is
specific
>
> If man was an omnivore then he wouldn't eat meat.
No, if humans are omnivores (notice the correct use of tense), we'd best eat
food from all groups.
Steve Knight
man is a opportunist. our closest relatives are too. I bet early man ate
anything he could find gather or catch. including bugs fish shellfish and
whatever. chimps our closest relatives eat meat. not lots like we do but they do
eat it. I think milk products are far worse for you then meat. (though our meat
now is not that great) We need a good variety of foods to live well. we can live
fine without meat or with it.
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes +Galoot Made Products-
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com
For prices and ordering instructions.
brand...@my-deja.com
Did you mean to say "herbivore" instead of "omnivore"?
Kevin
Ward M. Clark
news:72hf5ts4lgpnpk5hr...@4ax.com...
I think you need to go to a library, find a good 101-level Biology text, and
look up "omnivore."
--
Ward M. Clark
www.frombearcreek.com
www.pathwai.org
Sometimes the light's all shining on me,
Other times, I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me,
What a long, strange trip it's been
MEow
JM <j...@i.have.no.address> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:72hf5ts4lgpnpk5hr...@4ax.com...
You seem to have a new definition of "omnivore" - previously unknown to
me...
--
Mvh. Nikitta
"Am I the only one who scrolls down to the .sig every mail of Nikitta
now, to see if there's something new?" Till
Tricia
"MEow" <nik...@mail.tele.dk>
Nikitta, you're x-posting?
I vote the definition of vegan is extended to include:
"One who does not x-post"
Show of hands?
MEow
Tricia <t...@finnish-spitz.demon.nl> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:978883325.8324....@news.demon.nl...
not knowingly crosspost from afv." ?
--
Mvh. Nikitta
"It'd be a good datum for sibling rivalry. "I was born in the second
millenium. You weren't around till the third!"" - Wikkit
Tricia
"MEow" <nik...@mail.tele.dk> wrote
> > Tricia <t...@finnish-spitz.demon.nl> skrev
> > Nikitta, you're x-posting?
> > I vote the definition of vegan is extended to include:
> > "One who does not x-post"
> > Show of hands?
> >
> Oops - I forgot to check - sorry! Can we narrow it down to "someone
who does
> not knowingly crosspost from afv." ?
> --
>
Nope!
Vegans check the origin of everything <evil grin>.
MEow
--
Mvh. Nikitta
"Vell. Nikitta's jus this gal, you know" Thåths
Oloruin
watchman <watc...@nucleus.com> wrote in message
news:93233r$b77$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I have a proposal. This article speaks to a new test which was developed
to
> study the iron stores in man. What it seems to have become is the
DEFINITIVE
> answer to an age old question .. 'Is man an omnivore?'
Completely worthless. We know that ancestral humans (H. habilis, H.
ergaster, H. erectus, etc) were omnivores or carnivores, but definitely not
herbivores. And not just "opportunistic" meat-eaters. A 4-foot H. habilis
doesn't walk up to a 6-foot baboon, club him, and bring the choice bits back
to the cave as a matter of "opportunity" or self-defense.
We know that other apes are omnivores, and that chimps will hunt monkeys. It
is also very likely that the very first primates were nocturnal,
rodent-like, tree-climbing insectivores.
---
Olo, Chock full of BS.
Tricia
"MEow" <nik...@mail.tele.dk> wrote
> > Nope!
> > Vegans check the origin of everything <evil grin>.
> >
> Hehehe - good one! So I'm not a "real" vegan, then ;0)
>
[as the believers amongst us might say]
MEow
> > > Nope!
> > > Vegans check the origin of everything <evil grin>.
> > >
> > Hehehe - good one! So I'm not a "real" vegan, then ;0)
> >
> Your feet are on the path
> [as the believers amongst us might say]
>
--
Mvh. Nikitta
"boy bands are similar to ethnic groups - there always has to be a group
that is constantly made fun of." kristen
JM
("MEow" <nik...@mail.tele.dk>) wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:59:12 GMT, in talk.politics.animals,
>> (watchman <watc...@nucleus.com>) wrote:
>>
>> >I have a proposal. This article speaks to a new test which was developed
>to
>> >study the iron stores in man. What it seems to have become is the
>DEFINITIVE
>> >answer to an age old question .. 'Is man an omnivore?' This test is
>specific
>>
>> If man was an omnivore then he wouldn't eat meat.
>You seem to have a new definition of "omnivore" - previously unknown to
>me...
I meant herbivore.
JM
("窟匹?" <rober...@aol.com>) wrote:
>Omnivores don't eat meat? You went to public school, didn't you?
>
>Go to Kodiak Island in June and take off all your clothes and rub salmon oil
>all over your body. Then lay down and wait.
I meant herbivore.
>Don't forget your bell.
That's assuming I'm male. (Which incidently I am)
>:o)
>
>JM <j...@i.have.no.address> wrote in message
>news:72hf5ts4lgpnpk5hr...@4ax.com...
Tara Deen
affect whether you wear a bell or not?
Tara
--
Tricia
"MEow" <nik...@mail.tele.dk> wrote
> Good catch there... close one though ;0)
>
No - I'm well ahead on points :-))
[think backgammon]
MEow
"offend" me ;0)
--
Mvh. Nikitta
Never question the power of questioning everything
watchman
We can 'say' all we want.. lets' just SEE if the calculations 'say' the ..
same? If I am correct.. this test has determined there is an upper limit to
the iron in the human body which can be CONTROLLED. Thus PROVING we are
OVERLOADED in iron. I bet.. a vegetarians iron levels NEVER rise to this
level.. and a meat eaters CONSISTENTLY rises above this level. This would
PROVE whether YOU are right.. or I am right.. agreed? What else could it
mean? Studies are showing the iron from meat is NOT controlled effectively by
the body and is able to bypass the bodies process which protects us from iron
excess and is absorbed and stored even when the body is attempting to
downregulate the absorption of iron. If a vegetarians iron levels NEVER rise
to this level and a meat eaters ALWAYS does.. the iron is coming from meat?
agreed? It would take access to epidemiological studies which have discerned
what the 'blood work' of vegetarians are.. what meat eaters are.. and do the
division? Studies have already been done?
http://www.solgar.com/nutrition_library/articles/iron_heart.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=8124837&form=6&db
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000009/98/0000099878.html These all
speak to the fact it seems heme iron.. that iron ONLY found in blood based
food is controlled or NOT controlled more specifically .. by the body..
effectively and is absorbed AT ALL TIMES OF IRON STATUS.. whereas the nonheme
iron IS controlled . Again I believe this study is the definitive answer to
the question.. is man a herbivore?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=10845658&form=6&d
b Who loves ya. Tom -- Jesus was a Vegetarian!
watchman
"Oloruin" <olo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
We can 'say' all we want.. lets' just SEE if the calculations 'say' the ..
same? If I am correct.. this test has determined there is an upper limit to
the iron in the human body which can be CONTROLLED. Thus PROVING we are
OVERLOADED in iron. I bet.. a vegetarians iron levels NEVER rise to this
level.. and a meat eaters CONSISTENTLY rises above this level. This would
PROVE whether YOU are right.. or I am right.. agreed? What else could it
mean? Studies are showing the iron from meat is NOT controlled effectively by
the body and is able to bypass the bodies process which protects us from iron
excess and is absorbed and stored even when the body is attempting to
downregulate the absorption of iron. If a vegetarians iron levels NEVER rise
to this level and a meat eaters ALWAYS does.. the iron is coming from meat?
agreed? It would take access to epidemiological studies which have discerned
what the 'blood work' of vegetarians are.. what meat eaters are.. and do the
division? Studies have already been done?
http://www.solgar.com/nutrition_library/articles/iron_heart.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=8124837&form=6&db
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000009/98/0000099878.html These all
speak to the fact it seems heme iron.. that iron ONLY found in blood based
food is controlled or NOT controlled more specifically .. by the body..
effectively and is absorbed AT ALL TIMES OF IRON STATUS.. whereas the nonheme
iron IS controlled . Again I believe this study is the definitive answer to
the question.. is man a herbivore?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=10845658&form=6&d
b Who loves ya. Tom -- Jesus was a Vegetarian!
G Boggs
> [...]
>If a vegetarians iron levels NEVER rise
> to this level and a meat eaters ALWAYS does.. the iron is coming from
meat?
> agreed? It would take access to epidemiological studies which have
discerned
> what the 'blood work' of vegetarians are.. what meat eaters are.. and
do the
> division? Studies have already been done?
OK, I read your citations:
> http://www.solgar.com/nutrition_library/articles/iron_heart.html
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=8124837&form
=6&db
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000009/98/0000099878.html
None of these citations support in any way your comment that "[...]
vegetarians [sic] iron levels NEVER rise to this level and a meat eaters
[sic] ALWAYS does [...]". In fact, Ascherio, et. al. point out that:
"Men in the highest quintile of total intake (median, 37 mg/d) had a
relative risk (RR) of fatal coronary disease or nonfatal myocardial
infarction of 0.73 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.51, 1.06) compared
with men in the lowest quintile of intake (median, 11 mg/d)."
Meaning that - if you take the point estimate of relative risk, these
men had *lower* risk (< 1.00) of fatal coronary disease. If you look at
the confidence interval, there was no detectable difference. So, either
way, you're wrong.
Now, Ascherio, et. al. go on to say that:
"Dietary intake of heme iron--mainly from red meat--also was not
significantly associated with risk of coronary heart disease. "
Meaning that the correlation was statistically insignificant.
When they compare the top quintile with the lowest quintile:
"[The] incidence of fatal coronary disease or nonfatal myocardial
infarction was higher among men in the top quintile of heme iron intake
compared with men in the lowest quintile (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.98).
This association remained after adjustment for dietary cholesterol and
fats."
Normally, a RR of at least 3.0 is required to infer a significant risk,
but, that issue notwithstanding, the only adjustments make were for two
dietary factors and no adjustments were made for lifestyle factors.
Finally, using the data in this study, the probability of any man in the
study having a cardiac event was 0.019. Not a probability, in my
opinion, worth worrying much about. You should worry more about falling.
Neither of the other two citations report any actual analyses by which
the merits of their claims can be evaluated.
So I conclude that your scientific citations do not in any way support
your claims. They do, however, support the hypothesis that you are a
scientific ignoramus and would be better off citing your little
political missives from those who happen to agree with you.
Hellhound
Soren Dayton
> We can 'say' all we want.. lets' just SEE if the calculations 'say' the ..
> same? If I am correct.. this test has determined there is an upper limit to
> the iron in the human body which can be CONTROLLED. Thus PROVING we are
> OVERLOADED in iron. I bet.. a vegetarians iron levels NEVER rise to this
> level.. and a meat eaters CONSISTENTLY rises above this level. This would
> PROVE whether YOU are right.. or I am right.. agreed? What else could it
> mean?
That you are asking the wrong question?
Perhaps the observation to make is that the amount of meat that has
been eaten by people all over the world has always been quite small
until very recently. Meat has certainly been part of the diet of most
people. But 2 McDonald's quarter pounders every day is not that.
Perhaps a little tiny bit every day. Or a little tiny bit per week.
But not much more. Animals were too useful to kill them that
indiscriminantly.
So trying to read anything into the responses of the body to a "modern
western diet" is simply silly and ignorant.
Furthermore, the animal products that people have eaten a lot of have
all been relatively low in iron (most fish, dairy products, eggs,
etc).
Soren
watchman
Well that is not too nice .. If you will look at my post and stop to
UNDERSTAND what I said.. the citations were placed to show the ABSORPTION of
heme iron. The three articles speak to the fact the heme iron is absorbed
differently and it seems the heme iron is absorbed even when the body is
attempting to downregulate the absorption of iron. This means the body
controls the iron in its stores by absorption .. keeping the iron levels at a
fairly constant level and the heme iron is able to bypass this and is
absorbed and therefore stored. What I am saying is this easily absorbed form
of iron is OVERLOADING every meat eater who eats it.. providing they have
adequate food to maintain iron stores. What I am saying is the article which
speaks to transferrin saturation points out the transferrin is unable to
control the iron once it reaches 35% saturation and studies show vegetarians
have consistently significantly lower iron parameters thatn meat eaters. Now
I am saying .. "I bet.." the iron parameters of a vegetarian will keep the
iron levels BELOW the 'leaking' or 35% saturation point and the meat eaters
diet of heme iron will consistently bring them ABOVE this level and the iron
is 'free' .. or nontransferrin bound iron. It is just a matter of finding the
studies of vegetarians and omnivores and calculating the mean transferrin
saturation.. Simple.. The transferrin should NOT.. leak.. this is 'bad'.. So
as some of the iron researchers have been saying for years.. the markers used
to assess/diagnose iron 'deficiency' are probably all wrong. The iron
parameters should be governed by 'nontransferrin bound iron'.. and establish
at what point the body begins to leak its iron.. Who loves ya. Tom -- Jesus
G Boggs
[...]
Sorry if I misunderstood you. But if the RR of the highest quintile is <
1.0, and virtually the entire spread of the 95% CI is < 1.0, then it
would appear to me that eating meat is actually *healthier*. What am I
missing here?
Hellhound
watchman
This HAS been proposed.. refrigeration has allowed us to eat more meat ..
thus more excess iron? Free radical theory of aging.. Linus Pauling with his
MEGA doses of vitamin C to combat the 'oxidation'.. rust .. which is RAMPANT
in our bodies. Linus Pauling a genius.. nobel prize winning BIO-chemist..
used to calculate the orbits of molecules in his head.. KNEW we are
oxidizing/rusting away.. but never KNEW why.. Meat.. heme iron.. bypasses the
bodies process which would 'normally' KEEP the iron stores low.. thus keeping
the bodies 'transferrin'.. from.. leaking. If one eats a good diet .. the
iron stores are ALWAYS 'topped off' and thus when we eat our meat/heme iron
this iron piles on top AT ALL TIMES OF IRON STATUS.. which means.. even
though the body is downregulating the absorption of iron/plant
iron/supplement iron.. heme iron.. that ONLY found in meat gets by.. You
mention 'fish'.. but fail to mention that its form .. heme iron .. is HIGHLY
absorbable..? Heme iron.. binds to other iron in our food and causes it TOO
to be absorbed at a high rate. Who loves ya. Tom -- Jesus was a Vegetarian!
Soren Dayton
I think that you either only have one story, or you don't understand
much of what you're talking about.
> You
> mention 'fish'.. but fail to mention that its form .. heme iron .. is HIGHLY
> absorbable..? Heme iron.. binds to other iron in our food and causes it TOO
> to be absorbed at a high rate.
Did you actually check to see how much iron is in fish? For salmon
its 8x less than beef. Did you actually read my argument?
> Jesus was a Vegetarian!
And so what were the fish about? Anyone that thinks that Jesus was a
vegetarian has remarkably little understanding of either scripture or
Jewish culture.
Soren
Richard Bishop
Soren Dayton <day...@overx.com> wrote in message
news:86r9286...@everest.overx.com...
> watchman <watc...@nucleus.com> writes:
>
>
> I think that you either only have one story, or you don't understand
> much of what you're talking about.
I vote for both. I also think he's never had any bio chem classes.
Sue
watchman
day...@overx.com wrote:
> watchman <watc...@nucleus.com> writes:
>
> I think that you either only have one story, or you don't understand
> much of what you're talking about.
>
> > You
> > mention 'fish'.. but fail to mention that its form .. heme iron .. is HIGHLY
> > absorbable..? Heme iron.. binds to other iron in our food and causes it TOO
> > to be absorbed at a high rate.
>
> Did you actually check to see how much iron is in fish? For salmon
> its 8x less than beef. Did you actually read my argument?
Yes.. I read your argument.. and I mentioned fish.. but didn't mention milk
or eggs. Milk has no 'blood'.. or negligable amounts.. and eggs seem not to
have much absorbable iron in them either. You can look at the iron in salmon
versus beef BUT as I said.. heme iron in fish binds too all other iron in
your food and causes IT to be absorbed at a high rate.. thusly the salmon
BECOMES very high in iron absorption..
> And so what were the fish about? Anyone that thinks that Jesus was a
> vegetarian has remarkably little understanding of either scripture or
> Jewish culture.
Fish is another word for.. 'the word'.. and He fed them all.. You will notice
when He did 'feed the masses' He got back a certain 'number' of baskets? What
is the significance of the baskets? NUMBERS. Off my page is another page
'Moses was a Mystic!' which is an excerpt from the book 'The Hidden Mystery
of the Bible' written by Jack Ensign Addington. In this page is explained how
after working decades in the ministry he began to see a 'pattern' to
different words and names and numbers in the Bible. This led him to discover
a 'mystic' type code which speaks to how one achieves 'enlightenment'.. a
PROVABLE code with any concordance..
Adam Knisely
So was Hitler.
Dutch
news:p9N76.18833$FH5.1...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> > Jesus was a Vegetarian!
>
> So was Hitler.
I don't think so. There are enough authoritative clues to disprove that
http://www.veg.on.ca/newsletr/mayjun96/hitler.html
http://www.michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html
Jesus I haven't seen anything convincing he was, not
http://www.jesusveg.com/qow83100.html.
Adam Knisely
> >
> > So was Hitler.
>
> I don't think so. There are enough authoritative clues to disprove that
>
> http://www.veg.on.ca/newsletr/mayjun96/hitler.html
> http://www.michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html
The point of my response was to say that it is stupid to argue that the
lifestyle of one famous mythological character (or in the latter case, a
facist human-butcher) is better because of that fact. The first of your
links stated that "The fact that Hitler had a nose doesn't mean we're going
to cut our noses off." Just because "Jesus" may or may not have been a
vegetarian does not necessarily dictate that its a better food source.
Dutch
You repeated the mistake, however points are better when the premises are true, in
this case they aren't for either side.
Adam Knisely
> > > >
> > > > So was Hitler.
> > >
> > > I don't think so. There are enough authoritative clues to disprove
that
> > >
> > > http://www.veg.on.ca/newsletr/mayjun96/hitler.html
> > > http://www.michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html
> >
> > The point of my response was to say that it is stupid to argue that the
> > lifestyle of one famous mythological character (or in the latter case, a
> > facist human-butcher) is better because of that fact. The first of
your
> > links stated that "The fact that Hitler had a nose doesn't mean we're
going
> > to cut our noses off." Just because "Jesus" may or may not have been a
> > vegetarian does not necessarily dictate that its a better food source.
>
> You repeated the mistake, however points are better when the premises are
true, in
> this case they aren't for either side.
I didn't have the luxury of doing otherwise. I gambled on the fact that the
popular belief was true.
Dutch
I agree, even if either or both statements were true, it would be meaningless to
anyone making a rational choice.
Adam Knisely
the
> > > > lifestyle of one famous mythological character (or in the latter
case, a
> > > > facist human-butcher) is better because of that fact. The first of
> > your
> > > > links stated that "The fact that Hitler had a nose doesn't mean
we're
> > going
> > > > to cut our noses off." Just because "Jesus" may or may not have
been a
> > > > vegetarian does not necessarily dictate that its a better food
source.
> > >
> > > You repeated the mistake, however points are better when the premises
are
> > true, in
> > > this case they aren't for either side.
> >
> > I didn't have the luxury of doing otherwise. I gambled on the fact that
the
> > popular belief was true.
>
> I agree, even if either or both statements were true, it would be
meaningless to
> anyone making a rational choice.
Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces the amount
of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
Dutch
[..]
> Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces the amount
> of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a person eating a
typical western diet. Going a vegetarian does two things, it eliminates direct
connection to deaths/suffering associated with the meat industry (80 million/year and
untold suffering). Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal fat diet. A
lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter impact on the
ecosystem, hence less impact on animals. That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
Adam Knisely
amount
> > of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
>
> You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a
person eating a
> typical western diet. Going a vegetarian does two things, it eliminates
direct
> connection to deaths/suffering associated with the meat industry (80
million/year and
> untold suffering).
If you want to talk about "direct connection," then I was not directly
connected to a cow's death when I ate my breakfast steak this morning.
> Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
> typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal fat
diet. A
> lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter impact
on the
> ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
Explain the impact of agriculture and ranching on the ecosystem, I'd like to
hear your thoughts on that.
> That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
Perhaps not irrational. I should have use naïve, or maybe near-sighted.
Dutch
> > > Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces the
> amount
> > > of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
> >
> > You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a
> person eating a
> > typical western diet. Going a vegetarian does two things, it eliminates
> direct
> > connection to deaths/suffering associated with the meat industry (80
> million/year and
> > untold suffering).
>
> If you want to talk about "direct connection," then I was not directly
> connected to a cow's death when I ate my breakfast steak this morning.
When you placed your money on the counter at the supermarket you paid for whatever
happened to that animal. It doesn't get much more direct than that without killing the
animal with your own hands. Why would you want to deny it?
>
> > Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
> > typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal fat
> diet. A
> > lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter impact
> on the
> > ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
>
> Explain the impact of agriculture and ranching on the ecosystem, I'd like to
> hear your thoughts on that.
You'll have to be more specific than that. Give me your thoughts on a particular
aspect and I will tell you if I agree or disagree.
>
> > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
>
> Perhaps not irrational. I should have use naïve, or maybe near-sighted.
Whatever, it doesn't matter because it's just a bare unsupported assertion anyway, par
for the course for you.
Adam Knisely
> > amount
> > > > of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
> > >
> > > You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a
> > person eating a
> > > typical western diet. Going a vegetarian does two things, it
eliminates
> > direct
> > > connection to deaths/suffering associated with the meat industry (80
> > million/year and
> > > untold suffering).
> >
> > If you want to talk about "direct connection," then I was not directly
> > connected to a cow's death when I ate my breakfast steak this morning.
>
> When you placed your money on the counter at the supermarket you paid for
whatever
> happened to that animal. It doesn't get much more direct than that without
killing the
> animal with your own hands. Why would you want to deny it?
I deny it because it's an improper use of the term "direct." You'll find,
once you look in your trusty dictionary, that I am as indirectly involved
with the alleged "suffering" and "killing" of animals by buying a steak than
you are when you buy your asparagus.
> > > Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
> > > typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal
fat
> > diet. A
> > > lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter
impact
> > on the
> > > ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
> >
> > Explain the impact of agriculture and ranching on the ecosystem, I'd
like to
> > hear your thoughts on that.
>
> You'll have to be more specific than that.
I think it's a pretty specific subject. You gave a general reference, I'm
asking a general question.
> Give me your thoughts on a particular
> aspect and I will tell you if I agree or disagree.
Firstly, I have no particular thoughts regarding the global environment. I
think its doing perfectly well. Secondly, 90% of my posts that offer a
thought or speculation and ask for your opinion on it, you either clip it,
ignore it, or evade.
> > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
> >
> > Perhaps not irrational. I should have use naïve, or maybe near-sighted.
>
> Whatever, it doesn't matter because it's just a bare unsupported assertion
anyway, par
> for the course for you.
You disagree with the fact that animals die in the production of veg*n food?
Dutch
> > > Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces the
> > > amount
> > > > > of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
> > > >
> > > > You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a
> > > person eating a
> > > > typical western diet. Going a vegetarian does two things, it
> eliminates
> > > direct
> > > > connection to deaths/suffering associated with the meat industry (80
> > > million/year and
> > > > untold suffering).
> > >
> > > If you want to talk about "direct connection," then I was not directly
> > > connected to a cow's death when I ate my breakfast steak this morning.
> >
> > When you placed your money on the counter at the supermarket you paid for
> whatever
> > happened to that animal. It doesn't get much more direct than that without
> killing the
> > animal with your own hands. Why would you want to deny it?
>
> I deny it because it's an improper use of the term "direct."
Granted, lets use the term indirect.
You'll find,
> once you look in your trusty dictionary, that I am as indirectly involved
> with the alleged "suffering" and "killing" of animals by buying a steak
You surely don't mean "alleged" to apply to "killing". You can bury your head in the
sand and deny suffering but surely not that they are killed.
than
> you are when you buy your asparagus.
I have never denied the impact my diet has. You are getting desperate using that old
strawman on me.
>
> > > > Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
> > > > typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal
> fat
> > > diet. A
> > > > lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter
> impact
> > > on the
> > > > ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
> > >
> > > Explain the impact of agriculture and ranching on the ecosystem, I'd
> like to
> > > hear your thoughts on that.
> >
> > You'll have to be more specific than that.
>
> I think it's a pretty specific subject. You gave a general reference, I'm
> asking a general question.
>
> > Give me your thoughts on a particular
> > aspect and I will tell you if I agree or disagree.
>
> Firstly, I have no particular thoughts regarding the global environment.
I didn't think so.
I
> think its doing perfectly well.
I figured as much.
Secondly, 90% of my posts that offer a
> thought or speculation and ask for your opinion on it, you either clip it,
> ignore it, or evade.
I try to snip honestly, please point it out when_it_ happens and I will rectify the
error immediately.
>
> > > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > > > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
> > >
> > > Perhaps not irrational. I should have use naïve, or maybe near-sighted.
> >
> > Whatever, it doesn't matter because it's just a bare unsupported assertion
> anyway, par
> > for the course for you.
>
> You disagree with the fact that animals die in the production of veg*n food?
No I don't. I explained quite clearly already in this thread how I view my eating
choice.
Jon Brunn
no remorse when I dine on meat eaters. Then I would be able to rationalize:
"If I cease to eat meat eaters, that wouldn't reduce the amount of needless
human suffering."
Actually, from a utilitarian point of view, maybe we should eat the meat
eaters. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak. ;) Then they
definitely couldn't tell me we don't get enough protein!
Adam Knisely
> > once you look in your trusty dictionary, that I am as indirectly
involved
> > with the alleged "suffering" and "killing" of animals by buying a steak
>
> You surely don't mean "alleged" to apply to "killing". You can bury your
head in the
> sand and deny suffering but surely not that they are killed.
I placed the term "alleged" to preceed the word "suffering." I didn't
necessarily state "alleged killing." How about this, though: You'll find
... that I am as indirectly involved with the killing and alleged
"suffering" of animals by buying a steak.
Stop evading and respond to what I say, not how I say it.
> than
> > you are when you buy your asparagus.
>
> I have never denied the impact my diet has. You are getting desperate
using that old
> strawman on me.
The impact your diet has on animal "suffering" is the same that you hope to
reduce by refusing meat. You haven't changed the amount of animal suffering
by becoming a vegetarian. You simply don't see that.
> Secondly, 90% of my posts that offer a
> > thought or speculation and ask for your opinion on it, you either clip
it,
> > ignore it, or evade.
>
> I try to snip honestly, please point it out when_it_ happens and I will
rectify the
> error immediately.
I did, on two occasions. You hadn't responded to a few of my posts, so I
reposted them, addressing you directly. After you ignored those, I assumed
you were in agreement with my statements.
> > > > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > > > > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps not irrational. I should have use naïve, or maybe
near-sighted.
> > >
> > > Whatever, it doesn't matter because it's just a bare unsupported
assertion
> > anyway, par
> > > for the course for you.
> >
> > You disagree with the fact that animals die in the production of veg*n
food?
>
> No I don't. I explained quite clearly already in this thread how I view my
eating
> choice.
Then, what do you believe you are accomplishing by refusing meat?
Dutch
[..]
>
> I placed the term "alleged" to preceed the word "suffering." I didn't
> necessarily state "alleged killing." How about this, though: You'll find
> ... that I am as indirectly involved with the killing and alleged
> "suffering" of animals by buying a steak.
>
> Stop evading and respond to what I say, not how I say it.
I'm not evading anything, I replied to your question directly, you just aren't paying
attention. Here's the entire post I made explaining why I concluded a vegetarian diet
reduces animal suffering, in case you missed it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
[..]
> Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces the amount
> of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a person eating a
typical western diet. Going a vegetarian does two things, it eliminates direct
connection to deaths/suffering associated with the meat industry (80 million/year and
untold suffering). Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal fat diet. A
lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter impact on the
ecosystem, hence less impact on animals. That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > than
> > > you are when you buy your asparagus.
> >
> > I have never denied the impact my diet has. You are getting desperate
> using that old
> > strawman on me.
>
> The impact your diet has on animal "suffering" is the same that you hope to
> reduce by refusing meat. You haven't changed the amount of animal suffering
> by becoming a vegetarian. You simply don't see that.
>
> > Secondly, 90% of my posts that offer a
> > > thought or speculation and ask for your opinion on it, you either clip
> it,
> > > ignore it, or evade.
> >
> > I try to snip honestly, please point it out when_it_ happens and I will
> rectify the
> > error immediately.
>
> I did, on two occasions. You hadn't responded to a few of my posts, so I
> reposted them, addressing you directly. After you ignored those, I assumed
> you were in agreement with my statements.
Life is tough, I respond to what I see, if I feel I have anything worth saying. What
you assume is your worry.
>
> > > > > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > > > > > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps not irrational. I should have use naïve, or maybe
> near-sighted.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever, it doesn't matter because it's just a bare unsupported
> assertion
> > > anyway, par
> > > > for the course for you.
> > >
> > > You disagree with the fact that animals die in the production of veg*n
> food?
> >
> > No I don't. I explained quite clearly already in this thread how I view my
> eating
> > choice.
>
> Then, what do you believe you are accomplishing by refusing meat?
I assume you mean aside from health benefits, feeling better, not losing my ability to
respond to antibiotics, and lower cost? Read the included message above, that sums it
up pretty well. I break ties with an industry that slaughters 80 billion or whatever
animals a year and I don't replace it with anything like it.
Dutch
> reduce by refusing meat. You haven't changed the amount of animal suffering
> by becoming a vegetarian. You simply don't see that.
No I don't. Assuming there is cruelty in the (big) meat industry, which I think we
have established, by eliminating meat from my diet I eliminate my demand for meat and
along with it my contribution ($$) to that industry and it's cruelty. The only way
that balance would be brought back would be if I replaced those calories with
something that caused as much animal suffering. Grass fed beef or game might be good
choices, since they eliminate the feedlot, the antibiotics, and the high speed high
volume assembly line killing. Can you see that THIS choice would reduce animal
cruelty?
Since I choose not to eat meat for other reasons, a small amount of soy and other
grain products make up a part of the lost calories. Since the "collateral" factor is
undefinable with any degree of accuracy, that is an unknown quantity which will remain
a bone of contention. I do think the conclusion, including that factor is completely
reasonable.
Adam Knisely
> > > > > > > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps not irrational. I should have use naïve, or maybe
> > near-sighted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whatever, it doesn't matter because it's just a bare unsupported
> > assertion
> > > > anyway, par
> > > > > for the course for you.
> > > >
> > > > You disagree with the fact that animals die in the production of
veg*n
> > food?
> > >
> > > No I don't. I explained quite clearly already in this thread how I
view my
> > eating
> > > choice.
> >
> > Then, what do you believe you are accomplishing by refusing meat?
>
> I assume you mean aside from health benefits, feeling better, not losing
my ability to
> respond to antibiotics, and lower cost? Read the included message above,
that sums it
> up pretty well. I break ties with an industry that slaughters 80 billion
or whatever
> animals a year and I don't replace it with anything like it.
You "don't replace it with anything like it"? You may cause even more
deaths in a more inhumane manner than what you accuse farmers of doing by
increasing your comsumption of vegetables.
Dutch
> >
> > I assume you mean aside from health benefits, feeling better, not losing
> my ability to
> > respond to antibiotics, and lower cost? Read the included message above,
> that sums it
> > up pretty well. I break ties with an industry that slaughters 80 billion
> or whatever
> > animals a year and I don't replace it with anything like it.
>
> You "don't replace it with anything like it"? You may cause even more
> deaths in a more inhumane manner than what you accuse farmers of doing by
> increasing your comsumption of vegetables.
Fair comment. That is possible, but I think it's unlikely. If I were to replace all
the calories from the meat diet then in effect one might say that bottom line, my
diet had the same environmental impact, but I don't replace them all. Also a
percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown. On the other hand my
lifestyle may be such that I have a far greater impact on the environment than yours
for other reasons, in spite of my diet. It's pointless to argue about endless
intangibles and immeasurable quantities in order to determine whether I cause less
suffering than you.. It comes down to personal lifestyle decisions. One of the 2 diets
we are discussing must cause less animal suffering, and in my imperfect judgment the
veggie diet wins. If you are satisfied with your diet then I have no argument with
you. I respect your right to make those decisions for yourself.
Martin L. Martens
[...]
> Also a
> percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown.
FYI - BC Hothouses are fossil fuel intensive and occupy
wetlands that are important to millions of birds. Also, BC
Hothouse is a company which imports a lot of food from
California. A red pepper with the BC Hothouse sticker is
as likely to have come from California than from BC.
[...]
Adam Knisely
> > >
> > > I assume you mean aside from health benefits, feeling better, not
losing
> > my ability to
> > > respond to antibiotics, and lower cost? Read the included message
above,
> > that sums it
> > > up pretty well. I break ties with an industry that slaughters 80
billion
> > or whatever
> > > animals a year and I don't replace it with anything like it.
> >
> > You "don't replace it with anything like it"? You may cause even more
> > deaths in a more inhumane manner than what you accuse farmers of doing
by
> > increasing your comsumption of vegetables.
>
> Fair comment. That is possible, but I think it's unlikely. If I were to
replace all
> the calories from the meat diet then in effect one might say that bottom
line, my
> diet had the same environmental impact, but I don't replace them all.
What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death caused as a result of
plant production, summed by calories?
> Also a
> percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown.
So if a rat in a field dies, but it was a local rat, that's okay to you?
> On the other hand my
> lifestyle may be such that I have a far greater impact on the environment
than yours
> for other reasons, in spite of my diet.
Then why not "go omnivorous," instead of veg*n?
> It's pointless to argue about endless
> intangibles and immeasurable quantities in order to determine whether I
cause less
> suffering than you.
Why? You say that vegetarian diets ultimately cause a reduction in the
"suffering" of animals. If that's so, it should be pretty easy to explain.
> It comes down to personal lifestyle decisions. One of the 2 diets
> we are discussing must cause less animal suffering, and in my imperfect
judgment the
> veggie diet wins.
You've decided this only because a vegetable or a grain is not a dead animal
carcass in itself. It then appears that the production of a vegetable has
caused absolutely no deaths. Your judgement is imperfect, and very
near-sighted.
> If you are satisfied with your diet then I have no argument with
> you. I respect your right to make those decisions for yourself.
You describe "factory farms" as WWII concentration camps, yet you are
comfortable with your neighbor's support of it?
Dutch
> > > > > Then, what do you believe you are accomplishing by refusing meat?
> > > >
> > > > I assume you mean aside from health benefits, feeling better, not
> losing
> > > my ability to
> > > > respond to antibiotics, and lower cost? Read the included message
> above,
> > > that sums it
> > > > up pretty well. I break ties with an industry that slaughters 80
> billion
> > > or whatever
> > > > animals a year and I don't replace it with anything like it.
> > >
> > > You "don't replace it with anything like it"? You may cause even more
> > > deaths in a more inhumane manner than what you accuse farmers of doing
> by
> > > increasing your comsumption of vegetables.
> >
> > Fair comment. That is possible, but I think it's unlikely. If I were to
> replace all
> > the calories from the meat diet then in effect one might say that bottom
> line, my
> > diet had the same environmental impact, but I don't replace them all.
>
> What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death caused as a result of
> plant production, summed by calories?
I don't know.
>
> > Also a
> > percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown.
>
> So if a rat in a field dies, but it was a local rat, that's okay to you?
I don't care where he's from.
>
> > On the other hand my
> > lifestyle may be such that I have a far greater impact on the environment
> than yours
> > for other reasons, in spite of my diet.
>
> Then why not "go omnivorous," instead of veg*n?
I meant that by travelling a lot or something to do with my business etc.. not diet
related. I don't think omnivorous would help. I'm sure there are ways I could do
better, but I don't because I'm basically selfish.
>
> > It's pointless to argue about endless
> > intangibles and immeasurable quantities in order to determine whether I
> cause less
> > suffering than you.
>
> Why? You say that vegetarian diets ultimately cause a reduction in the
> "suffering" of animals. If that's so, it should be pretty easy to explain.
I didn't say that. Why don't you try commenting on actual quotes instead of making up
your own version. Are you practising dishonest debating tactics for class or are you
just a lying prick?
> > It comes down to personal lifestyle decisions. One of the 2 diets
> > we are discussing must cause less animal suffering, and in my imperfect
> judgment the
> > veggie diet wins.
>
> You've decided this only because a vegetable or a grain is not a dead animal
> carcass in itself.
Meat I would get doesn't even seem like a carcass anyway. It's just more shrink
wrapped consumables.
> It then appears that the production of a vegetable has
> caused absolutely no deaths.
That's 3 times you've misquoted me in this post, man you are getting desperate.
Your judgement is imperfect, and very
> near-sighted.
I admit that. Yours is blind.
> > If you are satisfied with your diet then I have no argument with
> > you. I respect your right to make those decisions for yourself.
>
> You describe "factory farms" as WWII concentration camps, yet you are
> comfortable with your neighbor's support of it?
..misquoting me again. yawn.. Now we have masked terrorists and concentration camps
running around in your paranoid delusions at the same time. Why do you persist in this
unprincipled indictment of my right to make my own choices? I thought that's what you
were against, you nazi slimeball.
Adam Knisely
more
> > > > deaths in a more inhumane manner than what you accuse farmers of
doing
> > by
> > > > increasing your comsumption of vegetables.
> > >
> > > Fair comment. That is possible, but I think it's unlikely. If I were
to
> > replace all
> > > the calories from the meat diet then in effect one might say that
bottom
> > line, my
> > > diet had the same environmental impact, but I don't replace them all.
> >
> > What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death caused as a result of
> > plant production, summed by calories?
>
> I don't know.
And yet you've come to the conclusion that there is a greater number on the
meat side?
> > > Also a
> > > percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown.
> >
> > So if a rat in a field dies, but it was a local rat, that's okay to you?
>
> I don't care where he's from.
But you make it a point that locally grown vegetables are better.
> > > On the other hand my
> > > lifestyle may be such that I have a far greater impact on the
environment
> > than yours
> > > for other reasons, in spite of my diet.
> >
> > Then why not "go omnivorous," instead of veg*n?
>
> I meant that by travelling a lot or something to do with my business etc..
not diet
> related. I don't think omnivorous would help. I'm sure there are ways I
could do
> better, but I don't because I'm basically selfish.
That doesn't sound like someone who considers him/herself compassionate and
wanting to stop the "suffering" in farms.
> > > It's pointless to argue about endless
> > > intangibles and immeasurable quantities in order to determine whether
I
> > cause less
> > > suffering than you.
> >
> > Why? You say that vegetarian diets ultimately cause a reduction in the
> > "suffering" of animals. If that's so, it should be pretty easy to
explain.
>
> I didn't say that.
You constantly allege that there is an unacceptable level of suffering in
meat farms. You believe you are counteracting this by refusing the products
that come from animals.
> > > It comes down to personal lifestyle decisions. One of the 2 diets
> > > we are discussing must cause less animal suffering, and in my
imperfect
> > judgment the
> > > veggie diet wins.
> >
> > You've decided this only because a vegetable or a grain is not a dead
animal
> > carcass in itself.
>
> Meat I would get doesn't even seem like a carcass anyway. It's just more
shrink
> wrapped consumables.
Well, whatever. Answer the question.
> > > If you are satisfied with your diet then I have no argument with
> > > you. I respect your right to make those decisions for yourself.
> >
> > You describe "factory farms" as WWII concentration camps, yet you are
> > comfortable with your neighbor's support of it?
>
> ..misquoting me again. yawn.. Now we have masked terrorists and
concentration camps
> running around in your paranoid delusions at the same time. Why do you
persist in this
> unprincipled indictment of my right to make my own choices? I thought
that's what you
> were against, you nazi slimeball.
Do you want me to go find the quote in dejanews? Or am I overestimating your
pride/ego, and you'd just admit that you've posted it?
Dutch
> > > > > You "don't replace it with anything like it"? You may cause even
> more
> > > > > deaths in a more inhumane manner than what you accuse farmers of
> doing
> > > by
> > > > > increasing your comsumption of vegetables.
> > > >
> > > > Fair comment. That is possible, but I think it's unlikely. If I were
> to
> > > replace all
> > > > the calories from the meat diet then in effect one might say that
> bottom
> > > line, my
> > > > diet had the same environmental impact, but I don't replace them all.
> > >
> > > What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death caused as a result of
> > > plant production, summed by calories?
> >
> > I don't know.
>
> And yet you've come to the conclusion that there is a greater number on the
> meat side?
Yep that's right.
>
> > > > Also a
> > > > percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown.
> > >
> > > So if a rat in a field dies, but it was a local rat, that's okay to you?
> >
> > I don't care where he's from.
>
> But you make it a point that locally grown vegetables are better.
Less travel impact.
> > > > On the other hand my
> > > > lifestyle may be such that I have a far greater impact on the
> environment
> > > than yours
> > > > for other reasons, in spite of my diet.
> > >
> > > Then why not "go omnivorous," instead of veg*n?
> >
> > I meant that by travelling a lot or something to do with my business etc..
> not diet
> > related. I don't think omnivorous would help. I'm sure there are ways I
> could do
> > better, but I don't because I'm basically selfish.
>
> That doesn't sound like someone who considers him/herself compassionate and
> wanting to stop the "suffering" in farms.
Too many contradictions for you? Well guess what, I'm human.
>
> > > > It's pointless to argue about endless
> > > > intangibles and immeasurable quantities in order to determine whether
> I
> > > cause less
> > > > suffering than you.
> > >
> > > Why? You say that vegetarian diets ultimately cause a reduction in the
> > > "suffering" of animals. If that's so, it should be pretty easy to
> explain.
> >
> > I didn't say that.
>
> You constantly allege that there is an unacceptable level of suffering in
> meat farms. You believe you are counteracting this by refusing the products
> that come from animals.
Unacceptable to me, we are different people. You define what suffering is and what is
acceptable differently than I do. We both are within our rights to view these things
differently.
> > > > It comes down to personal lifestyle decisions. One of the 2 diets
> > > > we are discussing must cause less animal suffering, and in my
> imperfect
> > > judgment the
> > > > veggie diet wins.
> > >
> > > You've decided this only because a vegetable or a grain is not a dead
> animal
> > > carcass in itself.
> >
> > Meat I would get doesn't even seem like a carcass anyway. It's just more
> shrink
> > wrapped consumables.
>
> Well, whatever.
Whatever nothing. your point was that I would be turned off by a dead animal carcass
on my plate, well most people would be. A medium cut of prime rib with a garnish on it
and a baked potato is hardly a dead animal carcass. What a dishonest piece of work you
are. What is your justification for it?
> Answer the question.
You didn't ask one moron.
> > > > If you are satisfied with your diet then I have no argument with
> > > > you. I respect your right to make those decisions for yourself.
> > >
> > > You describe "factory farms" as WWII concentration camps, yet you are
> > > comfortable with your neighbor's support of it?
> >
> > ..misquoting me again. yawn.. Now we have masked terrorists and
> concentration camps
> > running around in your paranoid delusions at the same time. Why do you
> persist in this
> > unprincipled indictment of my right to make my own choices? I thought
> that's what you
> > were against, you nazi slimeball.
>
> Do you want me to go find the quote in dejanews? Or am I overestimating your
> pride/ego, and you'd just admit that you've posted it?
I'm not denying I may have used similiar term at some point, so did you just now, the
context is everything. For the record, and nobody else here needs me to say this, I DO
NOT equate factory farms with concentration camps, although many ARAs do. You are
repeatedly using strawmen, misquotes, unfounded allegations and other desperate
tactics to prove your reactionary little point. All you are doing is showing that you
either have terrible comprehension skills, or you really are just a dishonest shit.
John Mercer
> "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote in message
> news:YJw86.20793$OD6.1...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> > > > > > You "don't replace it with anything like it"? You may cause even
> > more
> > > > > > deaths in a more inhumane manner than what you accuse farmers of
> > doing
> > > > by
> > > > > > increasing your comsumption of vegetables.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fair comment. That is possible, but I think it's unlikely. If I were
> > to
> > > > replace all
> > > > > the calories from the meat diet then in effect one might say that
> > bottom
> > > > line, my
> > > > > diet had the same environmental impact, but I don't replace them all.
> > > >
> > > > What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death caused as a result of
> > > > plant production, summed by calories?
> > >
> > > I don't know.
> >
> > And yet you've come to the conclusion that there is a greater number on the
> > meat side?
>
> Yep that's right.
How can you rationally and ethically claim that one number is greater
than another if you refuse to measure the number on one side?
Is it because your illusion that your phony choice is better than the
choices of others is more important than the lives and suffering of the
animals you cause?
John Mercer
> "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> [..]
> > Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces the amount
> > of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
>
> You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a
> person eating a typical western diet.
Now why would you pick on a typical Western diet, since it is chosen
without consideration of animal deaths or suffering?
Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in which
foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact
with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices are false
ones?
> Going a vegetarian does two things,
It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your consideration
in such an insensitive way?
> it eliminates direct connection to deaths/suffering associated with the
> meat industry (80 million/year and untold suffering).
It also increases your direct connection to deaths/suffering associated
with the vegetable industry (a number you are afraid to determine or
even estimate).
I can see why you left that thing (the maiming and killing of innocent
animals) out. Can you?
> Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
> typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal fat
> diet.
You have no support for this assertion. Many non-animal foods have much
higher calorie/gram ratios. Consider salty snacks and ice cream.
> A lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter
> impact on the ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
The first is patently false, the second is true, but only if you do not
alter the relative proportions of foods. You are not arguing that
position.
For example, replacing a beef-and-potatoes dinner with a far
lower-calorie (and healthier) fish-and-salad dinner causes a huge
increase in ecological impact, particularly in fossil fuels.
Your sweeping generalization is simply fraudulent, and you know it.
There is simply no rational basis by which you can credibly claim that
eating vegetables has less impact on the environment than eating meats.
Both categories vary wildly.
> That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
It's completely irrational. Here's the question you refuse to consider:
If YOU substituted some of YOUR current vegetable or grain consumption
with an isocaloric amount of beef, would the animal death/suffering that
YOU cause increase or decrease?
It's about the choices YOU make between individual foods, not diets.
Feel free to consider supermarket beef and grass-fed beef separately,
but don't tell any typical vegetarian lies about the typical lifelong
diet of cattle.
If you'd like to depersonalize it, START with the typical Western diet
and determine WHICH CHANGE will cause a greater decrease in animal
deaths or suffering:
1) Carefully choosing foods from BOTH CATEGORIES (vegetable and animal)
to minimize one's impact, or
2) Ignorantly categorizing all veggies as better than all meats?
Do you have the intellectual integrity to do that, Dutch?
John Mercer
> "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> [..]
> >
> > The impact your diet has on animal "suffering" is the same that you hope to
> > reduce by refusing meat. You haven't changed the amount of animal suffering
> > by becoming a vegetarian. You simply don't see that.
>
> No I don't. Assuming there is cruelty in the (big) meat industry, which I
> think we have established,
No question there. Your problem is that only SOME meat comes from the
big meat industry. You can't rationally argue in favor of refusing ALL
meat unless your argument rationally addresses ALL sources of meat.
> by eliminating meat from my diet I eliminate my demand for
ALL
> meat and
> along with it my contribution ($$) to that industry and it's cruelty.
But you increase your demand for veggies and along with it your
contribution ($$) to that industry and its cruelty. You also
irrationally eliminate your demand for meat that is produced in humane
and ecologically sound ways.
It's funny how you leave those important bits out.
> The only way that balance would be brought back would be if I replaced
> those calories with something that caused as much animal suffering.
That's simply false. You have choices that would replace it with more or
less, but you don't want to know which is which.
> Grass fed beef or game might be good choices, since they eliminate the
> feedlot, the antibiotics, and the high speed high volume assembly line
> killing. Can you see that THIS choice would reduce animal cruelty?
Yes. Substituting such meat for meat that is produced by means that you
consider unethical is completely rational, unlike the false choice of
veg*nism.
Can you construct a rational argument that concludes with refusing ALL
meat?
> Since I choose not to eat meat for other reasons, a small amount of soy
> and other grain products make up a part of the lost calories.
Grain production, storage, and transport causes the death of many, many
animals. Why don't you want to count them and convert the figures to
deaths per calorie? The figure for grass-fed beef is miniscule. Are the
foods you eat better or not?
> Since the "collateral" factor is
> undefinable with any degree of accuracy,
I disagree. You can learn this with sufficient accuracy to compare it to
grass-fed beef.
Also, the deaths are not merely collateral. There's no way that you can
rationally or ethically characterize the deliberate, brutal poisoning of
rodents at the grain elevator as "collateral" deaths.
> that is an unknown quantity which will remain
> a bone of contention.
Only because you don't want to know, which is the point everyone's been
making. You don't care enough about the animals to find out.
> I do think the conclusion, including that factor is completely
> reasonable.
Can you rewrite this sentence in English? Thanks.
How can you rationally claim that M > V when you refuse even to attempt
to quantitate V?
Michael Cerkowski
but the posts are the same. Is this a glitch of the
Net, or has he just failed to expand his repertoire
one iota? I guess we'll see.
--
"People should be held accountable for their actions." -GW Bush
Martin L. Martens
>
> Well, it *looks* like the Reverend has returned,
> but the posts are the same. Is this a glitch of the
> Net, or has he just failed to expand his repertoire
> one iota? I guess we'll see.
This from someone who has done nothing but post the same
old error-ridden "FAQs" lately? That's the laugh of the
day.
brand...@my-deja.com
Jon Brunn <jbr...@niu.edu> wrote:
> Well made point. I'll have to convince myself of that so that I will
feel
> no remorse when I dine on meat eaters. Then I would be able to
rationalize:
> "If I cease to eat meat eaters, that wouldn't reduce the amount of
needless
> human suffering."
>
> Actually, from a utilitarian point of view, maybe we should eat the
meat
> eaters. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak. ;) Then they
> definitely couldn't tell me we don't get enough protein!
So, did you have any legitimate points to make?
Kevin
>
> >
> > Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces
the amount
> > of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Adam Knisely
even
> > more
> > > > > > deaths in a more inhumane manner than what you accuse farmers of
> > doing
> > > > by
> > > > > > increasing your comsumption of vegetables.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fair comment. That is possible, but I think it's unlikely. If I
were
> > to
> > > > replace all
> > > > > the calories from the meat diet then in effect one might say that
> > bottom
> > > > line, my
> > > > > diet had the same environmental impact, but I don't replace them
all.
> > > >
> > > > What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death caused as a
result of
> > > > plant production, summed by calories?
> > >
> > > I don't know.
> >
> > And yet you've come to the conclusion that there is a greater number on
the
> > meat side?
>
> Yep that's right.
Your logic is that of most animal rights terrorists. Ignorant of, and
lacking reason.
> >> > > > > Also a
> > > > > percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown.
> > > >
> > > > So if a rat in a field dies, but it was a local rat, that's okay to
you?
> > >
> > > I don't care where he's from.
> >
> > But you make it a point that locally grown vegetables are better.
>
> Less travel impact.
What, exactly, does travel impact?
> > > > > On the other hand my
> > > > > lifestyle may be such that I have a far greater impact on the
> > environment
> > > > than yours
> > > > > for other reasons, in spite of my diet.
> > > >
> > > > Then why not "go omnivorous," instead of veg*n?
> > >
> > > I meant that by travelling a lot or something to do with my business
etc..
> > not diet
> > > related. I don't think omnivorous would help. I'm sure there are ways
I
> > could do
> > > better, but I don't because I'm basically selfish.
> >
> > That doesn't sound like someone who considers him/herself compassionate
and
> > wanting to stop the "suffering" in farms.
>
> Too many contradictions for you? Well guess what, I'm human.
Human, perhaps, but also ignorant.
> > > > > It's pointless to argue about endless
> > > > > intangibles and immeasurable quantities in order to determine
whether
> > I
> > > > cause less
> > > > > suffering than you.
> > > >
> > > > Why? You say that vegetarian diets ultimately cause a reduction in
the
> > > > "suffering" of animals. If that's so, it should be pretty easy to
> > explain.
> > >
> > > I didn't say that.
> >
> > You constantly allege that there is an unacceptable level of suffering
in
> > meat farms. You believe you are counteracting this by refusing the
products
> > that come from animals.
>
> Unacceptable to me, we are different people. You define what suffering is
and what is
> acceptable differently than I do. We both are within our rights to view
these things
> differently.
Yes, but the point of debate is to convince others that your point of view
is the correct one.
> > > > > It comes down to personal lifestyle decisions. One of the 2 diets
> > > > > we are discussing must cause less animal suffering, and in my
> > imperfect
> > > > judgment the
> > > > > veggie diet wins.
> > > >
> > > > You've decided this only because a vegetable or a grain is not a
dead
> > animal
> > > > carcass in itself.
> > >
> > > Meat I would get doesn't even seem like a carcass anyway. It's just
more
> > shrink
> > > wrapped consumables.
> >
> > Well, whatever.
>
> Whatever nothing. your point was that I would be turned off by a dead
animal carcass
> on my plate, well most people would be. A medium cut of prime rib with a
garnish on it
> and a baked potato is hardly a dead animal carcass.
You know exactly what I mean. Quit stalling.
> > Answer the question.
>
> You didn't ask one moron.
I did. "What is it that you believe you are accomplishing by refusing
meat?"
> > > > > If you are satisfied with your diet then I have no argument with
> > > > > you. I respect your right to make those decisions for yourself.
> > > >
> > > > You describe "factory farms" as WWII concentration camps, yet you
are
> > > > comfortable with your neighbor's support of it?
> > >
> > > ..misquoting me again. yawn.. Now we have masked terrorists and
> > concentration camps
> > > running around in your paranoid delusions at the same time. Why do you
> > persist in this
> > > unprincipled indictment of my right to make my own choices? I thought
> > that's what you
> > > were against, you nazi slimeball.
> >
> > Do you want me to go find the quote in dejanews? Or am I overestimating
your
> > pride/ego, and you'd just admit that you've posted it?
>
> I'm not denying I may have used similiar term at some point, so did you
just now, the
> context is everything. For the record, and nobody else here needs me to
say this, I DO
> NOT equate factory farms with concentration camps, although many ARAs do.
You are
> repeatedly using strawmen, misquotes, unfounded allegations and other
desperate
> tactics to prove your reactionary little point.
Fine, forget it.
> All you are doing is showing that you
> either have terrible comprehension skills, or you really are just a
dishonest shit.
You're getting quite nasty here. And to think I was just begining to think
you were a real person.
Dutch
news:1en9yx0.wecq0h1izkybuN%um...@montana.edu...
First of all, my goal is not that my choices be "better than others", just to be
better. Do you avoid self-improvement for fear that you may make someone feel
inferior? The reason I have not measured collateral deaths numbers is I know of no way
to do so. For the most part I consider that all grains and vegetables from unknown
sources will have some degree of animal suffering attached to them which is an unknown
quantity, but more or less consistent averaged out over time and source. Other
"critter-friendly" sources such as Lundberg rice may have a lower average. My rough
calculation of the suffering cost of growing, storing, harvesting and transporting
feed to feedlots, and the caloric burn-down of the feed to meat, and the loss due to
waste, then the distribution, packaging and refrigeration of the meat, added to
whatever suffering the animals may have endured adds up to a some amount. Compare that
to the (suffering) cost of growing, transporting and packaging plant food. Of course
this is just an estimate because the figures are so inexact but basically that's what
I've done.
Dutch
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> > [..]
> > > Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces the amount
> > > of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
> >
> > You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a
> > person eating a typical western diet.
>
> Now why would you pick on a typical Western diet, since it is chosen
> without consideration of animal deaths or suffering?
First because it's what I have first hand experience with, and secondly because it's
the most likely starting point for most people who would be undertaking a switch to a
vegetarian diet.
>
> Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in which
> foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact
> with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
>
> Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices are false
> ones?
Not at all, give me an example.
> > Going a vegetarian does two things,
>
> It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your consideration
> in such an insensitive way?
I didn't say it does ONLY two things, do you always read so selectively?
>
> > it eliminates direct connection to deaths/suffering associated with the
> > meat industry (80 million/year and untold suffering).
>
> It also increases your direct connection to deaths/suffering associated
> with the vegetable industry (a number you are afraid to determine or
> even estimate).
Yes, I stated that.
> I can see why you left that thing (the maiming and killing of innocent
> animals) out. Can you?
Maiming too? I can just see the critters in little wheelchairs..
>
> > Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
> > typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal fat
> > diet.
>
> You have no support for this assertion. Many non-animal foods have much
> higher calorie/gram ratios. Consider salty snacks and ice cream.
I don't know a single vegetarian that increases their intake of these types of food
after becoming a vegetarian. The relevant fact is how much plant-based food do I add
to my diet to replace the absent meat.
>
> > A lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter
> > impact on the ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
>
> The first is patently false, the second is true, but only if you do not
> alter the relative proportions of foods. You are not arguing that
> position.
The statement is generally accurate if not scientifically perfectly correct. I think
you get the meaning. i.e if you consume 1/2 as much your impact on the environment is
reduced by some factor.
>
> For example, replacing a beef-and-potatoes dinner with a far
> lower-calorie (and healthier) fish-and-salad dinner causes a huge
> increase in ecological impact, particularly in fossil fuels.
>
> Your sweeping generalization is simply fraudulent, and you know it.
> There is simply no rational basis by which you can credibly claim that
> eating vegetables has less impact on the environment than eating meats.
> Both categories vary wildly.
It's not fraudulent, it's a generalization which is generally true and sometimes
false, which generalizations tend to be.
>
> > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
>
> It's completely irrational. Here's the question you refuse to consider:
>
> If YOU substituted some of YOUR current vegetable or grain consumption
> with an isocaloric amount of beef, would the animal death/suffering that
> YOU cause increase or decrease?
That would depend on the source of the meat and the source of the vegatables.
>
> It's about the choices YOU make between individual foods, not diets.
I don't think the two need to be necessarily opposed. After all diets are nothing more
than a collection of individual foods.
> Feel free to consider supermarket beef and grass-fed beef separately,
I have done so, grass-fed beef is hard to locate around here, if not impossible.
> but don't tell any typical vegetarian lies about the typical lifelong
> diet of cattle.
I haven't.
> If you'd like to depersonalize it, START with the typical Western diet
> and determine WHICH CHANGE will cause a greater decrease in animal
> deaths or suffering:
>
> 1) Carefully choosing foods from BOTH CATEGORIES (vegetable and animal)
> to minimize one's impact, or
>
> 2) Ignorantly categorizing all veggies as better than all meats?
>
> Do you have the intellectual integrity to do that, Dutch?
I've already done something like that. I'll list a kind of rough heirarchy of diets as
I see them.
1) a self-sufficient veg*n farmer
2) a self-sufficient hunter
3) a combination of (1) and (2)
4) a person who goes to great lengths to choose only foods with a low index of animal
suffering, and chooses things like grass-fed meats or animals known to have lived and
died relatively cruelty-free, free-range eggs, locally grown vegetables,
critter-friendly grains.(good luck getting anybody from (8) to here)
5) a person who does some of the above as much as possible...etc
6) a veg*n
7) a vegetarian
8) a typical western diet eaten by a typical (sub)urban westerner who thinks the meat
industry is doing just fine and is too busy to care anyway as long it's cheap and it
tastes good.
Dutch
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> > [..]
> > >
> > > The impact your diet has on animal "suffering" is the same that you hope to
> > > reduce by refusing meat. You haven't changed the amount of animal suffering
> > > by becoming a vegetarian. You simply don't see that.
> >
> > No I don't. Assuming there is cruelty in the (big) meat industry, which I
> > think we have established,
>
> No question there. Your problem is that only SOME meat comes from the
> big meat industry. You can't rationally argue in favor of refusing ALL
> meat unless your argument rationally addresses ALL sources of meat.
I agree that meat exists that represents virtually no suffering. I would eat it if a)
I ate meat and b) if it were available. I plan to find some for our next dinner for
the folks.
> > by eliminating meat from my diet I eliminate my demand for
>
> ALL
>
> > meat and
> > along with it my contribution ($$) to that industry and it's cruelty.
>
> But you increase your demand for veggies and along with it your
> contribution ($$) to that industry and its cruelty. You also
> irrationally eliminate your demand for meat that is produced in humane
> and ecologically sound ways.
>
> It's funny how you leave those important bits out.
No I didn't. I mentioned that by leaving out meat I would be increasing my consumption
of vegatables. I have also stipulated that health, availability, convenience, taste
and cost are all deterining factors.
> > The only way that balance would be brought back would be if I replaced
> > those calories with something that caused as much animal suffering.
>
> That's simply false. You have choices that would replace it with more or
> less, but you don't want to know which is which.
That sentence is non-responsive.
>
> > Grass fed beef or game might be good choices, since they eliminate the
> > feedlot, the antibiotics, and the high speed high volume assembly line
> > killing. Can you see that THIS choice would reduce animal cruelty?
Yes.
>
> Yes. Substituting such meat for meat that is produced by means that you
> consider unethical is completely rational, unlike the false choice of
> veg*nism.
I don't consider it unethical. You must have me confused with someone else
> Can you construct a rational argument that concludes with refusing ALL
> meat?
Theoretically, but almost no-one could follow it.
>
> > Since I choose not to eat meat for other reasons, a small amount of soy
> > and other grain products make up a part of the lost calories.
>
> Grain production, storage, and transport causes the death of many, many
> animals. Why don't you want to count them and convert the figures to
> deaths per calorie? The figure for grass-fed beef is miniscule. Are the
> foods you eat better or not?
Nope.
>
> > Since the "collateral" factor is
> > undefinable with any degree of accuracy,
>
> I disagree. You can learn this with sufficient accuracy to compare it to
> grass-fed beef.
You love that grass-fed beef don't you? Trouble is, there is near-zero demand and
therefore near-zero availablility. Yes it's a good choice but as you know, nobody
cares. I also don't eat meat for health reasons so I would not require it until
Easter.
>
> Also, the deaths are not merely collateral. There's no way that you can
> rationally or ethically characterize the deliberate, brutal poisoning of
> rodents at the grain elevator as "collateral" deaths.
Sure you can. We don't eat them, so their deaths are collateral. It's not that those
deaths don't exist, it's they exist in equal proportions in cattle feed and human
food.
>
> > that is an unknown quantity which will remain
> > a bone of contention.
>
> Only because you don't want to know, which is the point everyone's been
> making. You don't care enough about the animals to find out.
Point me to the information please, thank you.
[..]
Dutch
No, it's just a matter of estimating where-ever dat is not available. Are you saying
I'm a terrorist?
>
> > >> > > > > Also a
> > > > > > percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if a rat in a field dies, but it was a local rat, that's okay to
> you?
> > > >
> > > > I don't care where he's from.
> > >
> > > But you make it a point that locally grown vegetables are better.
> >
> > Less travel impact.
>
> What, exactly, does travel impact?
Roads, fossil fuel use, etc, all impact animals and the enviroment.
>
> > > > > > On the other hand my
> > > > > > lifestyle may be such that I have a far greater impact on the
> > > environment
> > > > > than yours
> > > > > > for other reasons, in spite of my diet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why not "go omnivorous," instead of veg*n?
> > > >
> > > > I meant that by travelling a lot or something to do with my business
> etc..
> > > not diet
> > > > related. I don't think omnivorous would help. I'm sure there are ways
> I
> > > could do
> > > > better, but I don't because I'm basically selfish.
> > >
> > > That doesn't sound like someone who considers him/herself compassionate
> and
> > > wanting to stop the "suffering" in farms.
> >
> > Too many contradictions for you? Well guess what, I'm human.
>
> Human, perhaps, but also ignorant.
Imperfect, sometimes ignorant and selfish, pretty normal person, probably much like
you.
>
> > > > > > It's pointless to argue about endless
> > > > > > intangibles and immeasurable quantities in order to determine
> whether
> > > I
> > > > > cause less
> > > > > > suffering than you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? You say that vegetarian diets ultimately cause a reduction in
> the
> > > > > "suffering" of animals. If that's so, it should be pretty easy to
> > > explain.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't say that.
> > >
> > > You constantly allege that there is an unacceptable level of suffering
> in
> > > meat farms. You believe you are counteracting this by refusing the
> products
> > > that come from animals.
> >
> > Unacceptable to me, we are different people. You define what suffering is
> and what is
> > acceptable differently than I do. We both are within our rights to view
> these things
> > differently.
>
> Yes, but the point of debate is to convince others that your point of view
> is the correct one.
That's not my reason. I want people to shoot down my arguments so I can come closer to
the truth.
>
> > > > > > It comes down to personal lifestyle decisions. One of the 2 diets
> > > > > > we are discussing must cause less animal suffering, and in my
> > > imperfect
> > > > > judgment the
> > > > > > veggie diet wins.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've decided this only because a vegetable or a grain is not a
> dead
> > > animal
> > > > > carcass in itself.
> > > >
> > > > Meat I would get doesn't even seem like a carcass anyway. It's just
> more
> > > shrink
> > > > wrapped consumables.
> > >
> > > Well, whatever.
> >
> > Whatever nothing. your point was that I would be turned off by a dead
> animal carcass
> > on my plate, well most people would be. A medium cut of prime rib with a
> garnish on it
> > and a baked potato is hardly a dead animal carcass.
>
> You know exactly what I mean. Quit stalling.
>
> > > Answer the question.
> >
> > You didn't ask one moron.
>
> I did. "What is it that you believe you are accomplishing by refusing
> meat?"
I told you, I believe my current diet causes less animal suffering than before I gave
up meat.
I am a real person, real fed up with your unethical tactics. What's worse, misquoting
someone or calling them a name? I plan to continue to berate you every time I catch
you. If you want to attribute something to me, use an included quote, not your edited
version with a different meaning.
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1en9ztr.glg9h2lpj03uN%um...@montana.edu...
> > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> > > [..]
> > > >
> > > > The impact your diet has on animal "suffering" is the same that you
> > > > hope to reduce by refusing meat. You haven't changed the amount of
> > > > animal suffering by becoming a vegetarian. You simply don't see
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > No I don't. Assuming there is cruelty in the (big) meat industry, which I
> > > think we have established,
> >
> > No question there. Your problem is that only SOME meat comes from the
> > big meat industry. You can't rationally argue in favor of refusing ALL
> > meat unless your argument rationally addresses ALL sources of meat.
>
> I agree that meat exists that represents virtually no suffering. I would
> eat it if a) I ate meat and b) if it were available. I plan to find some
> for our next dinner for the folks.
So your preferences are more important than animal deaths or suffering?
Such meat is readily available. See 1018 Web links, starting with:
http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%2B%22grass-fed%22+%2Bbeef&kl=X
X&pg=q&Translate=on
Here's a good one:
> > > by eliminating meat from my diet I eliminate my demand for
> >
> > ALL
> >
> > > meat and
> > > along with it my contribution ($$) to that industry and it's cruelty.
> >
> > But you increase your demand for veggies and along with it your
> > contribution ($$) to that industry and its cruelty. You also
> > irrationally eliminate your demand for meat that is produced in humane
> > and ecologically sound ways.
> >
> > It's funny how you leave those important bits out.
>
> No I didn't.
Yes, you did.
> I mentioned that by leaving out meat I would be increasing my consumption
> of vegatables. I have also stipulated that health, availability,
> convenience, taste and cost are all deterining factors.
When did you mention that?
> > > The only way that balance would be brought back would be if I replaced
> > > those calories with something that caused as much animal suffering.
> >
> > That's simply false. You have choices that would replace it with more or
> > less, but you don't want to know which is which.
>
> That sentence is non-responsive.
>
No, you mean that you don't have a rational response.
> > > Grass fed beef or game might be good choices, since they eliminate the
> > > feedlot, the antibiotics, and the high speed high volume assembly line
> > > killing. Can you see that THIS choice would reduce animal cruelty?
>
> Yes.
Why are you answering your own question, Dutch?
> > Yes. Substituting such meat for meat that is produced by means that you
> > consider unethical is completely rational, unlike the false choice of
> > veg*nism.
>
> I don't consider it unethical. You must have me confused with someone else
I didn't say that you did. My point was hypothetical.
> > Can you construct a rational argument that concludes with refusing ALL
> > meat?
>
> Theoretically, but almost no-one could follow it.
Call me a skeptic. I'd like to hear it.
> > > Since I choose not to eat meat for other reasons, a small amount of soy
> > > and other grain products make up a part of the lost calories.
> >
> > Grain production, storage, and transport causes the death of many, many
> > animals. Why don't you want to count them and convert the figures to
> > deaths per calorie? The figure for grass-fed beef is miniscule. Are the
> > foods you eat better or not?
>
> Nope.
Why don't you choose foods to reduce animal suffering?
> >
> > > Since the "collateral" factor is
> > > undefinable with any degree of accuracy,
> >
> > I disagree. You can learn this with sufficient accuracy to compare it to
> > grass-fed beef.
>
> You love that grass-fed beef don't you?
Yes, I do! It's tastier, although often less tender.
> Trouble is, there is near-zero demand and
> therefore near-zero availablility.
Then simple economics would tell us that it would be insanely cheap.
However, reality tells us that grass-fed beef is more expensive than
supermarket, feedlot-fattened beef.
http://www.restorationfarms.com/price.htm
What do you conclude from that fact?
> Yes it's a good choice but as you know, nobody cares. I also don't eat
> meat for health reasons so I would not require it until Easter.
What health reasons? I'm fascinated. Tell me more!
> > Also, the deaths are not merely collateral. There's no way that you can
> > rationally or ethically characterize the deliberate, brutal poisoning of
> > rodents at the grain elevator as "collateral" deaths.
>
> Sure you can.
How? They are clearly intentional.
> We don't eat them, so their deaths are collateral.
Perhaps you should look up the definition in the dictionary? It has
nothing to do with eating. I could use an equally loose definition of
the term to claim that the killing of cattle is secondary to the goal of
eating their meat, and therefore their deaths are collateral.
> It's not that those deaths don't exist, it's they exist in equal
> proportions in cattle feed and human food.
You don't say! Please share your derivation of the numerical values of
these proportions, so if we can see if they are as equal as you say.
You are resorting to generalizations, when you have already acknowledged
that source is more important than category.
> > > that is an unknown quantity which will remain
> > > a bone of contention.
> >
> > Only because you don't want to know, which is the point everyone's been
> > making. You don't care enough about the animals to find out.
>
> Point me to the information please, thank you.
Get in your car and leave the city in the spring or fall. The
information is waiting for you! During the winter, you should check out
the grains the cattle are eating, and compare their yield per acre to
the tiny bits of the same plants that you are willing to eat in
processed form.
John Mercer
The form of your arguments supports my hypothesis, not your claim. If
your goal was not to be better than others, why do you compare your diet
to the average diet of others?
Why not make better choices among the foods available to you?
> Do you avoid self-improvement for fear that you may make someone feel
> inferior?
No, I'm not like you in that way.
> The reason I have not measured collateral deaths numbers is I know of no way
> to do so.
You aren't trying. First off, the deaths you cause are not all
collateral ones. Your attempt to paint them as collateral shows that you
are defending a position, not seeking to better yourself.
> For the most part I consider that all grains and vegetables from unknown
> sources will have some degree of animal suffering attached to them which
> is an unknown quantity, but more or less consistent averaged out over time
> and source.
But your choices are not limited to grains and vegetables from unknown
sources, Dutch. You are a quitter.
> Other
> "critter-friendly" sources such as Lundberg rice may have a lower average.
I've seen no evidence that Lundberg rice is any more or less critter
friendly than any other rice. Lundberg's rhetoric is self-serving and
unconvincing.
> My rough calculation of the suffering cost of growing, storing, harvesting
> and transporting feed to feedlots,
You haven't calculated a thing. Calculations involve numbers, you see.
Do your "calculations" factor in the fact that most of the animal
calories have their basis in grass and not feed?
> and the caloric burn-down of the feed to meat,
Which is...? You claim to have calculated it. I don't believe your
handwaving.
By the way, what is the caloric yield of an acre for cattle feed vs.
human food?
> and the loss due to waste,
Relative to what? You are only demonstrating your fear of calculating
the suffering caused by the foods you choose.
> then the distribution, packaging and refrigeration of the meat, added to
> whatever suffering the animals may have endured adds up to a some amount.
Which you refuse to calculate, because you know that the answer won't
support the position that you defend from ignorance.
> Compare that
> to the (suffering) cost of growing, transporting and packaging plant food.
I prefer to contrast it. I also refuse to place foods into false
categories. Plant foods vary wildly in the animal suffering they cause,
just as animal foods do. Why don't you choose from within those groups?
Afraid to seek the truth?
> Of course this is just an estimate because the figures are so inexact but
> basically that's what I've done.
You haven't estimated anything here. If you had, you would supply
numbers. Your insistence on lumping foods and diets together shows that
you are more interested in posturing than you are in minimizing any
suffering and death that YOU cause.
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1en9xy8.1act9nx1c9rccgN%um...@montana.edu...
> > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> > > [..]
> > > > Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces
> > > > the amount of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
> > >
> > > You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a
> > > person eating a typical western diet.
> >
> > Now why would you pick on a typical Western diet, since it is chosen
> > without consideration of animal deaths or suffering?
>
> First because it's what I have first hand experience with, and secondly
> because it's the most likely starting point for most people who would be
> undertaking a switch to a vegetarian diet.
But weren't we talking about YOUR choices, and not anyone else's? Or are
you satisfied with practicing your principles better than people who
don't follow them at all? Didn't you just write:
"First of all, my goal is not that my choices be "better than others",
just to be better."
How are "most people" relevant to our discussion?
> > Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in which
> > foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact
> > with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
> >
> > Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices are false
> > ones?
>
> Not at all, give me an example.
Ted Kerasote's diet vs. your diet.
> > > Going a vegetarian does two things,
> >
> > It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your consideration
> > in such an insensitive way?
>
> I didn't say it does ONLY two things, do you always read so selectively?
>
I didn't say that you wrote or said ONLY. Now you are simply being
dishonest. Why do you limit your consideration in such an insensitive
way?
> > > it eliminates direct connection to deaths/suffering associated with the
> > > meat industry (80 million/year and untold suffering).
> >
> > It also increases your direct connection to deaths/suffering associated
> > with the vegetable industry (a number you are afraid to determine or
> > even estimate).
>
> Yes, I stated that.
Good! We agree that you are afraid to determine or even estimate the
direct suffering caused by your veggie choices.
> > I can see why you left that thing (the maiming and killing of innocent
> > animals) out. Can you?
>
> Maiming too? I can just see the critters in little wheelchairs..
They usually get picked apart by the birds while they bleed to death. Is
that better or worse than a bolt to the brain?
> > > Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
> > > typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal fat
> > > diet.
> >
> > You have no support for this assertion. Many non-animal foods have much
> > higher calorie/gram ratios. Consider salty snacks and ice cream.
>
> I don't know a single vegetarian that increases their intake of these
> types of food after becoming a vegetarian.
Arguments from ignorance are not convincing.
> The relevant fact is how much plant-based food do I add
> to my diet to replace the absent meat.
Hardly. How do you know that you wouldn't do better by decreasing grains
in your present diet and only partially replacing them with
carefully-chosen sources of meat?
> > > A lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter
> > > impact on the ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
> >
> > The first is patently false, the second is true, but only if you do not
> > alter the relative proportions of foods. You are not arguing that
> > position.
>
> The statement is generally accurate if not scientifically perfectly correct.
No, my statement is both accurate and scientifically perfectly correct.
As a psychic, I predict that your next unethical, weaselly move will be
to claim that because I pointed out that your claim is patently false,
that I am therefore claiming that the converse must be true.
Please don't do that, as that would be very sleazy, but expected from a
typical unethical veg*n.
> I think
> you get the meaning. i.e if you consume 1/2 as much your impact on the
> environment is reduced by some factor.
I already told you that I did. I am disputing your false generalization
that a lower-calorie diet would generally have a lighter impact on the
ecosystem.
Remember, you were supposedly arguing in favor of changing the
composition of the diet, not merely reducing calories. Perhaps you
should concede the point and move on?
> > For example, replacing a beef-and-potatoes dinner with a far
> > lower-calorie (and healthier) fish-and-salad dinner causes a huge
> > increase in ecological impact, particularly in fossil fuels.
> >
> > Your sweeping generalization is simply fraudulent, and you know it.
> > There is simply no rational basis by which you can credibly claim that
> > eating vegetables has less impact on the environment than eating meats.
> > Both categories vary wildly.
>
> It's not fraudulent, it's a generalization which is generally true and
> sometimes false, which generalizations tend to be.
You have no basis for that claim. For every high-calorie diet you
specify, I can specify five lower-calorie diets that obviously have a
higher impact on the ecosystem. Your bifurcation is simply a fraud.
Why do you refuse to consider foods in favor of the safer
generalizations of diets?
> > > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
> >
> > It's completely irrational. Here's the question you refuse to consider:
> >
> > If YOU substituted some of YOUR current vegetable or grain consumption
> > with an isocaloric amount of beef, would the animal death/suffering that
> > YOU cause increase or decrease?
>
> That would depend on the source of the meat and the source of the
vegatables.
I know! So are you admitting that choosing among sources (and individual
foods) is far more effective than choosing between categories (and
diets)?
> > It's about the choices YOU make between individual foods, not diets.
>
> I don't think the two need to be necessarily opposed. After all diets are
> nothing more than a collection of individual foods.
Then why do you not consider individual vegetable and animal foods? Why
are you compelled to generalize to categories and diets?
> > Feel free to consider supermarket beef and grass-fed beef separately,
>
> I have done so, grass-fed beef is hard to locate around here, if not
impossible.
I imagine most of the veggies you eat are hard to locate nearby your
house as well. Do you refuse to consider the cost of their transport?
IOW, couldn't you mail-order your grass-fed beef? Try a simple Web
search.
> > but don't tell any typical vegetarian lies about the typical lifelong
> > diet of cattle.
>
> I haven't.
Really? What is the ratio of calories of grain to calories of beef, FOR
THE TYPICAL STEER OVER ITS LIFE, then?
> > If you'd like to depersonalize it, START with the typical Western diet
> > and determine WHICH CHANGE will cause a greater decrease in animal
> > deaths or suffering:
> >
> > 1) Carefully choosing foods from BOTH CATEGORIES (vegetable and animal)
> > to minimize one's impact, or
> >
> > 2) Ignorantly categorizing all veggies as better than all meats?
> >
> > Do you have the intellectual integrity to do that, Dutch?
>
> I've already done something like that. I'll list a kind of rough heirarchy
> Iof diets as see them.
Why, when I discuss choices between foods and their many sources, do you
run for the cover of lumping them together in diets?
> 1) a self-sufficient veg*n farmer
> 2) a self-sufficient hunter
Why is 1 better than 2? Please show your math.
> 3) a combination of (1) and (2)
Why would that be worse than 1 or 2? It seems to me that maximizing
one's potential choices allows one to best minimize the animal
deaths/suffering one causes.
> 4) a person who goes to great lengths to choose only foods with a low
> index of animal suffering, and chooses things like grass-fed meats or
> animals known to have lived and died relatively cruelty-free, free-range
> eggs, locally grown vegetables, critter-friendly grains.(good luck getting
> anybody from (8) to here)
I'm not trying to get anybody anywhere. I'm just trying to figure out
why people who claim to care so much for animals care so little about
their fates.
> 5) a person who does some of the above as much as possible...etc
> 6) a veg*n
> 7) a vegetarian
Why is 6 better than 7? Do you understand that the * is a wild-card, and
refers to BOTH vegans and vegetarians?
> 8) a typical western diet eaten by a typical (sub)urban westerner who
> thinks the meat industry is doing just fine and is too busy to care anyway
> as long it's cheap and it tastes good.
What about the typical veg*n diet eaten by a typical (sub)urban veggie
who thinks the veggie industry is "cruelty-free" and is too busy to care
anyway as long it's cheap and it tastes good?
How does that person cause less animal suffering than #8? Can you show
me some numbers that would convince me that YOUR diet causes less
suffering/death than #8? Thanks.
Martin L. Martens
[...]
> That's not my reason. I want people to shoot down my arguments
> so I can come closer to the truth.
That's soooo modernist - how do we know when we find
"truth"?
[...]
Adam Knisely
> > result of
> > > > > > plant production, summed by calories?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know.
> > > >
> > > > And yet you've come to the conclusion that there is a greater number
on
> > the
> > > > meat side?
> > >
> > > Yep that's right.
> >
> > Your logic is that of most animal rights terrorists. Ignorant of, and
> > lacking reason.
>
> No, it's just a matter of estimating where-ever dat is not available.
You're not estimating; that involves calculation, which is impossible in the
absence of at least some data. You are merely believing what PETA
commercials tell you, what the classy lady at the cocktail party whispers to
you, and what you find on www.meatsucks-govegan.com.
> Are you saying
> I'm a terrorist?
No, I'm saying you are a veg*n for the same reason as an animal rights
terrorist.
> > > >> > > > > Also a
> > > > > > > percentage of my vegetables are hothouse and locally grown.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if a rat in a field dies, but it was a local rat, that's okay
to
> > you?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't care where he's from.
> > > >
> > > > But you make it a point that locally grown vegetables are better.
> > >
> > > Less travel impact.
> >
> > What, exactly, does travel impact?
>
> Roads, fossil fuel use, etc, all impact animals and the enviroment.
Do you drive a car, take the taxi, ride a bus. Do you have indoor plumbing
for your excretory needs?
> > > > > I meant that by travelling a lot or something to do with my
business
> > etc..
> > > > not diet
> > > > > related. I don't think omnivorous would help. I'm sure there are
ways
> > I
> > > > could do
> > > > > better, but I don't because I'm basically selfish.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't sound like someone who considers him/herself
compassionate
> > and
> > > > wanting to stop the "suffering" in farms.
> > >
> > > Too many contradictions for you? Well guess what, I'm human.
> >
> > Human, perhaps, but also ignorant.
>
> Imperfect, sometimes ignorant and selfish, pretty normal person, probably
much like
> you.
Perhaps.
You won't find me doing that much longer if you keep up with your "you
really are just a dishonest shit" remarks.
> > > > Answer the question.
> > >
> > > You didn't ask one moron.
> >
> > I did. "What is it that you believe you are accomplishing by refusing
> > meat?"
>
> I told you, I believe my current diet causes less animal suffering than
before I gave
> up meat.
Argh, you are insufferable! Do you have any evidence?!?!
Martin L. Martens
[...]
> Please don't do that, as that would be very sleazy, but expected from a
> typical unethical veg*n.
From what I've seen, Dutch is anything but a typical
veg*n. His positions generally are anywhere close to that
typically found by someone who tends to argue on the AR
side. As an example, he was quite quick to note that meat
such as organic grass-fed beef may be "more" ethical than
many veg*n foods.
[...]
Martin L. Martens
"Martin L. Martens" wrote:
> From what I've seen, Dutch is anything but a typical
> veg*n. His positions generally are anywhere close to that
That should have been "...generally are not that close
to..."
I shouldn't edit on the fly ...
Dutch
I compare my current diet to my previous ones and others available to me. I live the
world. You're REALLY fishing.
> Why not make better choices among the foods available to you?
Why not make better choices? wtf are you talking about?
>
> > Do you avoid self-improvement for fear that you may make someone feel
> > inferior?
>
> No, I'm not like you in that way.
Your point was I take it I am merely posturing to be "better than others" by my
attempts to improve my diet. That is a silly statement that could be applied to any
attempt at self improvement. Your tit-for-tat reply doesn't help it.
> > The reason I have not measured collateral deaths numbers is I know of no way
> > to do so.
>
> You aren't trying. First off, the deaths you cause are not all
> collateral ones. Your attempt to paint them as collateral shows that you
> are defending a position, not seeking to better yourself.
I can only guess what you are getting at here. I won't bother.
>
> > For the most part I consider that all grains and vegetables from unknown
> > sources will have some degree of animal suffering attached to them which
> > is an unknown quantity, but more or less consistent averaged out over time
> > and source.
>
> But your choices are not limited to grains and vegetables from unknown
> sources, Dutch. You are a quitter.
according to what standard?
> > Other
> > "critter-friendly" sources such as Lundberg rice may have a lower average.
>
> I've seen no evidence that Lundberg rice is any more or less critter
> friendly than any other rice. Lundberg's rhetoric is self-serving and
> unconvincing.
sez you
>
> > My rough calculation of the suffering cost of growing, storing, harvesting
> > and transporting feed to feedlots,
>
> You haven't calculated a thing. Calculations involve numbers, you see.
In math, but decisions you make in life aren't based on numbers. Did you choose your
career based on numbers? Your wife? Do you use your sense when numbers are nowhere to
be seen? (like from you)
>
> Do your "calculations" factor in the fact that most of the animal
> calories have their basis in grass and not feed?
Yes.
>
> > and the caloric burn-down of the feed to meat,
>
> Which is...? You claim to have calculated it. I don't believe your
> handwaving.
I did not claim to have calculated that you liar. I do not respect your gyrations.
>
> By the way, what is the caloric yield of an acre for cattle feed vs.
> human food?
>
> > and the loss due to waste,
>
> Relative to what? You are only demonstrating your fear of calculating
> the suffering caused by the foods you choose.
You are full of shit, why don't make a point instead of making unsubstantiated
remarks?
>
> > then the distribution, packaging and refrigeration of the meat, added to
> > whatever suffering the animals may have endured adds up to a some amount.
>
> Which you refuse to calculate, because you know that the answer won't
> support the position that you defend from ignorance.
more jawing without substance.
>
> > Compare that
> > to the (suffering) cost of growing, transporting and packaging plant food.
>
> I prefer to contrast it. I also refuse to place foods into false
> categories. Plant foods vary wildly in the animal suffering they cause,
> just as animal foods do. Why don't you choose from within those groups?
>
> Afraid to seek the truth?
empty talk, no substance.
>
> > Of course this is just an estimate because the figures are so inexact but
> > basically that's what I've done.
>
> You haven't estimated anything here. If you had, you would supply
> numbers. Your insistence on lumping foods and diets together shows that
> you are more interested in posturing than you are in minimizing any
> suffering and death that YOU cause.
More horseshit. Lets have something substantial from you instead of empty rhetoric.
Karen
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:t67qh3q...@news.supernews.com...
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1enal9m.zledoc5528rwN%um...@montana.edu...
-----snip JM's rambling....
>
> You are full of shit, why don't make a point instead of making
unsubstantiated
> remarks?
>
While I couldn't have said that any better myself, you'll have to excuse
him, Dutch. John is, as usual, on autopilot -- an out-of-control one at
that. Thank God aeroplanes have better ones.
Karen
aka Eco
Dutch
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1en9xy8.1act9nx1c9rccgN%um...@montana.edu...
> > > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> > > > [..]
> > > > > Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even reduces
> > > > > the amount of alleged animal "suffering" is not a rational decision.
> > > >
> > > > You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets examine a
> > > > person eating a typical western diet.
> > >
> > > Now why would you pick on a typical Western diet, since it is chosen
> > > without consideration of animal deaths or suffering?
> >
> > First because it's what I have first hand experience with, and secondly
> > because it's the most likely starting point for most people who would be
> > undertaking a switch to a vegetarian diet.
>
> But weren't we talking about YOUR choices, and not anyone else's? Or are
> you satisfied with practicing your principles better than people who
> don't follow them at all? Didn't you just write:
>
> "First of all, my goal is not that my choices be "better than others",
> just to be better."
>
> How are "most people" relevant to our discussion?
Don't you care about people? Why do write except that people will read it?
> > > Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in which
> > > foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact
> > > with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
> > >
> > > Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices are false
> > > ones?
> >
> > Not at all, give me an example.
>
> Ted Kerasote's diet vs. your diet.
What does that have to do with anything?
>
> > > > Going a vegetarian does two things,
> > >
> > > It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your consideration
> > > in such an insensitive way?
> >
> > I didn't say it does ONLY two things, do you always read so selectively?
> >
> I didn't say that you wrote or said ONLY. Now you are simply being
> dishonest. Why do you limit your consideration in such an insensitive
> way?
Why are you so full of shit?
>
> > > > it eliminates direct connection to deaths/suffering associated with the
> > > > meat industry (80 million/year and untold suffering).
> > >
> > > It also increases your direct connection to deaths/suffering associated
> > > with the vegetable industry (a number you are afraid to determine or
> > > even estimate).
> >
> > Yes, I stated that.
>
> Good! We agree that you are afraid to determine or even estimate the
> direct suffering caused by your veggie choices.
No we agree that you are really full of shit.
>
> > > I can see why you left that thing (the maiming and killing of innocent
> > > animals) out. Can you?
> >
> > Maiming too? I can just see the critters in little wheelchairs..
>
> They usually get picked apart by the birds while they bleed to death. Is
> that better or worse than a bolt to the brain?
Why don't you try it?
>
> > > > Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet will
> > > > typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and animal fat
> > > > diet.
> > >
> > > You have no support for this assertion. Many non-animal foods have much
> > > higher calorie/gram ratios. Consider salty snacks and ice cream.
> >
> > I don't know a single vegetarian that increases their intake of these
> > types of food after becoming a vegetarian.
>
> Arguments from ignorance are not convincing.
Neither is your empty crap
>
> > The relevant fact is how much plant-based food do I add
> > to my diet to replace the absent meat.
>
> Hardly. How do you know that you wouldn't do better by decreasing grains
> in your present diet and only partially replacing them with
> carefully-chosen sources of meat?
I never said I couldn't.
>
> > > > A lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter
> > > > impact on the ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
> > >
> > > The first is patently false, the second is true, but only if you do not
> > > alter the relative proportions of foods. You are not arguing that
> > > position.
> >
> > The statement is generally accurate if not scientifically perfectly correct.
>
> No, my statement is both accurate and scientifically perfectly correct.
> As a psychic, I predict that your next unethical, weaselly move will be
> to claim that because I pointed out that your claim is patently false,
> that I am therefore claiming that the converse must be true.
No I will repeat you are full of hot air.
>
> Please don't do that, as that would be very sleazy, but expected from a
> typical unethical veg*n.
>
> > I think
> > you get the meaning. i.e if you consume 1/2 as much your impact on the
> > environment is reduced by some factor.
>
> I already told you that I did. I am disputing your false generalization
> that a lower-calorie diet would generally have a lighter impact on the
> ecosystem.
>
> Remember, you were supposedly arguing in favor of changing the
> composition of the diet, not merely reducing calories. Perhaps you
> should concede the point and move on?
No, I don't think so, perhaps you should worry about your end of the argument.
>
> > > For example, replacing a beef-and-potatoes dinner with a far
> > > lower-calorie (and healthier) fish-and-salad dinner causes a huge
> > > increase in ecological impact, particularly in fossil fuels.
> > >
> > > Your sweeping generalization is simply fraudulent, and you know it.
> > > There is simply no rational basis by which you can credibly claim that
> > > eating vegetables has less impact on the environment than eating meats.
> > > Both categories vary wildly.
> >
> > It's not fraudulent, it's a generalization which is generally true and
> > sometimes false, which generalizations tend to be.
>
> You have no basis for that claim. For every high-calorie diet you
> specify, I can specify five lower-calorie diets that obviously have a
> higher impact on the ecosystem. Your bifurcation is simply a fraud.
>
> Why do you refuse to consider foods in favor of the safer
> generalizations of diets?
Which foods should I consider?
>
> > > > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > > > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
> > >
> > > It's completely irrational. Here's the question you refuse to consider:
> > >
> > > If YOU substituted some of YOUR current vegetable or grain consumption
> > > with an isocaloric amount of beef, would the animal death/suffering that
> > > YOU cause increase or decrease?
> >
> > That would depend on the source of the meat and the source of the
> vegatables.
>
> I know! So are you admitting that choosing among sources (and individual
> foods) is far more effective than choosing between categories (and
> diets)?
Maybe, but give me an example.
>
> > > It's about the choices YOU make between individual foods, not diets.
> >
> > I don't think the two need to be necessarily opposed. After all diets are
> > nothing more than a collection of individual foods.
>
> Then why do you not consider individual vegetable and animal foods? Why
> are you compelled to generalize to categories and diets?
It's an easy one I discovered.
>
> > > Feel free to consider supermarket beef and grass-fed beef separately,
> >
> > I have done so, grass-fed beef is hard to locate around here, if not
> impossible.
>
> I imagine most of the veggies you eat are hard to locate nearby your
> house as well. Do you refuse to consider the cost of their transport?
Nope, they're right down the street.
>
> IOW, couldn't you mail-order your grass-fed beef? Try a simple Web
> search.
Mail-order beef? How much does that cost? Sounds weird to me.
>
> > > but don't tell any typical vegetarian lies about the typical lifelong
> > > diet of cattle.
> >
> > I haven't.
>
> Really? What is the ratio of calories of grain to calories of beef, FOR
> THE TYPICAL STEER OVER ITS LIFE, then?
>
> > > If you'd like to depersonalize it, START with the typical Western diet
> > > and determine WHICH CHANGE will cause a greater decrease in animal
> > > deaths or suffering:
> > >
> > > 1) Carefully choosing foods from BOTH CATEGORIES (vegetable and animal)
> > > to minimize one's impact, or
> > >
> > > 2) Ignorantly categorizing all veggies as better than all meats?
> > >
> > > Do you have the intellectual integrity to do that, Dutch?
> >
> > I've already done something like that. I'll list a kind of rough heirarchy
> > Iof diets as see them.
>
> Why, when I discuss choices between foods and their many sources, do you
> run for the cover of lumping them together in diets?
>
> > 1) a self-sufficient veg*n farmer
> > 2) a self-sufficient hunter
>
> Why is 1 better than 2? Please show your math.
>
> > 3) a combination of (1) and (2)
1) 2) 3) would be virtually the same depending on the particular circumstances
>
> Why would that be worse than 1 or 2? It seems to me that maximizing
> one's potential choices allows one to best minimize the animal
> deaths/suffering one causes.
>
> > 4) a person who goes to great lengths to choose only foods with a low
> > index of animal suffering, and chooses things like grass-fed meats or
> > animals known to have lived and died relatively cruelty-free, free-range
> > eggs, locally grown vegetables, critter-friendly grains.(good luck getting
> > anybody from (8) to here)
>
> I'm not trying to get anybody anywhere. I'm just trying to figure out
> why people who claim to care so much for animals care so little about
> their fates.
I don't think you are trying to figure anything out. You are exorcising some demons
that's all.
> > 5) a person who does some of the above as much as possible...etc
> > 6) a veg*n
> > 7) a vegetarian
>
> Why is 6 better than 7? Do you understand that the * is a wild-card, and
> refers to BOTH vegans and vegetarians?
>
> > 8) a typical western diet eaten by a typical (sub)urban westerner who
> > thinks the meat industry is doing just fine and is too busy to care anyway
> > as long it's cheap and it tastes good.
>
> What about the typical veg*n diet eaten by a typical (sub)urban veggie
> who thinks the veggie industry is "cruelty-free" and is too busy to care
> anyway as long it's cheap and it tastes good?
Yep that's about where I'm at.
>
> How does that person cause less animal suffering than #8? Can you show
> me some numbers that would convince me that YOUR diet causes less
> suffering/death than #8? Thanks.
Nope sorry, told you already, no numbers. If you want to prove it for yourself or
change my mind, then YOU gotta produce the numbers. You're so smart, should be easy
for you. You do that and I'll admit you're right (if you have a point)
Dutch
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1en9ztr.glg9h2lpj03uN%um...@montana.edu...
> > > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> > > > [..]
> > > > >
> > > > > The impact your diet has on animal "suffering" is the same that you
> > > > > hope to reduce by refusing meat. You haven't changed the amount of
> > > > > animal suffering by becoming a vegetarian. You simply don't see
> > > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > No I don't. Assuming there is cruelty in the (big) meat industry, which I
> > > > think we have established,
> > >
> > > No question there. Your problem is that only SOME meat comes from the
> > > big meat industry. You can't rationally argue in favor of refusing ALL
> > > meat unless your argument rationally addresses ALL sources of meat.
> >
> > I agree that meat exists that represents virtually no suffering. I would
> > eat it if a) I ate meat and b) if it were available. I plan to find some
> > for our next dinner for the folks.
>
> So your preferences are more important than animal deaths or suffering?
Yep it is. It's also health.
> Such meat is readily available. See 1018 Web links, starting with:
>
> http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%2B%22grass-fed%22+%2Bbeef&kl=X
> X&pg=q&Translate=on
>
> Here's a good one:
>
> http://www.ervins.com/
thanks
>
> > > > by eliminating meat from my diet I eliminate my demand for
> > >
> > > ALL
> > >
> > > > meat and
> > > > along with it my contribution ($$) to that industry and it's cruelty.
> > >
> > > But you increase your demand for veggies and along with it your
> > > contribution ($$) to that industry and its cruelty. You also
> > > irrationally eliminate your demand for meat that is produced in humane
> > > and ecologically sound ways.
> > >
> > > It's funny how you leave those important bits out.
> >
> > No I didn't.
>
> Yes, you did.
>
> > I mentioned that by leaving out meat I would be increasing my consumption
> > of vegatables. I have also stipulated that health, availability,
> > convenience, taste and cost are all deterining factors.
>
> When did you mention that?
>
> > > > The only way that balance would be brought back would be if I replaced
> > > > those calories with something that caused as much animal suffering.
> > >
> > > That's simply false. You have choices that would replace it with more or
> > > less, but you don't want to know which is which.
> >
> > That sentence is non-responsive.
> >
> No, you mean that you don't have a rational response.
How can I respond to nonsense? You just made a statement out of the blue, one of your
typical impudent assumptions about what I know and don't know.
>
> > > > Grass fed beef or game might be good choices, since they eliminate the
> > > > feedlot, the antibiotics, and the high speed high volume assembly line
> > > > killing. Can you see that THIS choice would reduce animal cruelty?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Why are you answering your own question, Dutch?
No wonder it made sense :>)
>
> > > Yes. Substituting such meat for meat that is produced by means that you
> > > consider unethical is completely rational, unlike the false choice of
> > > veg*nism.
> >
> > I don't consider it unethical. You must have me confused with someone else
>
> I didn't say that you did. My point was hypothetical.
>
> > > Can you construct a rational argument that concludes with refusing ALL
> > > meat?
> >
> > Theoretically, but almost no-one could follow it.
>
> Call me a skeptic. I'd like to hear it.
What is exactly the argument you expect? What are you trying to prove?
>
> > > > Since I choose not to eat meat for other reasons, a small amount of soy
> > > > and other grain products make up a part of the lost calories.
> > >
> > > Grain production, storage, and transport causes the death of many, many
> > > animals. Why don't you want to count them and convert the figures to
> > > deaths per calorie? The figure for grass-fed beef is miniscule. Are the
> > > foods you eat better or not?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Why don't you choose foods to reduce animal suffering?
Such as..
So there is no source for these exact figures and specific foods that you demand I
produce. Look at the tiny plants my ass, you fraud.
Dutch
news:3A63DCAD...@ya.hoo.com...
> Dutch wrote:
> [...]
It's not a thing, it's a process.
> [...]
Adam Knisely
> > typical unethical veg*n.
>
> such as organic grass-fed beef may be "more" ethical than
> many veg*n foods.
Which alludes to the conclusion that regular beef is being produced
unethically -- a conclusion that has yet to be proven.
Martin L. Martens
1) To some people, it is unethical - according to their
ethical values.
2) As Dutch as pointed out several times, Grandin's work
provides quite a bit of evidence that suggests there are
welfare problems with the slaughter industry.
Ethics aren't absolute, as you seem to think.
Dutch
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
[..]
> > >
> > > No question there. Your problem is that only SOME meat comes from the
> > > big meat industry. You can't rationally argue in favor of refusing ALL
> > > meat unless your argument rationally addresses ALL sources of meat.
I'm not doing that. I'm refusing meat from the "industry" and choosing to
not obtain it other ways.
> >
> > I agree that meat exists that represents virtually no suffering. I would
> > eat it if a) I ate meat and b) if it were available. I plan to find some
> > for our next dinner for the folks.
>
> So your preferences are more important than animal deaths or suffering?
> Such meat is readily available. See 1018 Web links, starting with:
>
> http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%2B%22grass-fed%22+%2Bbeef&kl=X
> X&pg=q&Translate=on
>
> Here's a good one:
>
> http://www.ervins.com/
If you like beef jerky.
[..]
>
> > I mentioned that by leaving out meat I would be increasing my
consumption
> > of vegatables. I have also stipulated that health, availability,
> > convenience, taste and cost are all deterining factors.
>
> When did you mention that?
I don't recall if it was in this thread, but there you have it.
[..]
>
> > > Yes. Substituting such meat for meat that is produced by means that
you
> > > consider unethical is completely rational, unlike the false choice of
> > > veg*nism.
You support choosing certain foods over others for the purpose of reducing
suffering, that's what I did, you just don't like my choices. Tough.
[..]
[..]
> > You love that grass-fed beef don't you?
>
> Yes, I do! It's tastier, although often less tender.
>
> > Trouble is, there is near-zero demand and
> > therefore near-zero availablility.
>
> Then simple economics would tell us that it would be insanely cheap.
> However, reality tells us that grass-fed beef is more expensive than
> supermarket, feedlot-fattened beef.
>
> http://www.restorationfarms.com/price.htm
>
> What do you conclude from that fact?
The availability is even lower than the demand.
>
> > Yes it's a good choice but as you know, nobody cares. I also don't eat
> > meat for health reasons so I would not require it until Easter.
>
> What health reasons? I'm fascinated. Tell me more!
Hypertension, gastritis, ulcers, persistent infections, overweight, all
solved by eliminating meat from my diet.
>
> > > Also, the deaths are not merely collateral. There's no way that you
can
> > > rationally or ethically characterize the deliberate, brutal poisoning
of
> > > rodents at the grain elevator as "collateral" deaths.
> >
> > Sure you can.
>
> How? They are clearly intentional.
>
> > We don't eat them, so their deaths are collateral.
>
> Perhaps you should look up the definition in the dictionary? It has
> nothing to do with eating. I could use an equally loose definition of
> the term to claim that the killing of cattle is secondary to the goal of
> eating their meat, and therefore their deaths are collateral.
Mice get into the grain at their peril. They are wild animals competing
successfully for the most part for that resource. Their deaths are
collateral to the primary goal of the exercise, to grow, harvest and store
grain.
[..]
Dutch
> > > > > > > What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death caused as a
> > > result of
> > > > > > > plant production, summed by calories?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > And yet you've come to the conclusion that there is a greater
number
> on
> > > the
> > > > > meat side?
> > > >
> > > > Yep that's right.
> > >
> > > Your logic is that of most animal rights terrorists. Ignorant of, and
> > > lacking reason.
> >
> > No, it's just a matter of estimating where-ever dat is not available.
>
> You're not estimating; that involves calculation, which is impossible in
the
> absence of at least some data. You are merely believing what PETA
> commercials tell you, what the classy lady at the cocktail party whispers
to
> you, and what you find on www.meatsucks-govegan.com.
I consider everything, including what you tell me. Decisions in life seldom
reduce to arithmetic.
>
>
> > Are you saying
> > I'm a terrorist?
>
> No, I'm saying you are a veg*n for the same reason as an animal rights
> terrorist.
I don't think my outlook is that typical of extremists. They tend to believe
in absolute animal rights, I don't. My main focus is the welfare of
domestic animals. Besides, even if I did have the same beliefs it wouldn't
make me a terrorist sympathiser. For example, the person who believes
abortion is wrong, but obeys the law and acts with respect for the rights of
others is not in the same class as the sniper with the same beliefs.
[..]
> > Roads, fossil fuel use, etc, all impact animals and the enviroment.
>
> Do you drive a car, take the taxi, ride a bus. Do you have indoor
plumbing
> for your excretory needs?
yes, no, no. YES
[..]
> > > >
> > > > Too many contradictions for you? Well guess what, I'm human.
> > >
> > > Human, perhaps, but also ignorant.
> >
> > Imperfect, sometimes ignorant and selfish, pretty normal person,
probably
> much like
> > you.
>
> Perhaps.
Neither of us believe in a god, that's a start...
[..]
> > >
> > > Yes, but the point of debate is to convince others that your point of
> view
> > > is the correct one.
> >
> > That's not my reason. I want people to shoot down my arguments so I can
> come closer to
> > the truth.
>
> You won't find me doing that much longer if you keep up with your "you
> really are just a dishonest shit" remarks.
I lose my cool out of frustration sometimes, don't take it too seriously,
this is all for fun right?
[..]
> > > I did. "What is it that you believe you are accomplishing by refusing
> > > meat?"
> >
> > I told you, I believe my current diet causes less animal suffering than
> before I gave
> > up meat.
>
> Argh, you are insufferable! Do you have any evidence?!?!
Not scientific evidence as you imply, but enough to decide. When you were
deciding on a career did you have facts and figures all calculated to a
scientific certainty before you made your decision on which path to follow?
You go on what you got. I am always looking for more data, that's what I
meant by "searching for truth" but you guys aren't providing much.
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1enand9.1iiie6ys4uz3kN%um...@montana.edu...
> > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:1en9ztr.glg9h2lpj03uN%um...@montana.edu...
> > > > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> > > > > [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The impact your diet has on animal "suffering" is the same that you
> > > > > > hope to reduce by refusing meat. You haven't changed the amount of
> > > > > > animal suffering by becoming a vegetarian. You simply don't see
> > > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I don't. Assuming there is cruelty in the (big) meat industry,
> > > > > which I think we have established,
> > > >
> > > > No question there. Your problem is that only SOME meat comes from the
> > > > big meat industry. You can't rationally argue in favor of refusing ALL
> > > > meat unless your argument rationally addresses ALL sources of meat.
> > >
> > > I agree that meat exists that represents virtually no suffering. I would
> > > eat it if a) I ate meat and b) if it were available. I plan to find some
> > > for our next dinner for the folks.
> >
> > So your preferences are more important than animal deaths or suffering?
>
> Yep it is. It's also health.
In what way?
> > Such meat is readily available. See 1018 Web links, starting with:
> >
> > http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%2B%22grass-fed%22+%2Bbeef&kl=X
> > X&pg=q&Translate=on
> >
> > Here's a good one:
> >
> > http://www.ervins.com/
>
> thanks
>
So, are you standing by your claim that such meat is not available, or
are you retracting it?
---snip---
> > >
> > > Point me to the information please, thank you.
> >
> > Get in your car and leave the city in the spring or fall. The
> > information is waiting for you! During the winter, you should check out
> > the grains the cattle are eating, and compare their yield per acre to
> > the tiny bits of the same plants that you are willing to eat in
> > processed form.
>
> So there is no source for these exact figures and specific foods that you
> demand I produce.
Yes, there is, and I pointed you to it. You already claimed to have done
calculations, remember?
> Look at the tiny plants my ass, you fraud.
I suggested that you look at the tiny BITS of plants. Big difference.
John Mercer
Absolutely! I care far more about people than animals. How does that
relate to your need to compare/contrast your diet with theirs?
> Why do write except that people will read it?
Would you please parse/correct that sentence for me?
> > > > Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in which
> > > > foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact
> > > > with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
> > > >
> > > > Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices are false
> > > > ones?
> > >
> > > Not at all, give me an example.
> >
> > Ted Kerasote's diet vs. your diet.
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
You asked for an example of an omnivorous Western diet in which foods
are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact,
remember? Please reread what you wrote.
> > > > > Going a vegetarian does two things,
> > > >
> > > > It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your consideration
> > > > in such an insensitive way?
> > >
> > > I didn't say it does ONLY two things, do you always read so selectively?
> > >
> > I didn't say that you wrote or said ONLY. Now you are simply being
> > dishonest. Why do you limit your consideration in such an insensitive
> > way?
>
> Why are you so full of shit?
That was snappy, Dutch.
> > > > > it eliminates direct connection to deaths/suffering associated
> > > > > with the meat industry (80 million/year and untold suffering).
> > > >
> > > > It also increases your direct connection to deaths/suffering associated
> > > > with the vegetable industry (a number you are afraid to determine or
> > > > even estimate).
> > >
> > > Yes, I stated that.
> >
> > Good! We agree that you are afraid to determine or even estimate the
> > direct suffering caused by your veggie choices.
>
> No we agree that you are really full of shit.
>
Why? You just acknowledged that you had stated it.
> > > > I can see why you left that thing (the maiming and killing of innocent
> > > > animals) out. Can you?
> > >
> > > Maiming too? I can just see the critters in little wheelchairs..
> >
> > They usually get picked apart by the birds while they bleed to death. Is
> > that better or worse than a bolt to the brain?
>
> Why don't you try it?
Why should I?
> > > > > Also since meat is so high in calories/gram, a vegetarian diet
> > > > > will typically not replace all the calories given up in a meat and
> > > > > animal fat diet.
> > > >
> > > > You have no support for this assertion. Many non-animal foods have much
> > > > higher calorie/gram ratios. Consider salty snacks and ice cream.
> > >
> > > I don't know a single vegetarian that increases their intake of these
> > > types of food after becoming a vegetarian.
> >
> > Arguments from ignorance are not convincing.
>
> Neither is your empty crap
How is pointing out that many foods chosen by vegetarians have higher
calorie/gram ratios than meat empty and crappy, Dutch?
> > > The relevant fact is how much plant-based food do I add
> > > to my diet to replace the absent meat.
> >
> > Hardly. How do you know that you wouldn't do better by decreasing grains
> > in your present diet and only partially replacing them with
> > carefully-chosen sources of meat?
>
> I never said I couldn't.
I know. How about answering the question?
> > > > > A lower calorie diet (and lower consumption generally) has a lighter
> > > > > impact on the ecosystem, hence less impact on animals.
> > > >
> > > > The first is patently false, the second is true, but only if you do not
> > > > alter the relative proportions of foods. You are not arguing that
> > > > position.
> > >
> > > The statement is generally accurate if not scientifically perfectly
correct.
> >
> > No, my statement is both accurate and scientifically perfectly correct.
> > As a psychic, I predict that your next unethical, weaselly move will be
> > to claim that because I pointed out that your claim is patently false,
> > that I am therefore claiming that the converse must be true.
>
> No I will repeat you are full of hot air.
That's the first time you said it. Can't you get anything right?
> > Please don't do that, as that would be very sleazy, but expected from a
> > typical unethical veg*n.
> >
> > > I think
> > > you get the meaning. i.e if you consume 1/2 as much your impact on the
> > > environment is reduced by some factor.
> >
> > I already told you that I did. I am disputing your false generalization
> > that a lower-calorie diet would generally have a lighter impact on the
> > ecosystem.
> >
> > Remember, you were supposedly arguing in favor of changing the
> > composition of the diet, not merely reducing calories. Perhaps you
> > should concede the point and move on?
>
> No, I don't think so, perhaps you should worry about your end of the argument.
Why don't you think so?
> > > > For example, replacing a beef-and-potatoes dinner with a far
> > > > lower-calorie (and healthier) fish-and-salad dinner causes a huge
> > > > increase in ecological impact, particularly in fossil fuels.
> > > >
> > > > Your sweeping generalization is simply fraudulent, and you know it.
> > > > There is simply no rational basis by which you can credibly claim that
> > > > eating vegetables has less impact on the environment than eating meats.
> > > > Both categories vary wildly.
> > >
> > > It's not fraudulent, it's a generalization which is generally true and
> > > sometimes false, which generalizations tend to be.
> >
> > You have no basis for that claim. For every high-calorie diet you
> > specify, I can specify five lower-calorie diets that obviously have a
> > higher impact on the ecosystem. Your bifurcation is simply a fraud.
> >
> > Why do you refuse to consider foods in favor of the safer
> > generalizations of diets?
>
> Which foods should I consider?
All of the ones available to you, of course.
> > > > > That's the way it seems to me anyway. I could
> > > > > be wrong, but I don't think it's irrational.
> > > >
> > > > It's completely irrational. Here's the question you refuse to consider:
> > > >
> > > > If YOU substituted some of YOUR current vegetable or grain consumption
> > > > with an isocaloric amount of beef, would the animal death/suffering that
> > > > YOU cause increase or decrease?
> > >
> > > That would depend on the source of the meat and the source of the
> > vegatables.
> >
> > I know! So are you admitting that choosing among sources (and individual
> > foods) is far more effective than choosing between categories (and
> > diets)?
> Maybe, but give me an example.
I just did. For more, try a 2x6 matrix with grass-fed bison and
supermarket beef on one side, and salad greens, potatoes and organic
rice (each in homegrown or commercial flavors) on the other.
> > > > It's about the choices YOU make between individual foods, not diets.
> > >
> > > I don't think the two need to be necessarily opposed. After all diets are
> > > nothing more than a collection of individual foods.
> >
> > Then why do you not consider individual vegetable and animal foods? Why
> > are you compelled to generalize to categories and diets?
>
> It's an easy one I discovered.
You discovered it? Wow!
> > > > Feel free to consider supermarket beef and grass-fed beef separately,
> > >
> > > I have done so, grass-fed beef is hard to locate around here, if not
> > impossible.
> >
> > I imagine most of the veggies you eat are hard to locate nearby your
> > house as well. Do you refuse to consider the cost of their transport?
>
> Nope, they're right down the street.
> >
They grow there? They aren't transported there?
> > IOW, couldn't you mail-order your grass-fed beef? Try a simple Web
> > search.
>
> Mail-order beef? How much does that cost? Sounds weird to me.
Why?
http://www.restorationfarms.com/restorat.htm
> > > > but don't tell any typical vegetarian lies about the typical lifelong
> > > > diet of cattle.
> > >
> > > I haven't.
> >
> > Really? What is the ratio of calories of grain to calories of beef, FOR
> > THE TYPICAL STEER OVER ITS LIFE, then?
> >
> > > > If you'd like to depersonalize it, START with the typical Western diet
> > > > and determine WHICH CHANGE will cause a greater decrease in animal
> > > > deaths or suffering:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Carefully choosing foods from BOTH CATEGORIES (vegetable and animal)
> > > > to minimize one's impact, or
> > > >
> > > > 2) Ignorantly categorizing all veggies as better than all meats?
> > > >
> > > > Do you have the intellectual integrity to do that, Dutch?
> > >
> > > I've already done something like that. I'll list a kind of rough heirarchy
> > > Iof diets as see them.
> >
> > Why, when I discuss choices between foods and their many sources, do you
> > run for the cover of lumping them together in diets?
> >
> > > 1) a self-sufficient veg*n farmer
> > > 2) a self-sufficient hunter
> >
> > Why is 1 better than 2? Please show your math.
>
> >
> > > 3) a combination of (1) and (2)
>
> 1) 2) 3) would be virtually the same depending on the particular
circumstances
What was the basis for ranking them in the order you did?
> > Why would that be worse than 1 or 2? It seems to me that maximizing
> > one's potential choices allows one to best minimize the animal
> > deaths/suffering one causes.
> >
> > > 4) a person who goes to great lengths to choose only foods with a low
> > > index of animal suffering, and chooses things like grass-fed meats or
> > > animals known to have lived and died relatively cruelty-free, free-range
> > > eggs, locally grown vegetables, critter-friendly grains.(good luck getting
> > > anybody from (8) to here)
> >
> > I'm not trying to get anybody anywhere. I'm just trying to figure out
> > why people who claim to care so much for animals care so little about
> > their fates.
>
> I don't think you are trying to figure anything out. You are exorcising
> some demons that's all.
>
What demons specifically?
> > > 5) a person who does some of the above as much as possible...etc
> > > 6) a veg*n
> > > 7) a vegetarian
> >
> > Why is 6 better than 7? Do you understand that the * is a wild-card, and
> > refers to BOTH vegans and vegetarians?
> >
> > > 8) a typical western diet eaten by a typical (sub)urban westerner who
> > > thinks the meat industry is doing just fine and is too busy to care anyway
> > > as long it's cheap and it tastes good.
> >
> > What about the typical veg*n diet eaten by a typical (sub)urban veggie
> > who thinks the veggie industry is "cruelty-free" and is too busy to care
> > anyway as long it's cheap and it tastes good?
>
> Yep that's about where I'm at.
>
So have you improved your diet (ethically) at all?
> > How does that person cause less animal suffering than #8? Can you show
> > me some numbers that would convince me that YOUR diet causes less
> > suffering/death than #8? Thanks.
>
> Nope sorry, told you already, no numbers.
How did you do rough calculations without numbers, Dutch?
> If you want to prove it for yourself or change my mind, then YOU gotta
> produce the numbers. You're so smart, should be easy for you. You do that
> and I'll admit you're right (if you have a point)
My point is that you don't care enough to get any numbers before
choosing. Once you choose, your ego directs you to claim that you did
calculations.
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote ...
> > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> [..]
> > > >
> > > > No question there. Your problem is that only SOME meat comes from the
> > > > big meat industry. You can't rationally argue in favor of refusing ALL
> > > > meat unless your argument rationally addresses ALL sources of meat.
>
> I'm not doing that. I'm refusing meat from the "industry" and choosing to
> not obtain it other ways.
> > >
> > > I agree that meat exists that represents virtually no suffering. I would
> > > eat it if a) I ate meat and b) if it were available. I plan to find some
> > > for our next dinner for the folks.
> >
> > So your preferences are more important than animal deaths or suffering?
> > Such meat is readily available. See 1018 Web links, starting with:
> >
> > http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%2B%22grass-fed%22+%2Bbeef&kl=X
> > X&pg=q&Translate=on
> >
> > Here's a good one:
> >
> > http://www.ervins.com/
>
> If you like beef jerky.
You're really afraid to look for the truth. In cognitive dissonance
theory, this common phenomenon is called "spreading the alternatives."
To enhance your personal dissonance, click on the Retail Sources button:
----
Retail Sources for Ervin's Natural Beef
Tucson Cooperative Warehouse
Tucson Cooperative Warehouse distributes Ervin's Natural Beef to health
food stores, co-ops and food buying groups in Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California. To locate a store or
buying club in your area, see the Tucson Cooperative Warehouse website
at www.tcwfoodcoop.com or call 520-884-9951.
New Life Health Centers
Oracle Store
4012 North Oracle Road
Tucson, AZ 85705
Speedway Store
4841 East Speedway
Tucson, AZÂ 85712
Broadway Store
5612 East Broadway
Tucson, AZ 85712
Ajo Way Store
1789 West Ajo Way
Tucson, AZ 85713
Green Valley Health Foods
210 W. Continental Road #130
Green Valley, AZÂ 85614
If you would like to buy Ervin's Natural Beef from your favorite local
retail source, give them our name and ask them to call us at
520-428-0033.
------
You just want to pretend that it's not an option, since you are
suffering from cognitive dissonance.
>
> [..]
> >
> > > I mentioned that by leaving out meat I would be increasing my
> consumption
> > > of vegatables. I have also stipulated that health, availability,
> > > convenience, taste and cost are all deterining factors.
> >
> > When did you mention that?
>
> I don't recall if it was in this thread, but there you have it.
>
> [..]
> >
> > > > Yes. Substituting such meat for meat that is produced by means that
> you
> > > > consider unethical is completely rational, unlike the false choice of
> > > > veg*nism.
>
> You support choosing certain foods over others for the purpose of reducing
> suffering,
I didn't say whether I did or not, Dutch. Why are you putting words in
my mouth?
> that's what I did, you just don't like my choices. Tough.
I don't know what your choices are. I can see that your calculations are
fraudulent.
> [..]
> [..]
> > > You love that grass-fed beef don't you?
> >
> > Yes, I do! It's tastier, although often less tender.
> >
> > > Trouble is, there is near-zero demand and
> > > therefore near-zero availablility.
> >
> > Then simple economics would tell us that it would be insanely cheap.
> > However, reality tells us that grass-fed beef is more expensive than
> > supermarket, feedlot-fattened beef.
> >
> > http://www.restorationfarms.com/price.htm
> >
> > What do you conclude from that fact?
>
> The availability is even lower than the demand.
>
Why? Are you on backorder?
> > > Yes it's a good choice but as you know, nobody cares. I also don't eat
> > > meat for health reasons so I would not require it until Easter.
> >
> > What health reasons? I'm fascinated. Tell me more!
>
> Hypertension, gastritis, ulcers, persistent infections, overweight, all
> solved by eliminating meat from my diet.
Would they be eliminated by reducing meat, or by getting it from better
sources?
> > > > Also, the deaths are not merely collateral. There's no way that you
> can
> > > > rationally or ethically characterize the deliberate, brutal poisoning
> of
> > > > rodents at the grain elevator as "collateral" deaths.
> > >
> > > Sure you can.
> >
> > How? They are clearly intentional.
> >
> > > We don't eat them, so their deaths are collateral.
> >
> > Perhaps you should look up the definition in the dictionary? It has
> > nothing to do with eating. I could use an equally loose definition of
> > the term to claim that the killing of cattle is secondary to the goal of
> > eating their meat, and therefore their deaths are collateral.
>
> Mice get into the grain at their peril.
They are brutally killed long before they can get into the grain.
> They are wild animals competing
> successfully for the most part for that resource. Their deaths are
> collateral to the primary goal of the exercise, to grow, harvest and store
> grain.
I can do that too: the killing of cattle is secondary to the primary
goal of eating their meat, and therefore their deaths are collateral.
> [..]
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1enal9m.zledoc5528rwN%um...@montana.edu...
> > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
---snip---
That's not what you did in the other thread. Didn't you deny that
grass-fed beef was available to you?
>
> > Why not make better choices among the foods available to you?
> Why not make better choices? wtf are you talking about?
Make choices that reduce animal deaths or suffering, of course.
> > > Do you avoid self-improvement for fear that you may make someone feel
> > > inferior?
> >
> > No, I'm not like you in that way.
>
> Your point was I take it I am merely posturing to be "better than others"
> by my attempts to improve my diet.
How can you be attempting to improve your diet, if you are only willing
to look at animal death/suffering in dietary units, and not willing to
choose among individual foods?
> That is a silly statement that could be applied to any
> attempt at self improvement. Your tit-for-tat reply doesn't help it.
You haven't shown any attempt at improvement. Demonstrating improvement
requires measurement.
> > > The reason I have not measured collateral deaths numbers is I know of
> > > no way to do so.
> >
> > You aren't trying. First off, the deaths you cause are not all
> > collateral ones. Your attempt to paint them as collateral shows that you
> > are defending a position, not seeking to better yourself.
>
> I can only guess what you are getting at here. I won't bother.
Good move.
> > > For the most part I consider that all grains and vegetables from unknown
> > > sources will have some degree of animal suffering attached to them which
> > > is an unknown quantity, but more or less consistent averaged out over time
> > > and source.
> >
> > But your choices are not limited to grains and vegetables from unknown
> > sources, Dutch. You are a quitter.
>
> according to what standard?
A fair one.
> > > Other
> > > "critter-friendly" sources such as Lundberg rice may have a lower average.
> >
> > I've seen no evidence that Lundberg rice is any more or less critter
> > friendly than any other rice. Lundberg's rhetoric is self-serving and
> > unconvincing.
>
> sez you
Yes, that's why I wrote it. It's your claim; are you ducking the
responsibility of supporting it?
> > > My rough calculation of the suffering cost of growing, storing, harvesting
> > > and transporting feed to feedlots,
> >
> > You haven't calculated a thing. Calculations involve numbers, you see.
>
> In math, but decisions you make in life aren't based on numbers.
Some are, some aren't. My point is that calculations involve numbers by
definition.
> Did you
> choose your career based on numbers?
No, I didn't do any calcuations.
> Your wife? Do you use your sense when
> numbers are nowhere to be seen? (like from you)
I don't claim to have calculated things that I haven't calculated,
Dutch.
> > Do your "calculations" factor in the fact that most of the animal
> > calories have their basis in grass and not feed?
>
> Yes.
Excellent. What is that ratio?
> > > and the caloric burn-down of the feed to meat,
> >
> > Which is...? You claim to have calculated it. I don't believe your
> > handwaving.
>
> I did not claim to have calculated that you liar. I do not respect your
gyrations.
Yes, you explicitly claimed to have calculated it. You wrote:
"My rough calculation of the suffering cost of growing, storing,
harvesting and transporting feed to feedlots, and the caloric burn-down
of the feed to meat,..."
Where are the numbers from this rough calculation?
> > By the way, what is the caloric yield of an acre for cattle feed vs.
> > human food?
> >
> > > and the loss due to waste,
> >
> > Relative to what? You are only demonstrating your fear of calculating
> > the suffering caused by the foods you choose.
>
> You are full of shit, why don't make a point instead of making unsubstantiated
> remarks?
A question requires no substantiation. It is a request for information
that you explicitly claimed to posess above.
> > > then the distribution, packaging and refrigeration of the meat, added to
> > > whatever suffering the animals may have endured adds up to a some amount.
> >
> > Which you refuse to calculate, because you know that the answer won't
> > support the position that you defend from ignorance.
>
> more jawing without substance.
It is very substantive. You claim to have calculated something, but you
change course when your calculations are requested.
> > > Compare that
> > > to the (suffering) cost of growing, transporting and packaging plant food.
> >
> > I prefer to contrast it. I also refuse to place foods into false
> > categories. Plant foods vary wildly in the animal suffering they cause,
> > just as animal foods do. Why don't you choose from within those groups?
> >
> > Afraid to seek the truth?
>
> empty talk, no substance.
Three true statements, followed by two questions. Care to answer?
> > > Of course this is just an estimate because the figures are so inexact but
> > > basically that's what I've done.
> >
> > You haven't estimated anything here. If you had, you would supply
> > numbers. Your insistence on lumping foods and diets together shows that
> > you are more interested in posturing than you are in minimizing any
> > suffering and death that YOU cause.
>
> More horseshit. Lets have something substantial from you instead of empty
rhetoric.
You're the one who claims to have made calculations. You appear to be
projecting, Dutch.
John Mercer
That may be, but why is he still claiming to have roughly calculated the
suffering/death involved in veg*n vs. omnivorous diets, and why does he
get so testy when I ask that he share the calculations with the group?
> [...]
Dutch
I don't need to, I just do it as a pastime.
>
> > Why do write except that people will read it?
>
> Would you please parse/correct that sentence for me?
Why else would anyone post a personal experience on a newsgroup except for others to r
ead it and take someting from it?
>
> > > > > Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in which
> > > > > foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact
> > > > > with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices are false
> > > > > ones?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all, give me an example.
> > >
> > > Ted Kerasote's diet vs. your diet.
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> You asked for an example of an omnivorous Western diet in which foods
> are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact,
> remember? Please reread what you wrote.
So there are better diets than mine, lots of them, I have never denied that.
> > > > > > Going a vegetarian does two things,
> > > > >
> > > > > It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your consideration
> > > > > in such an insensitive way?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't say it does ONLY two things, do you always read so selectively?
> > > >
> > > I didn't say that you wrote or said ONLY. Now you are simply being
> > > dishonest. Why do you limit your consideration in such an insensitive
> > > way?
> >
> > Why are you so full of shit?
>
> That was snappy, Dutch.
I don't have much patience for word games, especially when liberally salted with
gratuitous insults, you prick..
[..]
Martin L. Martens
[...]
> That may be, but why is he still claiming to have roughly calculated the
> suffering/death involved in veg*n vs. omnivorous diets, and why does he
> get so testy when I ask that he share the calculations with the group?
From what I've seen of his participation, he's gotten a bit
fed up with Adam's stubborn style. He had been a bit more
easy-going before.
His "calculation" is a very rough estimate from experience
and discussion. If I recall correctly, he actually went out
and talked to real farmers about the issue.
>
> > [...]
Adam Knisely
You haven't considered how much death occurs in farms, as opposed to those
in agriculture. You've come to that decision without data, and excused your
ignorance by misusing the term "estimate."
> > > Are you saying
> > > I'm a terrorist?
> >
> > No, I'm saying you are a veg*n for the same reason as an animal rights
> > terrorist.
>
> I don't think my outlook is that typical of extremists.
It is. They don't care much for factual data -- neither do you.
> They tend to believe
> in absolute animal rights, I don't. My main focus is the welfare of
> domestic animals.
No, your focus is impressing affluent ladies at cocktail parties.
> Besides, even if I did have the same beliefs it wouldn't
> make me a terrorist sympathiser.
I didn't say you were a "terrorist sympathiser."
> For example, the person who believes
> abortion is wrong, but obeys the law and acts with respect for the rights
of
> others is not in the same class as the sniper with the same beliefs.
>
> [..]
> > > Roads, fossil fuel use, etc, all impact animals and the enviroment.
> >
> > Do you drive a car, take the taxi, ride a bus. Do you have indoor
> plumbing
> > for your excretory needs?
>
> yes, no, no. YES
You are therefore causing unnecessary animal death and suffering, as well as
"impact[ing] ... the environment."
> > > > > Too many contradictions for you? Well guess what, I'm human.
> > > >
> > > > Human, perhaps, but also ignorant.
> > >
> > > Imperfect, sometimes ignorant and selfish, pretty normal person,
> probably
> > much like
> > > you.
> >
> > Perhaps.
>
> Neither of us believe in a god, that's a start...
That's a surprise. Perhaps you aren't as unrealistic and delusional as I'd
thought....
> > > > Yes, but the point of debate is to convince others that your point
of
> > view
> > > > is the correct one.
> > >
> > > That's not my reason. I want people to shoot down my arguments so I
can
> > come closer to
> > > the truth.
> >
> > You won't find me doing that much longer if you keep up with your "you
> > really are just a dishonest shit" remarks.
>
> I lose my cool out of frustration sometimes, don't take it too seriously,
> this is all for fun right?
I take this pretty seriously. To an extent, I'm on the same "quest for
truth" as you are.
> > > > I did. "What is it that you believe you are accomplishing by
refusing
> > > > meat?"
> > >
> > > I told you, I believe my current diet causes less animal suffering
than
> > before I gave
> > > up meat.
> >
> > Argh, you are insufferable! Do you have any evidence?!?!
>
> Not scientific evidence as you imply, but enough to decide.
So you have no evidence by which to decide?
> When you were
> deciding on a career did you have facts and figures all calculated to a
> scientific certainty before you made your decision on which path to
follow?
Yes. Not all, but enough. The difference is that you don't have any in
this matter.
> You go on what you got.
What "you got" is absolutely nothing.
> I am always looking for more data, that's what I
> meant by "searching for truth" but you guys aren't providing much.
I told you, I'm still cross-examining you. If you would present enough data
for me to retire, perhaps I could get on with my arguments.
Adam Knisely
from a
> > > > typical unethical veg*n.
> > >
> > > As an example, he was quite quick to note that meat
> > > such as organic grass-fed beef may be "more" ethical than
> > > many veg*n foods.
> >
> > Which alludes to the conclusion that regular beef is being produced
> > unethically -- a conclusion that has yet to be proven.
>
> 1) To some people, it is unethical - according to their
> ethical values.
Perhaps it isn't the ethics regarding cruelty and suffering, which have been
pretty much accepted as unethical. Perhaps it is proving the existance of
cruely.
> 2) As Dutch as pointed out several times, Grandin's work
> provides quite a bit of evidence that suggests there are
> welfare problems with the slaughter industry.
Grandin is not of a government regulation board or committee. In the audit
that I've read of meat plants, only two out of a dozen or so failed. That's
pretty good...
> Ethics aren't absolute, as you seem to think.
No, but the same ethics are generally accepted by a population.
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1enbmkc.12l0xwc1k9nkgdN%um...@montana.edu...
> > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
---snip---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Adam Knisely" <ad...@cmptr.com> wrote
> > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > > Choosing to believe that vegetarianism eliminates or even
> > > > > > > > reduces the amount of alleged animal "suffering" is not a
> > > > > > > > rational decision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You must specify "reduces" in relation to something, so lets
> > > > > > > examine a person eating a typical western diet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now why would you pick on a typical Western diet, since it is chosen
> > > > > > without consideration of animal deaths or suffering?
> > > > >
> > > > > First because it's what I have first hand experience with, and
> > > > > secondly because it's the most likely starting point for most
> > > > > people who would be undertaking a switch to a vegetarian diet.
> > > >
> > > > But weren't we talking about YOUR choices, and not anyone else's? Or
> > > > are you satisfied with practicing your principles better than people
> > > > who don't follow them at all? Didn't you just write:
> > > >
> > > > "First of all, my goal is not that my choices be "better than others",
> > > > just to be better."
> > > >
> > > > How are "most people" relevant to our discussion?
> > >
> > > Don't you care about people?
> >
> > Absolutely! I care far more about people than animals. How does that
> > relate to your need to compare/contrast your diet with theirs?
>
> I don't need to, I just do it as a pastime.
How does that help you better yourself?
---snip---
> >
> > > > > > Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in
> > > > > > which foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and
> > > > > > environmental impact with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices
> > > > > > are false ones?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all, give me an example.
> > > >
> > > > Ted Kerasote's diet vs. your diet.
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with anything?
> >
> > You asked for an example of an omnivorous Western diet in which foods
> > are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact,
> > remember? Please reread what you wrote.
>
> So there are better diets than mine, lots of them, I have never denied that.
OK, but if you already knew, why did you demand an example?
> > > > > > > Going a vegetarian does two things,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your
> > > > > > consideration in such an insensitive way?
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't say it does ONLY two things, do you always read so
selectively?
> > > > >
> > > > I didn't say that you wrote or said ONLY. Now you are simply being
> > > > dishonest. Why do you limit your consideration in such an
> > > > insensitive way?
> > >
> > > Why are you so full of shit?
> >
> > That was snappy, Dutch.
>
> I don't have much patience for word games, especially when liberally
> salted with gratuitous insults, you prick..
Then why do you practice word games and hurl gratuitous insults, Dutch?
>
> [..]
Dutch
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
[..]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death caused as a
> > > > > > > > > result of plant production, summed by calories?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And yet you've come to the conclusion that there is a greater number
> > > > > > > on the meat side?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep that's right.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can you rationally and ethically claim that one number is greater
> > > > > than another if you refuse to measure the number on one side?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it because your illusion that your phony choice is better than the
> > > > > choices of others is more important than the lives and suffering of the
> > > > > animals you cause?
> > > >
> > > > First of all, my goal is not that my choices be "better than others", just
> > > > to be better.
> > >
> > > The form of your arguments supports my hypothesis, not your claim. If
> > > your goal was not to be better than others, why do you compare your diet
> > > to the average diet of others?
> >
> > I compare my current diet to my previous ones and others available to me.
> > I live the world. You're REALLY fishing.
>
> That's not what you did in the other thread. Didn't you deny that
> grass-fed beef was available to you?
> >
> > > Why not make better choices among the foods available to you?
>
> > Why not make better choices? wtf are you talking about?
>
> Make choices that reduce animal deaths or suffering, of course.
I have, whether you think there's enough scientific data to prove it or not I am
sufficiently satisfied.
>
> > > > Do you avoid self-improvement for fear that you may make someone feel
> > > > inferior?
> > >
> > > No, I'm not like you in that way.
> >
> > Your point was I take it I am merely posturing to be "better than others"
> > by my attempts to improve my diet.
>
> How can you be attempting to improve your diet, if you are only willing
> to look at animal death/suffering in dietary units, and not willing to
> choose among individual foods?
I think that's a good point, can you give some examples of that offhand, other than
grass-fed beef? I don't want to eat beef.
Preferably amongst foods in the plant world.
>
> > That is a silly statement that could be applied to any
> > attempt at self improvement. Your tit-for-tat reply doesn't help it.
>
> You haven't shown any attempt at improvement. Demonstrating improvement
> requires measurement.
In the lab maybe, but not in my life.
>
> > > > The reason I have not measured collateral deaths numbers is I know of
> > > > no way to do so.
> > >
> > > You aren't trying. First off, the deaths you cause are not all
> > > collateral ones. Your attempt to paint them as collateral shows that you
> > > are defending a position, not seeking to better yourself.
I thought that's what they were called, do you have a better name for them?
[..]
.
> > >
> > > I've seen no evidence that Lundberg rice is any more or less critter
> > > friendly than any other rice. Lundberg's rhetoric is self-serving and
> > > unconvincing.
> >
> > sez you
>
> Yes, that's why I wrote it. It's your claim; are you ducking the
> responsibility of supporting it?
Another impertinent question? I will never answer one of these little priggy things so
knock it right off jerk.
* Yes, that's why I wrote it. It's your claim; you ought to support it. *
I have read first-hand testaments to their methods here, I think a guy called diderot
commented on it. I didn't save them to haul out for future doubters.
>
> > > > My rough calculation of the suffering cost of growing, storing, harvesting
> > > > and transporting feed to feedlots,
> > >
> > > You haven't calculated a thing. Calculations involve numbers, you see.
> >
> > In math, but decisions you make in life aren't based on numbers.
>
> Some are, some aren't. My point is that calculations involve numbers by
> definition.
Screw your dictionary based objections.
>
> > Did you
> > choose your career based on numbers?
>
> No, I didn't do any calcuations.
>
> > Your wife? Do you use your sense when
> > numbers are nowhere to be seen? (like from you)
>
> I don't claim to have calculated things that I haven't calculated,
> Dutch.
>
> > > Do your "calculations" factor in the fact that most of the animal
> > > calories have their basis in grass and not feed?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Excellent. What is that ratio?
You are harping on this "calculations" thing like a rabid pit-bull when you know very
well what I mean. It's very manipulative and unprincipled and I will not tolerate it
for long.
[..]
> > > I prefer to contrast it. I also refuse to place foods into false
> > > categories. Plant foods vary wildly in the animal suffering they cause,
> > > just as animal foods do. Why don't you choose from within those groups?
> > >
> > > Afraid to seek the truth?
> >
> > empty talk, no substance.
>
> Three true statements, followed by two questions. Care to answer?
Instead of being SUCH a total prick why not share some of this precious knowledge
instead of posing impertinent questions which are only phrased to insult, not
illuminate or learn.
[..]
>
> You're the one who claims to have made calculations. You appear to be
> projecting, Dutch.
YOU are projecting something onto me that I grow wearier of by the minute.
Dutch
news:3A64BAF9...@ya.hoo.com...
We own a half section in Luseland Saskatchewan which is planted in wheat (it's
leased). We go back most years for the harvest and visit with family and friends, but
lately we have missed out on the actual combining due to weather. I have lurked in
these groups all this time and posed the question of collateral deaths to a number of
farmers, none of whom have hidden agendas such as debunking veg*n claims. Every one
gave me a very small estimate of animals killed in the harvest as far as they could
tell. I consider this good information to support my own "rough calculations" which
by the way are very rough indeed, no numbers are involved. I also consider what people
report here, but one must consider the motivation of those making the statements.
[...]
Dutch
I am learning to debate points, support a position, reinforce some ideas and toss
others. I help some people see their own positions more clearly. It's self improvement
but mainly for fun.
>
> ---snip---
> > >
> > > > > > > Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in
> > > > > > > which foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and
> > > > > > > environmental impact with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices
> > > > > > > are false ones?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not at all, give me an example.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ted Kerasote's diet vs. your diet.
> > > >
> > > > What does that have to do with anything?
> > >
> > > You asked for an example of an omnivorous Western diet in which foods
> > > are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact,
> > > remember? Please reread what you wrote.
> >
> > So there are better diets than mine, lots of them, I have never denied that.
>
> OK, but if you already knew, why did you demand an example?
I thought you were going to show my choices were false.
>
> > > > > > > > Going a vegetarian does two things,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your
> > > > > > > consideration in such an insensitive way?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't say it does ONLY two things, do you always read so
> selectively?
> > > > > >
> > > > > I didn't say that you wrote or said ONLY. Now you are simply being
> > > > > dishonest. Why do you limit your consideration in such an
> > > > > insensitive way?
> > > >
> > > > Why are you so full of shit?
> > >
> > > That was snappy, Dutch.
> >
> > I don't have much patience for word games, especially when liberally
> > salted with gratuitous insults, you prick..
>
> Then why do you practice word games and hurl gratuitous insults, Dutch?
I'm trying to show you what it feels like, and that I won't tolerate it. It's not
necessary. I'd like to learn from you and I can't do it when you're in my killfile.
[..]
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> Then why do you practice word games and hurl gratuitous insults, Dutch?
There's no such thing as a gratuitous insult
when it comes to you, John. You earn every
one of them.
Rat
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1enbzu7.1u1yp9d1ie04oaN%um...@montana.edu...
---snip---
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Why wouldn't you compare/contrast an omnivorous Western diet in
> > > > > > > > which foods are chosen to minimize animal suffering and
> > > > > > > > environmental impact with YOUR OWN diet, Dutch?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you afraid that the comparison will show that your choices
> > > > > > > > are false ones?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not at all, give me an example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ted Kerasote's diet vs. your diet.
> > > > >
> > > > > What does that have to do with anything?
> > > >
> > > > You asked for an example of an omnivorous Western diet in which foods
> > > > are chosen to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact,
> > > > remember? Please reread what you wrote.
> > >
> > > So there are better diets than mine, lots of them, I have never denied
that.
> >
> > OK, but if you already knew, why did you demand an example?
>
> I thought you were going to show my choices were false.
Dutch, you should do less assuming before lauching into insults.
My hypothesis is that you lack the information to rationally support
your choices. How could I possibly KNOW whether your choices were false
when I have so little information about them? That would be the height
of arrogance.
> > > > > > > > > Going a vegetarian does two things,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It does many more than two things. Why do you limit your
> > > > > > > > consideration in such an insensitive way?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't say it does ONLY two things, do you always read so
> > selectively?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't say that you wrote or said ONLY. Now you are simply being
> > > > > > dishonest. Why do you limit your consideration in such an
> > > > > > insensitive way?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are you so full of shit?
> > > >
> > > > That was snappy, Dutch.
> > >
> > > I don't have much patience for word games, especially when liberally
> > > salted with gratuitous insults, you prick..
> >
> > Then why do you practice word games and hurl gratuitous insults, Dutch?
>
> I'm trying to show you what it feels like, and that I won't tolerate it.
Why should I tolerate it if you won't?
> It's not necessary. I'd like to learn from you and I can't do it when
> you're in my killfile.
Could you please quote one of these alleged insults that I have hurled?
> [..]
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1enbm09.1ikx87jx500vyN%um...@montana.edu...
> > Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> [..]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What's the ratio of one animal death vs. one death
> > > > > > > > > > caused as a result of plant production, summed by
> > > > > > > > > > calories?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And yet you've come to the conclusion that there is a
> > > > > > > > greater number on the meat side?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yep that's right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How can you rationally and ethically claim that one number is
> > > > > > greater than another if you refuse to measure the number on one
> > > > > > side?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it because your illusion that your phony choice is better
> > > > > > than the choices of others is more important than the lives and
> > > > > > suffering of the animals you cause?
> > > > >
> > > > > First of all, my goal is not that my choices be "better than
> > > > > others", just to be better.
> > > >
> > > > The form of your arguments supports my hypothesis, not your claim.
> > > > If your goal was not to be better than others, why do you compare
> > > > your diet to the average diet of others?
> > >
> > > I compare my current diet to my previous ones and others available to
> > > I me. live the world. You're REALLY fishing.
> >
> > That's not what you did in the other thread. Didn't you deny that
> > grass-fed beef was available to you?
> > >
> > > > Why not make better choices among the foods available to you?
> >
> > > Why not make better choices? wtf are you talking about?
> >
> > Make choices that reduce animal deaths or suffering, of course.
>
> I have, whether you think there's enough scientific data to prove it or
> not I am sufficiently satisfied.
Your use of the adjective "scientific" to modify "data" makes no sense
to me as a practicing scientist.
What data and calculations do you have to satisfy you?
> > > > > Do you avoid self-improvement for fear that you may make someone feel
> > > > > inferior?
> > > >
> > > > No, I'm not like you in that way.
> > >
> > > Your point was I take it I am merely posturing to be "better than others"
> > > by my attempts to improve my diet.
> >
> > How can you be attempting to improve your diet, if you are only willing
> > to look at animal death/suffering in dietary units, and not willing to
> > choose among individual foods?
>
> I think that's a good point, can you give some examples of that offhand,
> other than grass-fed beef? I don't want to eat beef.
Catch some fish. There are big Northerns in Saskatchewan, I hear.
> Preferably amongst foods in the plant world.
Pick fruit from orchards that are run in a conscientious manner (which
doesn't necessarily mean organic).
> > > That is a silly statement that could be applied to any
> > > attempt at self improvement. Your tit-for-tat reply doesn't help it.
> >
> > You haven't shown any attempt at improvement. Demonstrating improvement
> > requires measurement.
>
> In the lab maybe, but not in my life.
Measurements are done in the field and in other parts of life as well as
the lab. Your attempt to compartmentalize science as something separate
from day-to-day life is bizarre. Try reading the following essay, as it
might open your eyes:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Lipps.html
"Science is for everyone. It was not invented by white males in Europe.
It is a universal activity. It is not the domain of smart people in
white lab coats. ... Science, in fact, is not difficult -- it is,
fundamentally, observing events or things and drawing conclusions about
our activities and surroundings. We must be disciplined about gathering,
evaluating and using evidence (Tables 1, 3), but that is most of the
fun. Scientists have formalized this procedure as the scientific method.
They often pick esoteric topics to study but the basic operations are
identical to living life intelligently."
> > > > > The reason I have not measured collateral deaths numbers is I know of
> > > > > no way to do so.
> > > >
> > > > You aren't trying. First off, the deaths you cause are not all
> > > > collateral ones. Your attempt to paint them as collateral shows that you
> > > > are defending a position, not seeking to better yourself.
>
> I thought that's what they were called, do you have a better name for them?
Well, if animals have the same rights as humans, most are negligent
homicide, and many are just plain murder.
> [..]
> .
> > > >
> > > > I've seen no evidence that Lundberg rice is any more or less critter
> > > > friendly than any other rice. Lundberg's rhetoric is self-serving and
> > > > unconvincing.
> > >
> > > sez you
> >
> > Yes, that's why I wrote it. It's your claim; are you ducking the
> > responsibility of supporting it?
>
> Another impertinent question? I will never answer one of these little
> priggy things so knock it right off jerk.
It's your passionate avoidance of the questions that answers my primary
question.
> * Yes, that's why I wrote it. It's your claim; you ought to support it. *
>
> I have read first-hand testaments to their methods here, I think a guy
> called diderot commented on it. I didn't save them to haul out for future
> doubters.
First-hand? From whom? Did these first-hand testaments address the
killing of the animals in their rice fields during flooding and
draining?
> > > > > My rough calculation of the suffering cost of growing, storing,
> > > > > harvesting and transporting feed to feedlots,
> > > >
> > > > You haven't calculated a thing. Calculations involve numbers, you see.
> > >
> > > In math, but decisions you make in life aren't based on numbers.
> >
> > Some are, some aren't. My point is that calculations involve numbers by
> > definition.
>
> Screw your dictionary based objections.
Calculations necessarily involve numbers, Dutch, because calculations
are something that can only be done on numbers. That's not a dictionary
game--it's basic English.
> > > Did you
> > > choose your career based on numbers?
> >
> > No, I didn't do any calcuations.
> >
> > > Your wife? Do you use your sense when
> > > numbers are nowhere to be seen? (like from you)
> >
> > I don't claim to have calculated things that I haven't calculated,
> > Dutch.
> >
> > > > Do your "calculations" factor in the fact that most of the animal
> > > > calories have their basis in grass and not feed?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Excellent. What is that ratio?
>
> You are harping on this "calculations" thing like a rabid pit-bull when
> you know very well what I mean.
I know that calculations involve numbers. If you claim to have
calculated something, it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask for the
numbers you used.
> It's very manipulative and unprincipled and I will not tolerate it
> for long.
It is neither; it is an honest question. Do you have an honest answer?
> [..]
> > > > I prefer to contrast it. I also refuse to place foods into false
> > > > categories. Plant foods vary wildly in the animal suffering they cause,
> > > > just as animal foods do. Why don't you choose from within those groups?
> > > >
> > > > Afraid to seek the truth?
> > >
> > > empty talk, no substance.
> >
> > Three true statements, followed by two questions. Care to answer?
>
> Instead of being SUCH a total prick why not share some of this precious
> knowledge instead of posing impertinent questions which are only phrased
> to insult, not illuminate or learn.
It's painfully obvious that picking your own fruit causes far fewer
animal deaths/calorie than buying bananas from Central America or grapes
from Chile. It's painfully obvious that buying grass-fed beef or
catching a fish causes far fewer animal deaths/calorie than buying veal
or quail.
How is something so obvious precious, and why don't you use it to choose
among foods within groups?
> [..]
> >
> > You're the one who claims to have made calculations. You appear to be
> > projecting, Dutch.
>
> YOU are projecting something onto me that I grow wearier of by the minute.
Which is...?
John Mercer
> "Martin L. Martens" <rattle...@ya.hoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A64BAF9...@ya.hoo.com...
> > John Mercer wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > > That may be, but why is he still claiming to have roughly calculated the
> > > suffering/death involved in veg*n vs. omnivorous diets, and why does he
> > > get so testy when I ask that he share the calculations with the group?
> >
> > From what I've seen of his participation, he's gotten a bit
> > fed up with Adam's stubborn style. He had been a bit more
> > easy-going before.
> >
> > His "calculation" is a very rough estimate from experience
> > and discussion. If I recall correctly, he actually went out
> > and talked to real farmers about the issue.
>
> We own a half section in Luseland Saskatchewan which is planted in wheat
> (it's leased). We go back most years for the harvest and visit with family
> and friends, but lately we have missed out on the actual combining due to
> weather. I have lurked in these groups all this time and posed the
> question of collateral deaths to a number of farmers, none of whom have
> hidden agendas such as debunking veg*n claims.
Did you only ask them about collateral deaths in the harvest? What about
tilling?
> Every one gave me a very small estimate of animals killed in the harvest
> as far as they could tell.
That's interesting. Why would they limit their answers to the harvest?
What is "very small" in numerical terms? What is it in deaths per
calorie of finished product? Is it more or less than supermarket beef?
> I consider this good information to support my own "rough calculations" which
> by the way are very rough indeed, no numbers are involved.
Then it is not truthful to refer to them as calculations. Calculations
are done with numbers.
> I also consider what people report here, but one must consider the
> motivation of those making the statements.
I am motivated to point out the complexity of life to simplistic people
who think they have the answers without even thinking about the
questions. Is that a suspect motivation?
> [...]
Dutch
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101011...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Dutch wrote:
>
> > We own a half section in Luseland Saskatchewan which is planted in
> > wheat (it's leased). We go back most years for the harvest and visit
> > with family and friends, but lately we have missed out on the actual
> > combining due to weather. I have lurked in these groups all this
> > time and posed the question of collateral deaths to a number of
> > farmers, none of whom have hidden agendas such as debunking veg*n
> > claims. Every one gave me a very small estimate of animals killed in
> > the harvest as far as they could tell.
>
> grain hopper?
The replies were not specific. I recall "very few", and "some years none at all"
referring to animals killed. One said the only time they notice it is when they do a
spring harvest after letting the grain sit cut under the snow.
Richard Bishop
Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:t6c1v13...@news.supernews.com...
????
What on earth are you talking about? Grain is cut and harvested by the same
machine.
Wheat is harvested in the summer, it's not cut and then allowed to lie on
the ground
through the winter.
Sue
>
>
Dutch
news:9457nb$17u$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
On a small farm, yes. With a lot of fields to do you can only straight combine a small
part of the crop, most of it has to be swathed and let lie to hold it from ripening .
> Wheat is harvested in the summer, it's not cut and then allowed to lie on
> the ground
> through the winter.
Wheat here is harvested about the first week in September, depending on the weather,
which is very unpredicatable around then. In wet years some fields are left to chill
under the snow all winter. The vast majority of the grain is off by Mid-Sept to
October.
banmilk
then combined. In very wet years, swathed grain has had to be left
over winter and combined in the spring when everything dries out.
There really are two ways to take the crop off Sue.;-)
--
"No" to NATO, "No" to WTO, "No" to NAFTA
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/