Want to be a vegetarian
Jonathan Ball
> The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
> Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
> as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
I do not eat meat;
Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
eat any of the animals.
All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
degree or another, even those who have been forced to
acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.
> My problem
> (which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
> potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
> bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
> meatless meal seems like no meal at all.
That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
ethics at all.
...
LordSnooty
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>WD West wrote:
>
>> The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
>> Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
>> as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
>
>Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
stunted your mental ability?
>On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
>fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
>are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
>course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.
>but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
>those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
No, your a troll, there is nothing smarmy about being right.
> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
Indeed.
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
Indeed, this is true.
>The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
>cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
>the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
>eat any of the animals.
Nonsense no nuts.
Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
support yourself?
>All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
>degree or another, even those who have been forced to
>acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
>and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
>motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
>sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.
You're a prat. If you know of any proof that a specific product,
produced by a specific company for vegetarians was the direct cause of
wildlife deaths, I'm sure the world would be on your side, you're a
liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
puppets.
>> My problem
>> (which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
>> potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
>> bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
>> meatless meal seems like no meal at all.
>
>That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
>are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
>esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
>meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
>esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
>ethics at all.
Prat.
'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
Ray
"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vt...@earthlink.net...
I agree, but only a little prat
pumilius pumilio
non compos mentis
persona non grata
Up your flue ~~jonnie~~ you nymshifting pixie.
C. James Strutz
"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vt...@earthlink.net...
> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
> >WD West wrote:
> >
> >> The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
> >> Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
> >> as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
> >
> >Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
>
> You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
> stunted your mental ability?
Not directly, but more likely that something else was the cause of both. The
end result is the same.
> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
>
> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> production there is no dispute.
What he and the others won't admit to is that beef cattle are very poor
converters of grain and fresh water to meat. Many times more people could be
fed directly with an equivalent amount of crops and with proportionally
fewer collareral animal casualties per capita.
> >The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
> >cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
> >the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
> >eat any of the animals.
>
> Nonsense no nuts.
>
> Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
> support yourself?
No, they are different people but equal in sanctimony.
> <snip> you're a
> liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
> puppets.
How true...
frlpwr
(snip)
> "vegans", or so-called
> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
The above should go like this:
If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
I do not eat meat;
Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
If, at times, vegans or ethical vegetarians forget to include the animal
qualifer, "farmed", it is because, within the context of typical dietary
choices (for instance, non-Aleut diets), farm animals are the only ones
effected. It would make no sense for American vegans to believe their
diet has any bearing on the suffering and death of, say shelter dogs or
circus animals.
>
> The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
> cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
> the suffering and death of animals.
Like most members of modern society, vegans contribute to the suffering
and death of wild animals; they don't, however, contribute to the
suffering and death of the food and fiber category of animals.
(snip)
elv...@rapanan.net
> Jon wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>"vegans", or so-called
>>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>
>
> Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
>
> The above should go like this:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
to think it could be. The insertion of the silly
qualifier doesn't help, you stupid cunt, because there
is no conceivable rationale for giving different
consideration to farmed animals.
rick etter
"C. James Strutz" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3f95859b$1...@news.nauticom.net...
>
> "LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i0lapv067o2pho1vt...@earthlink.net...
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
> >
> > >WD West wrote:
> > >
> > >> The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
> > >> Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
> > >> as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
> > >
> > >Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
> >
> > You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
> > stunted your mental ability?
>
> Not directly, but more likely that something else was the cause of both.
The
> end result is the same.
Must be your diet. All vegans seem to be very ignorant and delusional...
>
> > >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> > >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> > >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> > >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
> >
> > That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> > accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
> > simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> > production there is no dispute.
>
> What he and the others won't admit to is that beef cattle are very poor
> converters of grain and fresh water to meat.
==================
What you and other vegans refuse to see is that cattle do not need to be fed
any grains, and many are not.
That would throw a monkey-wrench into your whole rant, wouldn't it?
Many times more people could be
> fed directly with an equivalent amount of crops and with proportionally
> fewer collareral animal casualties per capita.
===============
There are no people starving because others eat meat. It's just another of
your delusional lys, killer...
>
> > >The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
> > >cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
> > >the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
> > >eat any of the animals.
> >
> > Nonsense no nuts.
> >
> > Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
> > support yourself?
>
> No, they are different people but equal in sanctimony.
================
ROTFLMAO Ignorant, hypocritical vegans calling others sanctimonious? What
a hoot!
>
> > <snip> you're a
> > liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
> > puppets.
>
> How true...
==============
Name one ly, except those by your butt-buddy, snooty....
>
>
>
>
frlpwr
>
> frlpwr wrote:
>
> > Jon wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >
> >>"vegans", or so-called
> >>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> >>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
> >>
> >> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> >>
> >> I do not eat meat;
> >>
> >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> >
> >
> > Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
> >
> > The above should go like this:
> >
> > If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>
> Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
> to think it could be.
I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion
of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and
dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human
development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular
accidents,etc..
Dutch
> elv...@rapanan.net wrote:
> >
> > frlpwr wrote:
> >
> > > Jon wrote:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > >
> > >>"vegans", or so-called
> > >>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> > >>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
> > >>
> > >> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >>
> > >> I do not eat meat;
> > >>
> > >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
> > >
> > > The above should go like this:
> > >
> > > If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> >
> > Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
> > to think it could be.
>
> I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion
> of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and
> dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human
> development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular
> accidents,etc..
You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets. A more precise
wording of the fallacy would be as follows:
Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals.
I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of
animals.
The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear that
collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off their
radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught off-guard
by the cd argument.
swamp
>Jon wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> "vegans", or so-called
>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>
>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
>
>The above should go like this:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:
If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die, and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.
Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
and death.
>If, at times, vegans or ethical vegetarians forget to include the animal
>qualifer, "farmed", it is because, within the context of typical dietary
>choices (for instance, non-Aleut diets), farm animals are the only ones
>effected.
You know better than that. Farm animals are only the tip of the
iceberg.
>It would make no sense for American vegans to believe their
>diet has any bearing on the suffering and death of, say shelter dogs or
>circus animals.
Makes no sense for *any* non-vegans either. How does a hamburger
contribute to suffering and death of "shelter dogs or circus animals?"
>> The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
>> cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
>> the suffering and death of animals.
>
>Like most members of modern society, vegans contribute to the suffering
>and death of wild animals; they don't, however, contribute to the
>suffering and death of the food and fiber category of animals.
I've never quite understood why you ar/ev types are trying to recreate
the natural world, or think that any effort on our part would be
successful. The animals aren't going to cooperate, even if the humans
did.
--swamp
LordSnooty
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr <frl...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>Jon wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>> "vegans", or so-called
>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>>>
>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>
>>> I do not eat meat;
>>>
>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
>>
>>The above should go like this:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>
>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:
>
>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>
>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
>and die,
Very good.
>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
>suffering my own diet causes.
What death and suffering? you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths? if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.
>Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
>and death.
You demonize yourselves and simply cannot stand the fact there
actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
benefits of others and nothing else, even so, since when has feeling
good about oneself been a crime?
Snip it there, KISS.
rick etter
"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote in message
It's been posted many times loser. That you continue to ignore it won't
make it go away, no matter how much you wish it, killer.
>
> >Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
> >and death.
>
> You demonize yourselves and simply cannot stand the fact there
> actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
> benefits of others and nothing else, even so, since when has feeling
> good about oneself been a crime?
==============
whan you're killing others to make yourself feel sanctimonious, killer...
Steve Dufour
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.
rick etter
"Steve Dufour" <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:744cc401.0310...@posting.google.com...
> hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
> get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
> supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.
and only one animal death...
swamp
That caused by your very existence.
>you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
>a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
>deaths?
The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
showing starvation will cause starvation.
>if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
>us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.
But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my...
>>Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
>>and death.
I'll respond to the following rant point by point:
>You demonize yourselves...
Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize"
even after you check a reference.
> and simply cannot stand the fact
Since when have you dealt w/ facts?
>there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
>benefits of others and nothing else
That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one?
>, even so, since when has feeling
>good about oneself been a crime?
When it requires hurting others.
>Snip it there, KISS.
Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above.
>'You can't win 'em all.'
>Lord Haw Haw.
I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs',
--swamp
LordSnooty
wrote:
Yes Dick Etter! RU related?
>>you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
>>a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
>>deaths?
>
>The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
>showing starvation will cause starvation.
Yes Dick Etter! RU related 2 each other?
>>if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
>>us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.
>
>But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my...
I do believe we have our first Dick Eatter sock puppet gentlemen.
>>>Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
>>>and death.
>
>I'll respond to the following rant point by point:
>
>>You demonize yourselves...
>
>Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize"
>even after you check a reference.
The world of "normal" sane people.
>> and simply cannot stand the fact
>
>Since when have you dealt w/ facts?
It is hard, considering you never give any.
>>there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
>>benefits of others and nothing else
>
>That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one?
Lord Snooty.
>>, even so, since when has feeling
>>good about oneself been a crime?
>
>When it requires hurting others.
Sometimes retards and deviants need to be made to do what's best for
them, which is why you are angry, it's a pride thing, but you have
nothing to feel proud about in reality.
>>Snip it there, KISS.
>
>Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above.
I never go backwards.
>>'You can't win 'em all.'
>>Lord Haw Haw.
>
>I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs',
Swamp, how apt.
'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me
If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.
And I'm keeping the bloody lot.
So sue me.
pearl
> get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
> supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.
Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.
Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
:).
rick etter
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:bn8ad4$ljs$1...@kermit.esat.net...
how often you going to spew this nonsense? Organic does not mean
cruelty-free, killer. Just like your inane posts to usenet, hypocrite.
rick etter
"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote in message
That sure leaves you and your family out of the loop, doesn't it killer?
>
> >> and simply cannot stand the fact
> >
> >Since when have you dealt w/ facts?
>
> It is hard, considering you never give any.
=================
They've been given many times loser. You continue to ignore them so that
you can continue to kill animals willy-nilly. You just must like all the
killing you do, eh hypocrite?
>
> >>there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for
the
> >>benefits of others and nothing else
> >
> >That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one?
>
> Lord Snooty.
================
You aren't even vegan, you ignorant fool. You prove that with every
ignorant post you make to usenet, killer.
pearl
How often you going to spew this nonsense, killer?
Jane
"swamp" <sw...@xxxspamadelphia.net> wrote in message news:v9hepv41gncgj23eo...@4ax.com...
the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the
other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables)
will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before
showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
start of this thread.
"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."
This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).
A necessary condition for an event is something which is
absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.
A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
accident, then I am still able to eat meat.
A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
a necessary condition.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_necessary.htm
Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."
This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
occur).
Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
must happen if I am to eat vegetables.
For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.
<snip>
usual suspect
>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.
>
> Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
> suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.
Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.
> Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
> :).
Hunting is eco-friendly. Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
to starve?
LordSnooty
Lol, well that's certainly putting it straight, be gentle on them,
they have barely left building block, word associations yet.
LordSnooty
>Chelsea Gint wrote:
>>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
>>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
>>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.
>>
>> Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
>> suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.
>
>Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.
It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen.
>> Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
>> :).
>
>Hunting is eco-friendly.
Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed
deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse.
> Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
>ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
>to starve?
Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them
artificially high to provide amusement for bullies.
usual suspect
>>>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
>>>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
>>>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.
>>>
>>>Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
>>>suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.
>>
>>Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.
>
> It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen.
Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known.
>>>Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
>>>:).
>>
>>Hunting is eco-friendly.
>
> Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed
> deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse.
Oh, so you hunt?
>>Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
>>ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
>>to starve?
>
> Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them
> artificially high to provide amusement for bullies.
You've never supported such claims with facts.
LordSnooty
J Ball <n...@foot.rub> wrote:
>LardShit wrote:
>>>>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
>>>>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
>>>>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.
>>>>
>>>>Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
>>>>suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.
>>>
>>>Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.
>>
>> It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen.
>
>Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known.
You think it unfair I don't like deviants who are proud of the
suffering they cause to animals and humans? tough.
>>>>Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
>>>>:).
>>>
>>>Hunting is eco-friendly.
>>
>> Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed
>> deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse.
>
>Oh, so you hunt?
Only deviants.
>>>Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
>>>ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
>>>to starve?
>>
>> Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them
>> artificially high to provide amusement for bullies.
>
>You've never supported such claims with facts.
I don't need to, anyone who has ever studied dynamics of wildlife
controls know the score, hunters know it very well.
Heather Crosnoe
"those crazy vegetarian" types. Go eat a steak and don't forget your
LIpitor!!
Heather Crosnoe
industry shill.
Jason
usual suspect
Wrong, I'm vegetarian.
usual suspect
I'm not a shill for the meat industry, you crank. Try dealing in facts
next time.
rick etter
Until you understand a little truth, killer.
>
rick etter
"Heather Crosnoe" <hlc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21386-3F9...@storefull-2211.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Now I seee where ou stand. Just another meat eater who can't stand
> "those crazy vegetarian" types. Go eat a steak and don't forget your
> LIpitor!!
I see you have to snip out what he said, apparenetly because you cannot
refute what he said, eh hypocrite?
come on, explain how hunting is less eco-friendly than your massive
monoculture controlled diet.
rick etter
> Sorry for any confusion. My reply was meant for "Usual Suspect" aka meat
> industry shill.
> Jason
that was clear, loser. You're just another of a long line of brainwashed
dupes living a delusion...
rick etter
"usual suspect" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
news:ZMRlb.35$xv4...@twister.austin.rr.com...
that will go way over his head u.s.
rick etter
"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:54:55 GMT, usual suspect who is actually NoNuts
> J Ball <n...@foot.rub> wrote:
>
> >LardShit wrote:
> >>>>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
> >>>>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
> >>>>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
> >>>>suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.
> >>>
> >>>Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.
> >>
> >> It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen.
> >
> >Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known.
>
> You think it unfair I don't like deviants who are proud of the
> suffering they cause to animals and humans? tough.
that's why you display all that self-hatred, eh killer?
>
> >>>>Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
> >>>>:).
> >>>
> >>>Hunting is eco-friendly.
> >>
> >> Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed
> >> deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse.
> >
> >Oh, so you hunt?
>
> Only deviants.
==================
you kill far more animals posting your inane ignorant delusions to usenet
than most hunters manage, hypocrite...
>
> >>>Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
> >>>ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
> >>>to starve?
> >>
> >> Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them
> >> artificially high to provide amusement for bullies.
> >
> >You've never supported such claims with facts.
>
> I don't need to, anyone who has ever studied dynamics of wildlife
> controls know the score, hunters know it very well.
===============
you know nothing, killer....
Dutch
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
[..]
> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
>
> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> accident,
Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try
ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup.
> with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food.
What's accidental about using Roundup?
> It
> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> production there is no dispute.
There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still being
decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents.
You're in denial.
-snip->
LordSnooty
>"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
>> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
>> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
>> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
>>
>> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
>> accident,
>
>Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try
>ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup.
That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who
use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the
only way to go
So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet,
that are causing the suffering after all.
>> with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food.
>
>What's accidental about using Roundup?
Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on
humans too.
>> It
>> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
>> production there is no dispute.
>
>There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still being
>decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents.
Not in my diet.
>You're in denial.
You are struggling to find a desperate shred of credibility for your
nonsense argument.
Dutch
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:06 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote
> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> >> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >
> >> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> >> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> >> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> >> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
> >>
> >> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> >> accident,
> >
> >Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try
> >ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup.
>
> That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who
> use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the
> only way to go
Organic farmers still use chemicals, they just use less of them. Very, very
few vegans grow their own, and they still believe their diets are
death-free.
> So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet,
> that are causing the suffering after all.
No, EVERYTHING does.
> >> with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food.
> >
> >What's accidental about using Roundup?
>
> Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on
> humans too.
Those "wanton acts of abuse" live in the history of virtually every vegan's
diet.
> >> It
> >> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> >> production there is no dispute.
> >
> >There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still
being
> >decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents.
>
> Not in my diet.
Bullshit.
> >You're in denial.
>
> You are struggling to find a desperate shred of credibility for your
> nonsense argument.
I don't have to struggle at all, the truth is very easy to support.
swamp
The analogy, simplified, is that life causes death. The two are
inseparable.
>Before
>showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
>look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
>start of this thread.
>
>"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."
>
>This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
>assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).
Of course it's false. Jon's parroting ar/evs. You're not off to a good
start.
>A necessary condition for an event is something which is
>absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
>Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
>required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.
Correct about the death, not about the suffering, and one's diet is
irrelevant.
>A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
>not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
>the event will occur.
How can an event occur if pre-conditions don't exist?
>Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
>isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
>be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
>or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
>accident, then I am still able to eat meat.
Do you believe in miracles?
>A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
>condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
>which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
>necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
>how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
>can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
>example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
>a necessary condition.
>http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_necessary.htm
Stop w/ the pseudo logical nonsense. You don't understand it anyway.
Here are the facts. Your live at the expense of other lives.
"Suffering" isn't a necessary part of the equation. Death is.
>Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
>proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."
>
>This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
>always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
>occur).
>Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
>must happen if I am to eat vegetables.
>
>For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
>required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
>able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
>for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
>a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition
CDs are an absolute outcome of farming whether you deny them or not,
ergo your "affirming the consequent" argument is duly dismissed.
The only way not to kill animals is to not exist. I suggest you'd have
better luck taking a sideways look at David Harrison's argument. Think
of all the veggies that wouldn't get planted if it weren't for ar/evs.
--swamp
usual suspect
>>>Now I seee where ou stand. Just another meat eater who can't stand
>>>"those crazy vegetarian" types. Go eat a steak and don't forget your
>>>LIpitor!!
>>
>>Wrong, I'm vegetarian.
>
> =================
> that will go way over his head u.s.
From the substance and tone of his posts, most things go right over his
head. *jet sounds*
frlpwr
>
> "frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote
> > elv...@rapanan.net wrote:
> > >
> > > frlpwr wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (snip)
> > > >
> > > >>"vegans", or so-called
> > > >>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> > > >>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
> > > >>
> > > >> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> > > >>
> > > >> I do not eat meat;
> > > >>
> > > >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
> > > >
> > > > The above should go like this:
> > > >
> > > > If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> > >
> > > to think it could be.
> >
> > I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion
> > of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and
> > dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human
> > development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular
> > accidents,etc..
>
> You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets.
I am, silly. It is because veganism is all about consumables that
"farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a
vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of
animals..." claim.
>A more precise
> wording of the fallacy would be as follows:
>
> Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals.
>
Talk about obfuscation! Eating meat does not "contribute" to the death
of animals, it requires it.
A more precise wording of the above statement would be as follows:
Eating meat requires the death of food animals.
> I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of
> animals.
This is true if you insert "food" before "animals".
>
> The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear that
> collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off their
> radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught off-guard
> by the cd argument.
It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated
with various crops. Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them
as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes.
We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown
number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the
woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not
experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced
livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the
blade.
Dutch
You brought up circus and shelter animals, that was a diversion, nobody was
ever referring to them in this context. It was not a valid refutation of the
cd argument, the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously
are committing the fallacy, their posts here confirm it.
> >A more precise
> > wording of the fallacy would be as follows:
> >
> > Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals.
> >
> Talk about obfuscation! Eating meat does not "contribute" to the death
> of animals, it requires it.
That wasn't obfuscation, but I accept your term as more accurate.
> A more precise wording of the above statement would be as follows:
>
> Eating meat requires the death of food animals.
>
> > I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of
> > animals.
>
> This is true if you insert "food" before "animals".
Correct, but that is not the mind set that most vegans have. When they talk
about 'not requiring the deaths of animals' they have not factored cds into
it. CDs are simply not on their radar screen at all.
> > The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear
that
> > collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off
their
> > radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught
off-guard
> > by the cd argument.
>
> It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated
> with various crops.
Most, and nearly 100% fail to consider them as actually "animals killed in
order to feed *them*".
> Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them
> as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes.
There have been a wide variety of responses to this revelation. Derek washes
his hands of them, LordSnooty demands peer-reviewed data proving they exist,
one way or another the killing of those animals lives is dismissed in some
way to defend the counter-attack against vegan self-righteousness.
> We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown
> number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the
> woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not
> experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced
> livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the
> blade.
That's a red herring, vegans oppose ALL killing of animals for their meat,
even wild animals killed by hunters humanely with a single shot. Arguably
they oppose this even more than slaughterhouses. Lets be straight about it.
AR/veganism is about man *using* animals as a benefit to themselves. it's
not about animal suffering.
rick etter
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vpha5dm...@news.supernews.com...
> "LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:06 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote
> > >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > >> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
> > >
> > >[..]
> > >
> > >> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> > >> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> > >> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> > >> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
> > >>
> > >> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> > >> accident,
> > >
> > >Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try
> > >ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup.
> >
> > That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who
> > use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the
> > only way to go
>
> Organic farmers still use chemicals, they just use less of them.
Some organic pesticides are very short-lived. great for residueless crops,
but some need to be sprayed more than once per growing season because of
that.
That spraying is still mechanized and fueled by the petro-chemical industry.
Very, very
> few vegans grow their own, and they still believe their diets are
> death-free.
>
> > So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet,
> > that are causing the suffering after all.
>
> No, EVERYTHING does.
>
> > >> with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food.
> > >
> > >What's accidental about using Roundup?
> >
> > Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on
> > humans too.
>
> Those "wanton acts of abuse" live in the history of virtually every
vegan's
> diet.
>
> > >> It
> > >> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> > >> production there is no dispute.
> > >
> > >There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still
> being
> > >decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents.
> >
> > Not in my diet.
>
> Bullshit.
=================
Isn't denial just a wonderful thing to watch?
rick etter
"frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote in message news:3F9614...@flash.net...
Then you haven't been paying attention, have you?
Even you dismiss them as umimportant since you refuse to consider that other
options are better.
>
> We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown
> number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the
> woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not
> experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced
> livestock.
=================
More typical BS. The cows I eat don't 'suffer' any more than your mice or
voles during their lives. The real difference is that the cows I eat die a
very humane death compared to the animals you condemn to die horribly for
your selfish conveninece.
Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the
> blade.
=======================
Really? Even those that die slowly from poisons while their guts turn to
mush? Even those that die from starvation and predation after you take all
the easy foods and cover that allowed their population to explode in the
first place? You mean like *those* quick, humane deaths?
>
>
frlpwr
(snip)
> >
> > It is because veganism is all about consumables that
> > "farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a
> > vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of
> > animals..." claim.
>
> You brought up circus and shelter animals, that was a diversion, nobody was
> ever referring to them in this context.
It was Ball who unduly broadened the vegan claim of "causing no
suffering and death...". Veganism focuses on food and fiber animals and
makes no claim regarding its effect on wildlife, circus animals, shelter
animals, etc.
> It was not a valid refutation of the cd argument,
It was not meant as a refutation, it was a correction of Ball's strawman
statement.
> the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously
> are committing the fallacy
I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people think or
don't think subconsciously.
> their posts here confirm it.
I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show vegans,
after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths in
industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die because of
them?
(snip)
> Correct, but that is not the mind set that most vegans have. When they talk
> about 'not requiring the deaths of animals' they have not factored cds into
> it. CDs are simply not on their radar screen at all.
After being informed, who denies that some collateral field deaths
occur? The question becomes how many deaths, who controls the deaths,
and the quality of the lives of field animals and the agony of their
deaths.
>
(snip)
> >
> > It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated
> > with various crops.
>
> Most, and nearly 100% fail to consider them as actually "animals killed in
> order to feed *them*".
Animals don't have to die "in order" to grow plants. Growers don't want
to kill animals with their machinery, bone and hair dulls blades and
mucks up screens. They kill animals because they are too cheap, lazy or
uninformed to use devices and adopt practices that could reduce field
deaths.
> > Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them
> > as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes.
>
> There have been a wide variety of responses to this revelation. Derek washes
> his hands of them, LordSnooty demands peer-reviewed data proving they exist,
> one way or another the killing of those animals lives is dismissed in some
> way to defend the counter-attack against vegan self-righteousness.
I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of the
existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is correct
to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of producers and
the Lord needs quantifiable, reliable data to determine whether a vegan
diet causes _more_ animals to suffer than the billions of animals we
know die in slaughterhouses every year.
>
> > We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown
> > number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the
> > woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not
> > experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced
> > livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the
> > blade.
>
> That's a red herring
No, it isn't since most meat eaten in North American comes from
industrially raised and commercially slaughtered animals.
, vegans oppose ALL killing of animals for their meat,
> even wild animals killed by hunters humanely with a single shot.
Now we need to discuss wounding and retrieval rates, the effects of
spent shot on birds and aquatic life, hunting with dogs, prey baiting,
the diversion of tax dollars from conservation programs to hunting
enhancement programs, the stress of stalked animals,etc.
(snip)
> AR/veganism is about man *using* animals as a benefit to themselves. it's
> not about animal suffering.
It's about the suffering of animals which man uses. That's why the
death of wildlife in crop fields in "off the radar" of many vegans.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> > "frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote
>
> (snip)
> > >
> > > It is because veganism is all about consumables that
> > > "farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a
> > > vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of
> > > animals..." claim.
> >
> > You brought up circus and shelter animals, that was a diversion, nobody
was
> > ever referring to them in this context.
>
> It was Ball who unduly broadened the vegan claim of "causing no
> suffering and death...". Veganism focuses on food and fiber animals and
> makes no claim regarding its effect on wildlife, circus animals, shelter
> animals, etc.
>
> > It was not a valid refutation of the cd argument,
>
> It was not meant as a refutation, it was a correction of Ball's strawman
> statement.
He didn't make a strawman statement. You introduced extraneous elements into
a discussion about diets. There's absolutely no reason to introduce circuses
into the argument except to muddy the waters.
> > the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously
> > are committing the fallacy
>
> I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people think or
> don't think subconsciously.
I can see it in their words. How could a person who is fully aware that
indirectly they cause animals to be killed for their food, be so virulently
hateful and disrespectful of people who knowingly cause animals to be killed
for their food?
> > their posts here confirm it.
>
> I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show vegans,
> after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths in
> industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die because of
> them?
That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that by judging meat eaters so
harshly they are demonstrating a willful blindness to the impact of their
own lives. They use different mechanisms to avoid confronting their own
culpability, as I've already described. It's like a shoplifter condemning a
B&E artist for being a crook.
(snip)
>
> > Correct, but that is not the mind set that most vegans have. When they
talk
> > about 'not requiring the deaths of animals' they have not factored cds
into
> > it. CDs are simply not on their radar screen at all.
>
> After being informed, who denies that some collateral field deaths
> occur?
Vegans talk out of both sides of their mouths, many who are experienced in
this debate such as you, pay lip service to cds, then continue concluding
that killing animals for food the way *others* do, is immoral, while their
own complicity is given a free pass. It's self-serving.
> The question becomes how many deaths,
That's not the question. Vegans claim to abhor ONE death committed in the
fashion they proscribe. Vegans are unable to measure the deaths they cause,
and I daresay are not interested in doing so.
> who controls the deaths,
Humans control the deaths in slaughterhouses AND grain fields.
> and the quality of the lives of field animals
The quality of the lives of livestock is Animal Welfare.
> and the agony of their deaths.
There's no evidence that poisoned animals die with less agony than animals
in slaughterhouses, quite the contrary.
> (snip)
> > >
> > > It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths
associated
> > > with various crops.
> >
> > Most, and nearly 100% fail to consider them as actually "animals killed
in
> > order to feed *them*".
>
> Animals don't have to die "in order" to grow plants.
Livestock don't have to suffer either. If I had to decide which abuse could
be more readily solved, I would choose livestock.
> Growers don't want
> to kill animals with their machinery, bone and hair dulls blades and
> mucks up screens. They kill animals because they are too cheap, lazy or
> uninformed to use devices and adopt practices that could reduce field
> deaths.
Machinery deaths are just one small part of cds. Poisoning is worse.
> > > Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them
> > > as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes.
> >
> > There have been a wide variety of responses to this revelation. Derek
washes
> > his hands of them, LordSnooty demands peer-reviewed data proving they
exist,
> > one way or another the killing of those animals lives is dismissed in
some
> > way to defend the counter-attack against vegan self-righteousness.
>
> I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of the
> existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is correct
> to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of producers
He lays ALL the blame there. He believes his hands are completely clean. I
otoh accept that my hands are dirty in the abuse of animals in meat
production even though I oppose it in principle.
> and
> the Lord needs quantifiable, reliable data to determine whether a vegan
> diet causes _more_ animals to suffer than the billions of animals we
> know die in slaughterhouses every year.
That's not what he implies by his demand. He is attempting to cast doubt
that the phenomenon even exists.
> > > We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown
> > > number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the
> > > woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not
> > > experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced
> > > livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM,
the
> > > blade.
> >
> > That's a red herring
>
> No, it isn't since most meat eaten in North American comes from
> industrially raised and commercially slaughtered animals.
It is, because there is NO difference between the outrage towards hunters
and slaughterhouses to support the idea that the concern fundamentally has
anything to with the quality of the animal's life as you claim.
> , vegans oppose ALL killing of animals for their meat,
> > even wild animals killed by hunters humanely with a single shot.
>
> Now we need to discuss wounding and retrieval rates, the effects of
> spent shot on birds and aquatic life, hunting with dogs, prey baiting,
> the diversion of tax dollars from conservation programs to hunting
> enhancement programs, the stress of stalked animals,etc.
No, you need to acknowledge that ARAs are opposed to killing animals
directly for food <period> that's the common thread in all their objections.
The rest is animal welfare, conservation, health, and any other thing they
can think of to window-dress their real concern.
> (snip)
>
> > AR/veganism is about man *using* animals as a benefit to themselves.
it's
> > not about animal suffering.
>
> It's about the suffering of animals which man uses.
No, that's Animal Welfare. AR is about not using them AT ALL.
> That's why the
> death of wildlife in crop fields in "off the radar" of many vegans.
That's wrong. Cds are off the radar because AR is about *using* animals as a
benefit to man. Killing wildlife collaterally is not about "using". At least
try to come clean about exactly what it's all about.
Jane
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vpjp1ja...@news.supernews.com...<snip>
> > > the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously
> > > are committing the fallacy
> >
> > I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people think or
> > don't think subconsciously.
>
> I can see it in their words.
Then produce them as requested and back this claim.
>
> > > their posts here confirm it.
> >
> > I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show vegans,
> > after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths in
> > industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die because of
> > them?
>
> That's not what I am saying.
It IS what you're saying. Read it again. You're claiming "most vegans are
at least committing the fallacy" (denying that animals die during the course
of crop production), and, that "their posts here confirm it", so why don't
you produce them like you've been asked to do? That way, your claim
will have some support. Otherwise, your claim is empty and mere opinion.
<snip>
> > I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of the
> > existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is correct
> > to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of producers
>
He believes there's no use in pointing the finger anywhere else, because
if there IS anyone to blame for them, then it only makes sense to identify
the culprit to see if his methods can be improved upon to reduce them.
When he's out of his body brace and back in his chair, he'll explain it in
his own usual way. He had some major work done on his spine after a
spectacular fall down the stairs a couple of weeks ago, so he'll have
plenty of time now that he has no job to go to.
> He lays ALL the blame there. He believes his hands are completely clean. I
> otoh accept that my hands are dirty in the abuse of animals in meat
> production even though I oppose it in principle.
>
Don't just skip over these definitions of the term; read them.
Principle
n.
1.. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2..
a.. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
b.. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision
based on principle rather than expediency.
3.. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4.. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or
characteristic behavior
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principles
How can you oppose something on principle while at the same time
accepting and taking part in that something? If you had any one of
those definitions of a principle in you, you would not allow your
hands to get "dirty in the abuse of animals in meat production."
You either;
a) don't have any principles
or
b) don't honestly believe your hands are "dirty in the abuse of animals
in meat production."
Either way, each outcome will show your aren't in a position to
question other people's principles, or whether they should accept
the blame for something which is beyond their direct control.
Belinda Jane Nash.
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vpjp1ja...@news.supernews.com...
> > "frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote
> <snip>
> > > > the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously
> > > > are committing the fallacy
> > >
> > > I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people think
or
> > > don't think subconsciously.
> >
> > I can see it in their words.
>
> Then produce them as requested and back this claim.
Good to have you back Derek. Your style is unmistakable.
> > > > their posts here confirm it.
> > >
> > > I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show
vegans,
> > > after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths in
> > > industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die because of
> > > them?
> >
> > That's not what I am saying.
>
> It IS what you're saying. Read it again. You're claiming "most vegans are
> at least committing the fallacy" (denying that animals die during the
course
> of crop production), and, that "their posts here confirm it", so why don't
> you produce them like you've been asked to do? That way, your claim
> will have some support. Otherwise, your claim is empty and mere opinion.
Too bad, live with it, Derek.
> <snip>
> > > I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of the
> > > existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is
correct
> > > to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of producers
> >
> He believes there's no use in pointing the finger anywhere else, because
> if there IS anyone to blame for them, then it only makes sense to identify
> the culprit to see if his methods can be improved upon to reduce them.
> When he's out of his body brace and back in his chair, he'll explain it in
> his own usual way. He had some major work done on his spine after a
> spectacular fall down the stairs a couple of weeks ago, so he'll have
> plenty of time now that he has no job to go to.
Thanks for proving what a liar you are Derek.
> > He lays ALL the blame there. He believes his hands are completely clean.
I
> > otoh accept that my hands are dirty in the abuse of animals in meat
> > production even though I oppose it in principle.
> >
> Don't just skip over these definitions of the term; read them.
>
> Principle
> n.
> 1.. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
> 2..
> a.. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of
principle.
> b.. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a
decision
> based on principle rather than expediency.
> 3.. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
> 4.. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature
or
> characteristic behavior
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principles
>
> How can you oppose something on principle while at the same time
> accepting and taking part in that something?
How can you take part in the commercial food industry while opposing the
harming of animals in food production in principle? Simple, you just do it.
> If you had any one of
> those definitions of a principle in you, you would not allow your
> hands to get "dirty in the abuse of animals in meat production."
> You either;
> a) don't have any principles
False, I oppose in principle the abuse of animals in meat production.
> or
> b) don't honestly believe your hands are "dirty in the abuse of animals
> in meat production."
I know my hands are dirty, there is no way I could avoid complicity in some
animal abuse, I consume commercialy produced food.
> Either way, each outcome will show your aren't in a position to
> question other people's principles,
Other people are not acknowledging their own complicity as I am, therefore I
am justified in questioning their honesty.
> or whether they should accept
> the blame for something which is beyond their direct control.
It's not beyond their control. I stopped consuming non-free range eggs, so I
was able to eliminate my complicity in the battery egg business. I chose to
buy Lundburg rice, that may have made a difference, etc. There are endless
examples of how a person can have control over their connection to abusive
practises, however you want to define it. I could do likewise with every
other food that I consume, but I choose for now the stability and
convenience of my urban life. It's what we all do.
> Belinda Jane Nash.
Why are you lying about who you are Derek? Is it because of the falling-out
you had with your buddies?
Jane
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vpo7dha...@news.supernews.com...
> "Jane" <nos...@all.com> wrote in message news:3f9a...@news.greennet.net...
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:vpjp1ja...@news.supernews.com...
> > > "frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote
> > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote
> > <snip>
> > > > > the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously
> > > > > are committing the fallacy
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people think
> or
> > > > don't think subconsciously.
> > >
> > > I can see it in their words.
> >
> > Then produce them as requested and back this claim.
>
> Good to have you back Derek. Your style is unmistakable.
>
I don't mean his aggression; I'm talking about his general arguments
and counters.
> > > > > their posts here confirm it.
> > > >
> > > > I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show
> vegans,
> > > > after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths in
> > > > industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die because of
> > > > them?
> > >
> > > That's not what I am saying.
> >
> > It IS what you're saying. Read it again. You're claiming "most vegans are
> > at least committing the fallacy" (denying that animals die during the
> course
> > of crop production), and, that "their posts here confirm it", so why don't
> > you produce them like you've been asked to do? That way, your claim
> > will have some support. Otherwise, your claim is empty and mere opinion.
>
> Too bad, live with it, Jane.
>
I can live with your inability to support your claims easily. It's you
that has to live with the fact that your arguments are just mere
unsupported opinions.
> > <snip>
> > > > I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of the
> > > > existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is
> correct
> > > > to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of producers
> > >
> > He believes there's no use in pointing the finger anywhere else, because
> > if there IS anyone to blame for them, then it only makes sense to identify
> > the culprit to see if his methods can be improved upon to reduce them.
> > When he's out of his body brace and back in his chair, he'll explain it in
> > his own usual way. He had some major work done on his spine after a
> > spectacular fall down the stairs a couple of weeks ago, so he'll have
> > plenty of time now that he has no job to go to.
>
> Thanks for proving what a liar you are Derek.
>
It's true. I've had to move in with a friend who lives closer to the hospital
so I can visit him. He's been in for over two weeks now. He's lost his
teaching job and everything.
> > > He lays ALL the blame there. He believes his hands are completely clean.
> I
> > > otoh accept that my hands are dirty in the abuse of animals in meat
> > > production even though I oppose it in principle.
> > >
> > Don't just skip over these definitions of the term; read them.
> >
> > Principle
> > n.
> > 1.. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
> > 2..
> > a.. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of
> principle.
> > b.. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a
> decision
> > based on principle rather than expediency.
> > 3.. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
> > 4.. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature
> or
> > characteristic behavior
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principles
> >
> > How can you oppose something on principle while at the same time
> > accepting and taking part in that something?
>
> How can you take part in the commercial food industry while opposing the
> harming of animals in food production in principle? Simple, you just do it.
>
No you don't. If you honestly feel that your actions are against your
principles, then you must either give up your principles or the practice
which goes against them. Continuing to claim an opposition to something
on principle while taking part in that something is fundamentally wrong.
> > If you had any one of
> > those definitions of a principle in you, you would not allow your
> > hands to get "dirty in the abuse of animals in meat production."
> > You either;
> > a) don't have any principles
>
> False, I oppose in principle the abuse of animals in meat production.
>
> > or
> > b) don't honestly believe your hands are "dirty in the abuse of animals
> > in meat production."
>
> I know my hands are dirty, there is no way I could avoid complicity in some
> animal abuse, I consume commercialy produced food.
>
Then you cannot claim to be against it on principle. You accept it.
> > Either way, each outcome will show your aren't in a position to
> > question other people's principles,
>
> Other people are not acknowledging their own complicity as I am, therefore I
> am justified in questioning their honesty.
>
Some people don't believe they are complicit in certain things, in the same
way that they don't feel they are complicit in the deaths of Iraqi children
during our oil grab, but if anyone should think they are complicit and claim
to be against these actions on principle, then they must avoid taking a part
in it or been seen as a hypocrite.
> > or whether they should accept
> > the blame for something which is beyond their direct control.
>
> It's not beyond their control. I stopped consuming non-free range eggs, so I
> was able to eliminate my complicity in the battery egg business. I chose to
> buy Lundburg rice, that may have made a difference, etc. There are endless
> examples of how a person can have control over their connection to abusive
> practises, however you want to define it. I could do likewise with every
> other food that I consume, but I choose for now the stability and
> convenience of my urban life. It's what we all do.
>
> > Belinda Jane Nash.
>
> Why are you lying about who you are Derek? Is it because of the falling-out
> you had with your buddies?
>
It really doesn't matter to me that you don't believe I'm Belinda, but
before continuing with this, why would I have told you that Jane was
me? I've been posting here all week using my middle name, and it was
only after I announced who I was that you all started accusing me of
being Derek, not before, and all the evidence I've produced does show
that you're all wrong.
And to answer your question, Derek ain't no buddy with people who
support vivisection and posts the particulars of people on the net. Ray
is just a common blackmailer who cannot defend a single point, and
Zakhar, well, he likes to think of himself as an ARA but no one can
support the rights of animals while at the same time promoting animal
research on them in labs.
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > "Jane" <nos...@all.com> wrote
> > >
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > > > "frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote
> > > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously
> > > > > > are committing the fallacy
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people
think
> > or
> > > > > don't think subconsciously.
> > > >
> > > > I can see it in their words.
> > >
> > > Then produce them as requested and back this claim.
> >
> > Good to have you back Derek. Your style is unmistakable.
> >
> And where do you think Derek found that style, Dutch, in a garage?
> I don't mean his aggression; I'm talking about his general arguments
> and counters.
Wherever YOU found it, you can't conceal it. It's as unmistakable as a
fingerprint.
You're lying, why?
> > > > > > their posts here confirm it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show
> > vegans,
> > > > > after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths
in
> > > > > industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die
because of
> > > > > them?
> > > >
> > > > That's not what I am saying.
> > >
> > > It IS what you're saying. Read it again. You're claiming "most vegans
are
> > > at least committing the fallacy" (denying that animals die during the
> > course
> > > of crop production), and, that "their posts here confirm it", so why
don't
> > > you produce them like you've been asked to do? That way, your claim
> > > will have some support. Otherwise, your claim is empty and mere
opinion.
> >
> > Too bad, live with it, Jane.
> >
> I can live with your inability to support your claims easily. It's you
> that has to live with the fact that your arguments are just mere
> unsupported opinions.
My opinions are well supported Dreck, the fact that you can't see it is a
problem of yours that nobody but you can solve.
> > > <snip>
> > > > > I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of
the
> > > > > existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is
> > correct
> > > > > to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of
producers
> > > >
> > > He believes there's no use in pointing the finger anywhere else,
because
> > > if there IS anyone to blame for them, then it only makes sense to
identify
> > > the culprit to see if his methods can be improved upon to reduce them.
> > > When he's out of his body brace and back in his chair, he'll explain
it in
> > > his own usual way. He had some major work done on his spine after a
> > > spectacular fall down the stairs a couple of weeks ago, so he'll have
> > > plenty of time now that he has no job to go to.
> >
> > Thanks for proving what a liar you are Derek.
> >
> It's true. I've had to move in with a friend who lives closer to the
hospital
> so I can visit him. He's been in for over two weeks now. He's lost his
> teaching job and everything.
You're Dreck and you're lying about it. Are you ashamed of yourself?
You aren't a part of the commercial food industry? Where do you get your
food?
> If you honestly feel that your actions are against your
> principles, then you must either give up your principles or the practice
> which goes against them.
It's not that simple Dreck. We all have self-imposed limitations as to what
we're willing to do to stand up for principles.
>Continuing to claim an opposition to something
> on principle while taking part in that something is fundamentally wrong.
Maybe so, but I'd prefer to be honestly wrong than live a life of lies as
you do.
> > > If you had any one of
> > > those definitions of a principle in you, you would not allow your
> > > hands to get "dirty in the abuse of animals in meat production."
> > > You either;
> > > a) don't have any principles
> >
> > False, I oppose in principle the abuse of animals in meat production.
> >
> > > or
> > > b) don't honestly believe your hands are "dirty in the abuse of
animals
> > > in meat production."
> >
> > I know my hands are dirty, there is no way I could avoid complicity in
some
> > animal abuse, I consume commercialy produced food.
> >
> Then you cannot claim to be against it on principle. You accept it.
No, I don't accept it, not in principle, I accept it in practice. I don't
accept the exploitation of children in garment factories, but I probably use
products they produce. The reason I'm complicit is that I *could* research
the source of my clothing to avoid consuming those products, but I don't.
> > > Either way, each outcome will show your aren't in a position to
> > > question other people's principles,
> >
> > Other people are not acknowledging their own complicity as I am,
therefore I
> > am justified in questioning their honesty.
> >
> Some people don't believe they are complicit in certain things,
Some people are kidding themself Dreck.
> in the same
> way that they don't feel they are complicit in the deaths of Iraqi
children
> during our oil grab,
I don't feel complicit in that. That's a remote event that we don't support
with our daily consuming habits as we do with food.
> but if anyone should think they are complicit and claim
> to be against these actions on principle, then they must avoid taking a
part
> in it or been seen as a hypocrite.
I would agree.
> > > or whether they should accept
> > > the blame for something which is beyond their direct control.
> >
> > It's not beyond their control. I stopped consuming non-free range eggs,
so I
> > was able to eliminate my complicity in the battery egg business. I chose
to
> > buy Lundburg rice, that may have made a difference, etc. There are
endless
> > examples of how a person can have control over their connection to
abusive
> > practises, however you want to define it. I could do likewise with every
> > other food that I consume, but I choose for now the stability and
> > convenience of my urban life. It's what we all do.
See Dreck? I provided a detailed explanation of something and you just
ignored it. That's why I don't waste time on your bullshit loaded questions,
you are not interested in communication.
> > > Belinda Jane Nash.
> >
> > Why are you lying about who you are Derek? Is it because of the
falling-out
> > you had with your buddies?
> >
> It really doesn't matter to me that you don't believe I'm Belinda, but
> before continuing with this, why would I have told you that Jane was
> me? I've been posting here all week using my middle name, and it was
> only after I announced who I was that you all started accusing me of
> being Derek, not before, and all the evidence I've produced does show
> that you're all wrong.
I was on to you part way through this message, before I saw the signature.
Your unmistakable bullshit rhetoric had returned, you knew it, that's why
you signed the post Belinda.
> And to answer your question, Derek ain't no buddy with people who
> support vivisection and posts the particulars of people on the net. Ray
> is just a common blackmailer who cannot defend a single point, and
> Zakhar, well, he likes to think of himself as an ARA but no one can
> support the rights of animals while at the same time promoting animal
> research on them in labs.
Pearl agreed with his position on the one rabbit death that could save 1000
humans, and then said that you would too.
googlesux
> WD West wrote:
>
> > The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
> > Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
> > as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
>
> Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
>
> On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
> those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something? Are these
guys for real? Finally, are they also 12-years-old? I'm new to this
group, and these posts are going to keep me amused for a while, I can
tell...
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<Cnclb.6058$S52....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>WD West wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
>>>Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
>>>as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
>>
>>Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
>>
>>On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
>>fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
>>are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
>>course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
>>but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
>>those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
>>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>
>
> Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?
No. Why don't you address my objection to so-called
"ethical" vegetarianism, instead of engaging in
juvenile ad hominem?
> Are these guys for real?
What "guys"? I am for real. What's your problem?
> Finally, are they also 12-years-old?
Who are "they"?
In my case, no. Why do you ask?
> I'm new to this
> group, and these posts are going to keep me amused for a while, I can
> tell...
Liar. You won't be around more than a few days.
googlesux
> Who are "they"?
You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
profanity.
> > I'm new to this
> > group, and these posts are going to keep me amused for a while, I can
> > tell...
> Liar. You won't be around more than a few days.
Lying about what? I've never read this group before yesterday or
possibly the day before. And I think your posts WILL keep me amused as
long as I'm reading the group. So both those statements are true. But
it's possible I won't keep reading this group for long what with the
signal-to-noise ratio. I only came here for a few food
recommendations. For some reason I thought this would be one newsgroup
that would be pretty much on topic, but it seems every thread has a
few odd tirades in it, and I was surprised.
Dutch
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> > Who are "they"?
>
> You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> profanity.
Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
<---->
On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely and in large
numbers in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables, but
smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't eaten.
"vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
I do not eat meat;
Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
<--->
How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
following rhetorical question..
"Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?"
When he followed up, you snipped the relevant part (without noting) and
responded to the irrelevent portion below about how long you'll be here.
Where is *your* crediblity in this discussion?
googlesux
> "googlesux" <jkl...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>
>
> > > Who are "they"?
> >
> > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > profanity.
>
> Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
>
> <---->
> On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
> hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely and in large
> numbers in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables, but
> smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't eaten.
> "vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> <--->
>
> How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
> following rhetorical question..
Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.
C. James Strutz
"googlesux" <jkl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:589947d5.03102...@posting.google.com...
Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal deaths.
No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime you
ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
Ipse dixit
"C. James Strutz" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3f9fcfcb$1...@news.nauticom.net...
plenty, but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've
seen here over the last few weeks.
C. James Strutz
"Ipse dixit" <nos...@home.com> wrote in message
news:TcQnb.7024354$cI2.1...@news.easynews.com...
Oh, I agree with you. I think the underlying issue here is that several
people in this ng take exception to some vegans who they accuse of being
overly idealistic and emphatic about animal rights. They criticize so-called
"ethical vegans" with even MORE emphasis and bad behavior than that which
they accuse and criticize vegans. It defines hypocracy...
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> <---->
> On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
> hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely
Proof?
Chickens, turkeys and other birds are mechanically slaughtered without
any requirement for pre-slaughter stunning.
Note fully conscious birds:
http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/turkey1.htm
> and in large numbers
Proof?
9 billion birds were slaughtered in the US in 2001.
> in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
Which vegetables? I harvested greens from my garden plots last night;
they're in my refrigerator and I plan on giving several bunches to my
neighbors.
What's the death toll for these?
I bought a bag of organic walnuts and grapes at Rainbow Co-op
yesterday. What's the death toll for these?
> but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't eaten.
You're a filthy liar. Every vegan and every vegetarian who is currently
posting to tpa or aaev thinks about collateral deaths.
> "vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> <--->
>
No, it goes like this:
If I eat meat, I cause food animals to suffer and die.
I do not eat meat;
Therefore, I do not cause food animals to suffer and die.
> How is that a bizarre rant?
"Bizzare" is too strong a word for an ordinary, little man like Bawl.
However, his mistaken idea about vegan beliefs has a stranglehold on
him and that is... well, peculiar.
> You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
> following rhetorical question..
Is that any worse than replying with vaccuous claims about "large
numbers' and "gruesome deaths".
>
> "Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?"
>
> When he followed up, you snipped the relevant part
Ball has nothing relevant to say about vegan beliefs. He's tilting at
windmills.
> (without noting) and
> responded to the irrelevent portion below about how long you'll be here.
What do you expect? A new poster comes to afv for receipes and the
first thing he gets is Bawl calling him a "liar". Ball should be kept
tethered in a veal stall.
> Where is *your* crediblity in this discussion?
The guy wanted receipes, dog-catcher. Is that too hard for you to
understand?
>
Ipse dixit
"C. James Strutz" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3f9fdbeb$1...@news.nauticom.net...
of animals, but I've never been criticised for someone else's use
of pesticides yet.
C. James Strutz
They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)
contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer among
other things. Stupid.
Ipse dixit
"C. James Strutz" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3f9fe...@news.nauticom.net...
poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
You're right, it's stupid.
usual suspect
<...>
>>Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
>>deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
>>deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
>>should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
>>including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
>>farmers markets.
>
> Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal deaths.
>
> No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> can't.
Are you familiar with any formal studies which actually counted the
number of animals snuffed out for *any* particular farm crop? I doubt it
since such deaths are considered normal, even acceptable, in the course
of agriculture. It's only become an issue in the last half century or so
with the advent of the animal rights movement and veganISM. The
professor named in the article to which you allude below did attempt to
do such a count in the course of mowing alfalfa; 50% of one species was
killed off during harvest.
> Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
> that was questionable at best.
The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
since you take a side that diet can be moral. Davis concluded that a
diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/backissues/2001-2002/mar14.pdf
Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
best" about the work of Davis?
> Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> production cannot be supported with any credible information.
Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
agriculture.
Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
matter of routine.
> Anytime you
> ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
> evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.
usual suspect
> They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)
> contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer among
> other things. Stupid.
Strawman. You should know better.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
All the wildlife destroyed by herbicides and pesticides are killed without
regard for any right to life you may imagine exists in your lifestyle.
Nobody counts them or even takes much notice of them, including vegans.
They're just pests. The latest trend in grain farming is "conservation
farming" where the field is soaked with Roundup to suppress weeds instead of
being tilled. That's REAL animal friendly.
> This info
> should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> farmers markets.
Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?
Nobody is going to
Dutch
Rick Etter regularly posts a list of links.
> Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
> that was questionable at best.
Because you're an animal rights advocate who only believes what feathers
your nest..
> Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime you
> ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
> evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
Do a google search for "pest control".
Dutch
Don't forget herbicides like Roundup, they're used even more than
pesticides.
> but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've seen here
over the last few weeks.
Do some reading on pest control..
Jonathan Ball
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
>
[...]
>
>> Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
>> that was questionable at best.
>
>
> The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
> to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
> were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
> harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
> work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
> into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
> since you take a side that diet can be moral. Davis concluded that a
> diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
> and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.
>
> http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
> http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/backissues/2001-2002/mar14.pdf
>
> Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
> thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
> best" about the work of Davis?
Oh, that's easy: he doesn't like the conclusion.
See-jimmy has made the easy slide into lazy moral
complacency based on something he *doesn't* do: eat
most animal parts. It's especially funny with
See-jimmy, because he admits to not being "vegan", but
he can't say why he isn't, nor can he say why he headed
in that direction in the first place. "vegans" are
already hugely inconsistent, but See-jimmy somehow
manages to be even more inconsistent.
See-jimmy, like all "vegans", is a morally and
intellectually LAZY ass who wants to be "more ethical"
on the cheap, and he sees semi-"veganism" as just the
ticket. Along comes a scholar who demolishes the
fatuous, unwarranted basic assumption of "veganism",
and now See-jimmy is just fucked. So quite naturally,
he tries casually to dismiss the conclusion, just as he
quite casually became semi-"vegan" in the first place.
There isn't a shred of rigor to anything a "vegan" or
"ara" has ever said or written on the topic.
>
>> Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
>> about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
>> production cannot be supported with any credible information.
>
>
> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
> of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
> the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
> causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
> at issue.
Exactly so. The claim was made by intellectual slugs
who never had either the ability or the inclinination
to support the claim. It is the nature of the claim,
combined with the glaringly obvious bad character and
bad faith of its proponents, that makes "vegans" the
objects of such loathing. Of course, because "vegans"
are demonstrably mentally ill, they obtain a perverse
reward from the loathing.
> The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
> everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
> agriculture.
It's a burden that they will always shirk.
Dutch
Your perceptions are blurred. The underlying issue here is the way vegans
attack non-believers, as if consuming meat were a capital crime. The fact
that YOUR food rountinely costs animal lives, regardless of how many, makes
*that* attack the definition of hypocrisy.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > <---->
> > On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
> > hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely
>
> Proof?
Denial?
> Chickens, turkeys and other birds are mechanically slaughtered without
> any requirement for pre-slaughter stunning.
I never denied that livestock are killed, sometimes gruesomely, but thanks
for reminding me.
> http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/turkey1.htm
>
> > and in large numbers
>
> Proof?
Nobody gathers statistics, but talk to any old-timer from the midwest, ask
him about wildlife on the prairies. Look at the number of songbird species
that exist there now compared to 60 years ago.
> 9 billion birds were slaughtered in the US in 2001.
For good reason, people have to eat.
> > in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
>
> Which vegetables? I harvested greens from my garden plots last night;
> they're in my refrigerator and I plan on giving several bunches to my
> neighbors.
>
> What's the death toll for these?
Not relevant. Animals don't suffer on "The Polyface Farm" either, but my
food doesn't come from there.
> I bought a bag of organic walnuts and grapes at Rainbow Co-op
> yesterday. What's the death toll for these?
I don't know, do you?
> > but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
eaten.
>
> You're a filthy liar. Every vegan and every vegetarian who is currently
> posting to tpa or aaev thinks about collateral deaths.
Only because we won't let them forget about them. Note the new participants
like James Strutz and googlesux are still in denial.
> > "vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic
logical
> > fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
> >
> > If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> >
> > I do not eat meat;
> >
> > Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> > <--->
> >
> No, it goes like this:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause food animals to suffer and die.
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause food animals to suffer and die.
That would be like saying I only rob liquor stores therefore I have the
moral authority to condemn people who rob convenience stores.
> > How is that a bizarre rant?
>
> "Bizzare" is too strong a word for an ordinary, little man like Bawl.
> However, his mistaken idea about vegan beliefs has a stranglehold on
> him and that is... well, peculiar.
His ideas about vegan beliefs are quite correct.
> > You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
> > following rhetorical question..
>
> Is that any worse than replying with vaccuous claims about "large
> numbers' and "gruesome deaths".
Denial.
> > "Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?"
> >
> > When he followed up, you snipped the relevant part
>
> Ball has nothing relevant to say about vegan beliefs. He's tilting at
> windmills.
His ideas about vegan beliefs are quite correct.
> > (without noting) and
> > responded to the irrelevent portion below about how long you'll be here.
>
> What do you expect? A new poster comes to afv for receipes and the
> first thing he gets is Bawl calling him a "liar". Ball should be kept
> tethered in a veal stall.
He made no mention of recipes, his first message said "Is this guy a major
shareholder in ConAgra or something?"
> > Where is *your* crediblity in this discussion?
>
> The guy wanted receipes, dog-catcher.
He didn't ask for recipes, and you obviously consider "dog-catcher" an
insult despite your earlier lying denials.
> Is that too hard for you to
> understand?
Pretty hard to understand when he doesn't mention it.
Rat & Swan
usual suspect wrote:
<snip>
> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
> of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
> the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
> causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
> at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
> everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
> agriculture.
Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods. I am
convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is
accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
of food and other products is seen as unacceptable. Then society can
and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.
<snip>
Rat
Rat & Swan
Rat & Swan wrote:
Sorry, I meant "is seen as obligatory."
Dutch
[..]
> I've been criticised for my vegan diet and rants about the rights
> of animals,
Rightfully so, sanctimonious shit.
but I've never been criticised for someone else's use
> of pesticides yet.
YOU patronize an agricultural system that routinely uses herbicides,
pesticides, plows and harvests fields without regard for wildlife, and
poisons mice that dare to get near produce. In Saskatchewan this year the
grasshoppers were 1000/m² in places. Pesticide was used in record amounts to
try to save the crops, how do you think that affected birds who eat
grasshoppers? You have enough blood on your hands that you should reconsider
your self-serving rants.
Dutch
[..]
> They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)
IS grown using pesticides and herbicides...
> contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer among
> other things. Stupid.
I realize that you've become accustomed to a self-image based on the idea
that *others* are killers, not you, but If you live off the commercial food
production system, you *are* supporting the routine killing of animals. The
good news is that there IS life after self-righteousness.
Dutch
> "They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
> poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
> who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
> You're right, it's stupid.
Got tired of using the "Jane" nym eh Derek? You can shift your nym, you may
disguise your style for a while, you can change your news server, but the
same old lame arguments give you away.
Bill
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
>> claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
>> sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
>> vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
>> diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
>> since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
>> course of agriculture.
>
>
> Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
> ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
> such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle,
No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
always, to care about them, but their behavior
indicates they do not care.
> and until their
> point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
> who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.
No. Emphatically, no. This is why I genuinely don't
understand why you are back here. You advanced this
smarmy, self-serving line of nonsense when you were
here before, and you were skewered for it. You aren't
saying anything new.
Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
gestures. What distinguishes them? Cost. You can
easily and cheaply refrain from eating meat.
Refraining from eating blood-drenched vegetables is
much more costly and difficult and inconvenient.
That you engage in one symbolic and extremely passive
gesture but not in the equally symbolic but, today at
least, more active gesture, is a mark of your moral
inconsistency at best, and bad character in the more
likely worst case. It illustrates why "veganism" is
not based on any principle, unless "pleasure-seeking
lazy self indulgence" may be called a "principle".
> I am
> convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
> such animal deaths in principle,
No, it most definitely does NOT reject deaths in
principle. It rejects them as a matter of your
convenience and enjoyment of a hedonistic "lifestyle".
> and if the vegan position is
> accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> of farmers.
As the "vegan" position is seen to be a lie, from start
to finish, and as good people don't knowingly embrace
lies, the "vegan" position is destined to remain the
"lifestyle" of self-marginalized, self-alienated,
mentally ill blowhards like you.
> But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
> a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
> of food and other products is seen as unacceptable.
You have been asked to explain the mechanics of this
linkage a couple of years ago, and you failed; failed
utterly. Once again, you haven't brought anything new
to the, er, "debate".
Why are you here?
> Then society can
> and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.
Yes, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb. Why
don't you sing a little bit of "Aquarius", too, and
tell us about peace guiding the planets and love
steering the stars.
Why ARE you back here?
C. James Strutz
"usual suspect" <n...@fat.chx> wrote in message
news:8kSnb.7125$4k5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
> >>Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> >>deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> >>deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> >>should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> >>including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> >>farmers markets.
> >
> > Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.
> >
> > No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> > can't.
>
> Are you familiar with any formal studies which actually counted the
> number of animals snuffed out for *any* particular farm crop?
No.
> I doubt it
> since such deaths are considered normal, even acceptable, in the course
> of agriculture. It's only become an issue in the last half century or so
> with the advent of the animal rights movement and veganISM.
I agree that very little information is available on this subject. That's
why I question why some people here attribute SO many more animal deaths to
veg*nism. I don't think the numbers can be substantiated either way. So why
do people so vehemently support a position that they can't back up? And why
do they evade, ridicule, and chastise when pressed to produce any sort of
proof?
> The
> professor named in the article to which you allude below did attempt to
> do such a count in the course of mowing alfalfa; 50% of one species was
> killed off during harvest.
Regrettable if true.
> > Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
> > that was questionable at best.
>
> The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
> to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
> were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
> harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
> work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
> into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
> since you take a side that diet can be moral.
Okay...
> Davis concluded that a
> diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
> and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.
>
> http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
> http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/backissues/2001-2002/mar14.pdf
Great, thanks for posting the link. I hope the guy who was asking for links
is reading.
> Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
> thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
> best" about the work of Davis?
My position has been thoroughly debunked? I don't think so. The "messenger"
animalrights.net is dedicated to "debunking the animal rights movement".
Getting useful information from sites like that is akin to listening to Rush
Limbaugh for unbiased political opinion. Furthermore, no information was
given who funded Professor Davis' work or how/where he collected data.
Credible information comes from independent and unbiased sources.
> > Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> > about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> > production cannot be supported with any credible information.
>
> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
> of CDs incredible.
Slight difference in context. I didn't mean to imply that claims of CDs are
incredible. I question claims that there are more CDs involved in vegetable
production than there are in meat production.
> The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
> the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
> causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
> at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
> everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
> agriculture.
I don't think that anyone disputes that there are animal deaths and
suffering in the course of agriculture. The issue should be where there are
fewer animal deaths and suffering.
> Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
> except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
> a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
> and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
> significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
> killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
> and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
> matter of routine.
Again, no argument that there are animal casualties in agriculture. In fact,
I tried (apparently in vain) to make the point that the cattle industry is
supported in no small way by agriculture. Nobody seems to have considered
that there are many, many CDs involved in food production for cattle. It
tilts the scale back towards the veg*n position.
> > Anytime you
> > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
and
> > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
>
> It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
> nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.
I don't rely as much on foul language for emphasis as you or other people
here, but I'll be under anyone's skin mercilessly if provoked to it. I'm
tired of trying to debate claims with in-your-face morons. If people can't
back up claims with real information then let's just agree that we don't
know and go back to posting recipes.
C. James Strutz
"usual suspect" <n...@fat.chx> wrote in message
I see it all the time in this newsgroup. I'm just writing the truth...
usual suspect
>> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
>> claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
>> sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
>> vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
>> diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
>> since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
>> course of agriculture.
>
> Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
> ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
> such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
> point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
> who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.
I cannot agree with you about any point you have made above. Vegans love
to *talk* about compassion, but seldom if ever *engage* in it when given
appropriate options. The extreme act of abstaining from meat itself
doesn't make one ethical, it only means one isn't consuming animal
flesh. Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
"ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
scale to prevent animal deaths.
Vegans are not part of the solution, they remain part of the "problem"
-- at least insofar as some weak people consider it one (most people don't).
> I am
> convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
> such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is
> accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> of farmers.
Hollow words unless you grow your own food and are conscientious about
not killing animals. Veganism is no more ethical than any other position
-- it's only hypocritical.
> But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
> a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
> of food and other products is seen as unacceptable.
Most people seem to accept that animals die in the course of producing
and transporting food, whether those deaths are intentional (how many of
our brave citizens spray for bugs or leave traps for rodents?) or
collateral. You're waiting for the rest of society to devolve to your
level; perhaps you should face reality and accept that your views are
far, far out of the mainstream.
> Then society can
> and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.
Do such childish, utopian delusions help you cope with reality, or is it
a just an attempt to avoid it?
Bill
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
>>> claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
>>> sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
>>> vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
>>> diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
>>> since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
>>> course of agriculture.
>>
>>
>> Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
>> ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
>> such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
>> point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
>> who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.
>
>
> I cannot agree with you about any point you have made above. Vegans love
> to *talk* about compassion, but seldom if ever *engage* in it when given
> appropriate options. The extreme act of abstaining from meat itself
> doesn't make one ethical, it only means one isn't consuming animal
> flesh. Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
> "ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
> scale to prevent animal deaths.
Karen Winter has been peddling this crap for years.
She's been gone for quite a few months, and it's a
genuine puzzle why she's come back, because she isn't
saying anything that she didn't already say and see
thoroughly discredited.
She's a sophist of just barely enough talent to
bamboozle the typical semi-literate usenet reader, but
not enough to bamboozle me. This laughable claptrap
about how it's "necessary" for meat production to stop
before *anything* can be done about collateral animal
deaths in vegetable production was dealt with before,
and in fact was what prompted her lachrymose flight
from the groups back in February 2001. She was
challenged to explain why it's a necessary condition
for OTHERS to behave according to her warped sense of
ethics before she will do so herself, and couldn't.
When she returned from her first humiliating flight,
she began moaning angrily and bitterly about "personal
attacks", and took ANOTHER drubbing over that.
As I elaborated in direct response to her, refraining
from direct consumption of animal parts is cheap and
easy, while refraining from CD-causing vegetable
consumption is orders of magnitude more difficult and
costly. BOTH are utterly symbolic gestures that do
nothing meaningful to stop animal slaughter. However,
cheap and easy symbolic gestures are the stock-in-trade
of the loony left, to which "vegans" clearly belong.
The fact that Karen Winter and all other "vegans" are
willing to engage in the cheap and easy symbolic
gesture, but not the costly and hard one, proves that
"veganism" is NOT based on principle, UNLESS (as I also
said earlier) the principle is one of cheap and easy
self flattery.
Ipse dixit
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vq064s8...@news.supernews.com...
Ipse dixit
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vq05fff...@news.supernews.com...
> "Ipse dixit" <nos...@home.com> wrote
>
> [..]
>
> > I've been criticised for my vegan diet and rants about the rights
> > of animals,
>
> Rightfully so, sanctimonious shit.
>
> but I've never been criticised for someone else's use
> > of pesticides yet.
>
> YOU patronize an agricultural system that routinely uses herbicides,
> pesticides, plows and harvests fields without regard for wildlife, and
> poisons mice that dare to get near produce.
So? And?
In Saskatchewan this year the
> grasshoppers were 1000/m² in places. Pesticide was used in record amounts to
> try to save the crops
By whom?
, how do you think that affected birds who eat
> grasshoppers? You have enough blood on your hands that you should reconsider
> your self-serving rants.
>
Do you think I farm all my own food or something?
Jonathan Ball
Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
whiffed off.
usual suspect
>>>No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
>>>can't.
>>
>>Are you familiar with any formal studies which actually counted the
>>number of animals snuffed out for *any* particular farm crop?
>
> No.
One side in the debate accepts that animals die as a matter of course in
agriculture. The other side ("vegans") is making the historically novel
and fantastical claim that animals either don't die or that not as many
die because they don't eat meat. The former example deny the antecedent;
the latter have no objective proof. The burden lies with both the former
and the latter so long as they make the claim.
>>I doubt it
>>since such deaths are considered normal, even acceptable, in the course
>>of agriculture. It's only become an issue in the last half century or so
>>with the advent of the animal rights movement and veganISM.
>
> I agree that very little information is available on this subject. That's
> why I question why some people here attribute SO many more animal deaths to
> veg*nism.
Your concern about "SO many more" being attributed is appreciated, but a
moot point given certain alternatives like grass-fed livestock and game.
The counting game is not one chosen by the side you oppose, it's one
assumed when someone makes a moral claim about diet in the first place
(i.e., a vegan). So let the vegans count, but count fairly. Animals die
for the meat-centered diet; animals die for the vegan diet.
> I don't think the numbers can be substantiated either way. So why
> do people so vehemently support a position that they can't back up?
You mean vegans? Vegans are the ones making the claims. Let them support
it or shut up.
> And why
> do they evade, ridicule, and chastise when pressed to produce any sort of
> proof?
The sanctimonious claim that your diet causes no or less death and
suffering than someone else's DEMANDS you support it.
>>The
>>professor named in the article to which you allude below did attempt to
>>do such a count in the course of mowing alfalfa; 50% of one species was
>>killed off during harvest.
>
> Regrettable if true.
Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State?
>>>Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
>>>that was questionable at best.
>>
>>The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
>>to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
>>were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
>>harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
>>work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
>>into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
>>since you take a side that diet can be moral.
>
> Okay...
>
>
>>Davis concluded that a
>>diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
>>and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.
>>
>>http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
>>http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/backissues/2001-2002/mar14.pdf
>
> Great, thanks for posting the link. I hope the guy who was asking for links
> is reading.
So do I, especially as he suggested I'm a religious nutcase the other day.
>>Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
>>thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
>>best" about the work of Davis?
>
> My position has been thoroughly debunked? I don't think so. The "messenger"
> animalrights.net is dedicated to "debunking the animal rights movement".
> Getting useful information from sites like that is akin to listening to Rush
> Limbaugh for unbiased political opinion. Furthermore, no information was
> given who funded Professor Davis' work or how/where he collected data.
> Credible information comes from independent and unbiased sources.
I'll remember that next time someone here cites PCRM, PETA, the
Chelsea's vegan motorcyclist club thing, etc. What you failed to note
when reading the link before (when you first slammed it) is that
animalrights.net links back to primary sources.
>>>Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
>>>about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
>>>production cannot be supported with any credible information.
>>
>>Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
>>of CDs incredible.
>
> Slight difference in context. I didn't mean to imply that claims of CDs are
> incredible. I question claims that there are more CDs involved in vegetable
> production than there are in meat production.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a
statistical difference. Even if there's a significant difference, the
facts still mitigate against a vegan diet being intrinsically moral or
ethical.
>>The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
>>the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
>>causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
>>at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
>>everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
>>agriculture.
>
> I don't think that anyone disputes that there are animal deaths and
> suffering in the course of agriculture.
The "googlesux" person who started this tangent certainly took
exception, and many other veg-ns continue to make broad generalizations
about the morality of their diet in contrast to those who eat meat. I
encourage you to pay closer attention to posters like "googlesux" and
"exploratory" (tpa) who either don't comprehend the issue of CDs or
remain willfully ignorant of it.
> The issue should be where there are fewer animal deaths and suffering.
Perhaps for those to whom it matters. Most people, including vegans,
make food purchases without consideration. Many, if not most, vegans
assume because it's marked "vegan" and has no objectionable ingredients
that it must be free of deaths and suffering. Most people genuinely do
not care: all they want is food that tastes good at the lowest possible
price.
>>Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
>>except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
>>a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
>>and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
>>significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
>>killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
>>and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
>>matter of routine.
>
> Again, no argument that there are animal casualties in agriculture. In fact,
> I tried (apparently in vain) to make the point that the cattle industry is
> supported in no small way by agriculture. Nobody seems to have considered
> that there are many, many CDs involved in food production for cattle. It
> tilts the scale back towards the veg*n position.
Not an apples:apples argument. You're excluding valid, sustainable
alternatives like grass-fed. Most grains fed to cattle are the stuff
that wouldn't or can't be sold for human consumption anyway. Corn
(maize) fed to cattle isn't the kind you would buy at the supermarket;
it's not sweet at all and it doesn't taste very good. Cows will eat it,
though, and convert it and grasses into protein.
>>>Anytime you
>>>ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
> and
>>>evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
>>
>>It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
>>nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.
>
> I don't rely as much on foul language for emphasis as you or other people
> here, but I'll be under anyone's skin mercilessly if provoked to it.
Liar.
> I'm
> tired of trying to debate claims with in-your-face morons. If people can't
> back up claims with real information then let's just agree that we don't
> know and go back to posting recipes.
Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or
ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops there.
Jane
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:H1Wnb.7073$Px2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Broadband again. Who else are you going to accuse of
being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
certain.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:H1Wnb.7073$Px2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ipse dixit" <nos...@home.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
>>>>poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
>>>>who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
>>>>You're right, it's stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>>Got tired of using the "Jane" nym eh Derek? You can shift your nym, you may
>>>disguise your style for a while, you can change your news server, but the
>>>same old lame arguments give you away.
>>
>>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
>>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
>>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
>>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
>>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
>>
>>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
>>whiffed off.
>>
>
> Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> Broadband again.
Fuck off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
it's you; why do you bother? Not sure about this ipse
dipshit twit, but probably.
> Who else are you going to accuse of
> being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> certain.
Here ya go, Dutch - just as I predicted. You may
furnish the proof of the prediction at your leisure.
Be sure to include the full headers with the e-mail,
minus the real e-mail addresses of course.
Jane
"usual suspect" <n...@fat.chx> wrote in message news:U3Wnb.3486$W84....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>>No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> >>>can't.
> >>
> >>Are you familiar with any formal studies which actually counted the
> >>number of animals snuffed out for *any* particular farm crop?
> >
> > No.
>
> One side in the debate accepts that animals die as a matter of course in
> agriculture. The other side ("vegans") is making the historically novel
> and fantastical claim that animals either don't die or that not as many
> die because they don't eat meat.
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.
The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22
Jane
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:fhWnb.7088$Px2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jane wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:H1Wnb.7073$Px2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Ipse dixit" <nos...@home.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
> >>>>poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
> >>>>who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
> >>>>You're right, it's stupid.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Got tired of using the "Jane" nym eh Derek? You can shift your nym, you may
> >>>disguise your style for a while, you can change your news server, but the
> >>>same old lame arguments give you away.
> >>
> >>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> >>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> >>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> >>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> >>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
> >>
> >>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> >>whiffed off.
> >>
> >
> > Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> > Broadband again.
>
> Fuck off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
> it's you; why do you bother?
Exactly. Why would he?
Jonathan Ball
Because you're a really stupid fuckwit who takes
pleasure in really stupid, fuckwitted things like this.
You stupid, bluefooted, dying fuck.
Dutch
[..]
> Slight difference in context. I didn't mean to imply that claims of CDs
are
> incredible. I question claims that there are more CDs involved in
vegetable
> production than there are in meat production.
That's not the claim being made. The claim is that there is death and
suffering of animals in *both*.
> > The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
> > the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
> > causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
> > at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
> > everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
> > agriculture.
>
> I don't think that anyone disputes that there are animal deaths and
> suffering in the course of agriculture. The issue should be where there
are
> fewer animal deaths and suffering.
If vegans were making a more reasonable and supportable claim then we
wouldn't be having this discussion.
> > Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
> > except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
> > a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
> > and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
> > significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
> > killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
> > and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
> > matter of routine.
>
> Again, no argument that there are animal casualties in agriculture. In
fact,
> I tried (apparently in vain) to make the point that the cattle industry is
> supported in no small way by agriculture. Nobody seems to have considered
> that there are many, many CDs involved in food production for cattle. It
> tilts the scale back towards the veg*n position.
The position of vegans isn't "less animal deaths", it's "meat eaters are
immoral". A free-range or hunted animal or fresh caught fish may provide
many, many kilocalories of nourishment for one animal death, the same can't
be said of an equivalent amount of veggie-burgers. Looking at the whole
picture, veganism's extremely judgmental position is not supportable.
> > > Anytime you
> > > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
> and
> > > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
> >
> > It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
> > nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.
>
> I don't rely as much on foul language for emphasis as you or other people
> here, but I'll be under anyone's skin mercilessly if provoked to it. I'm
> tired of trying to debate claims with in-your-face morons. If people can't
> back up claims with real information then let's just agree that we don't
> know and go back to posting recipes.
But you base your belief in moral superiority on ignorance, or more
accurately, on a fallacy.
Dutch
news:bnpb2h$14373l$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
Right on cue, Derek/Jane/Ipse Dixit. Jonathan predicted about an hour ago
that you would resurface as Jane as soon as I outed you as Ipse Dixit.
You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Go back and make a few more posts
as Ipse Dixit so I can spot more tells.
Dutch
> Jane wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:H1Wnb.7073$Px2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Ipse dixit" <nos...@home.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
> >>>>poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
> >>>>who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
> >>>>You're right, it's stupid.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Got tired of using the "Jane" nym eh Derek? You can shift your nym, you
may
> >>>disguise your style for a while, you can change your news server, but
the
> >>>same old lame arguments give you away.
> >>
> >>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> >>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> >>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> >>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> >>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
Easynews has a one week money-back guarantee. Let's see if he lasts that
long.
> >>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> >>whiffed off.
> >>
> >
> > Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> > Broadband again.
>
> Fuck off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
> it's you; why do you bother? Not sure about this ipse
> dipshit twit, but probably.
If someone came along and said that animals benefit from farming, we would
*know* it was fuckwit in disguise. By the same token when someone comes
along and says that he can't be held responsible for the sins of farmers
it's got to be Dreck. He tries to conceal himself by altering his server and
his style but there's no mistaking those lame-brained ideas, they're like
fingerprints.
>
> > Who else are you going to accuse of
> > being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> > missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> > certain.
>
> Here ya go, Dutch - just as I predicted. You may
> furnish the proof of the prediction at your leisure.
> Be sure to include the full headers with the e-mail,
> minus the real e-mail addresses of course.
You hit the nail on the head. I've got it right here.
Dutch
Because you're an irrational dork. You keep cooking up dumb ideas that
always end up backfiring on you.
> > Not sure about this ipse
> > dipshit twit, but probably.
No doubt about it. Nobody else would EVER argue that he's not connected to
cds in farming because the farmer did it, any more than anyone else would
argue that meat-eating is more moral because it provides life for animals.
Jane
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vq0ejf...@news.supernews.com...
Jon also made a right fool of himself shouting his mouth off
claiming Derek was "immortalist" only a few days ago. It's
so funny.
> You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Go back and make a few more posts
> as Ipse Dixit so I can spot more tells.
Shall I write them in French? Check through the archives.
>
>
>
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:dPWnb.7129$Px2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Dutch
Why should I?
Derek
"Bill" <Bi...@kenstarr.not> wrote in message news:sSUnb.6942$Px2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Rat & Swan wrote:
> > usual suspect wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
> >> claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
> >> sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
> >> vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
> >> diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
> >> since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
> >> course of agriculture.
> >
> > Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
> > ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
> > such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle,
>
> No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
> always, to care about them, but their behavior
> indicates they do not care.
>
deaths, and it was you who decided this when writing,
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.
The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22
Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
collaterally during the production of food are morally
obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
the best ethical solution in reducing them.
--
Ask a vivisectionist why it's alright to use animals,
and he'll answer, "Because they are like us."
Ask a vivisectionist why it's morally alright to use
animals, and he'll answer, "Because they aren't
like us."
Derek
"Ipse dixit" <nos...@home.com> wrote in message news:sQVnb.3904477$Bf5.5...@news.easynews.com...
for the deaths caused by farmers during the production
of your veg. He simply wants to convince you you are
as bad as he is by insisting your purchase from farmers
shows an equal contempt for animal rights as a meatarian's.
Derek
"Jane" <nos...@all.com> wrote in message news:3f97...@news.greennet.net...
>
> "swamp" <sw...@xxxspamadelphia.net> wrote in message news:v9hepv41gncgj23eo...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
> > <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp <sw...@xxxspamadelphia.net>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr <frl...@flash.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Jon wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>(snip)
> > >>>
> > >>>> "vegans", or so-called
> > >>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> > >>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I do not eat meat;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >>>
> > >>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
> > >>>
> > >>>The above should go like this:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> > >>>
> > >>> I do not eat meat;
> > >>>
> > >>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> > >>
> > >>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:
> > >>
> > >>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> > >>
> > >>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
> > >>and die,
> > >
> > >Very good.
> > >
> > >>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
> > >>suffering my own diet causes.
> > >
> > >What death and suffering?
> >
> > That caused by your very existence.
> >
> > >you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
> > >a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
> > >deaths?
> >
> > The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
> > showing starvation will cause starvation.
> >
> That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause
> the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the
> other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables)
> will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before
> showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
> look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
> start of this thread.
>
> "If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."
>
> This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
> assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).
>
> A necessary condition for an event is something which is
> absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
> Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
> required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.
>
> A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
> not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
> the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
> isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
> be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
> or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
> accident, then I am still able to eat meat.
>
> A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
> condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
> which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
> necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
> how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
> can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
> example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
> a necessary condition.
> http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_necessary.htm
>
> Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
> proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."
>
> This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
> always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
> occur).
> Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
> must happen if I am to eat vegetables.
>
> For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
> required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
> able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
> for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
> a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.
Very nice.
Derek
"usual suspect" <n...@fat.chx> wrote in message news:PBVnb.3474$W84....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
> "ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
> scale to prevent animal deaths.
>
That's not an honest explanation. They die because
farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
instead of trying to improve their farming methods
and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
labour intensive.