Want to be a vegetarian
WD West
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. 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. For instance, I could eat
salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.
Belial
There's heaps of vegetarian recipe web sites around, one of my favs is
www.fatfree.com.
I think the best advice I can give you is "go slow". I don't think it's
reasonable to go from a 3 meat a day diet to a 7th level vegan (don't eat
anything that casts a shadow ;-) ) in one step. I started to first cut out
red meat (for cost and health reasons)so when I actually decided that I
had a personal moral problem with eating meat I only had to cut out fish
and chicken. First up I just stopped eating meat directly, then gradually
cut out products that contained meat, and now I'm at a stage where I don't
eat anything that contains something that resulted from the death on an
animal.
None of these steps were part of some kind of grand plan - at each stage I
always thought I was quite happy there. Once I'd gotten used to the change
in diet though I'd start to reconsider, which usually ended up with me
becoming "more strict". I'm currently pseudo-vegan, in that I'm minimising
my dairy intake when eating at home.
The taste issue is something that will come in time. I was from a similar
background to you (though not usually meat for breakfast!). If something
didn't have meat in it then it wasn't a real meal and didn't represent
value for money. My concept of a meatless diet would have been salads all
day and steamed veggies at night.
The first big change you'll probably notice is that you won't feel quite
"full". Meat is heavy, and has a way of weighing you down after a meal.
It's initially hard to get used to meals that don't do this, but after a
little while you'll love it. You can finish a huge meal and not feel like
you need a nap to let your body digest it :-)
You'll also most likely learn to cook. I've always enjoyed cooking, but my
concept of it when I ate meat was a little, um, blokey :). I'm getting to
the stage now where I can actually cook, and don't even need to follow a
recipe.
The bottom line is this though. If you don't like the concept of
unnecessary killing to support your life, you'll change your diet. After a
month of salads sheer desperation will cause you to learn how to cook good
tasty vegetarian meals :)
Ben
- coming of age during the plague of Regan and Bush
watching capitalism gun down democracy
it had a funny effect on me, I guess
Ani DiFranco
dh...@nomail.com
>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.
[...]
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Paints,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze
http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid
http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC
http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings
http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy
products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,
and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass
raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for
cattle. ·
C. James Strutz
"WD West" <wdw...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:947839f6.03101...@posting.google.com...
> 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.
There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as a
vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian. There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary. All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart.
> 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. For instance, I could eat
> salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
> wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
> Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
> the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
> possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
> part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
> really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
> to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
> someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
> Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
> take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.
One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals don't
need a central focus. I think that always having same meat:potato:vegetable
theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity. Getting past that
limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
more interesting. Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle. Until then, there are
lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely varying
facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are not
meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.
Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the vegetarian
cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything from
"Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the
bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian Times"
magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels of
vegetarian preferences.
Good luck with it...
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.
usual suspect
>>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.
>
> There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
> the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as a
> vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
> There are other people who argue
> strongly to the contrary.
Yes, without any facts.
> All you can hope to do is research the issues for
> yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart.
Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
>>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. For instance, I could eat
>>salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
>>wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
>>Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
>>the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
>>possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
>>part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
>>really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
>>to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
>>someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
>>Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
>>take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.
>
> One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals don't
> need a central focus. I think that always having same meat:potato:vegetable
> theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.
You have no creativity. None. Remember?
> Getting past that
> limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
> vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
> more interesting.
It's not a limitation if you're creative.
> Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
> far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle.
You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle.
> Until then, there are
> lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely varying
> facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are not
> meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.
What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!
> Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the vegetarian
> cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything from
> "Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the
> bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian Times"
> magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels of
> vegetarian preferences.
Vegetarian Times sucks.
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...
C. James Strutz
"Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
news:c_elb.1477$pJ1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> C. James Putz 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.
> >
> > There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you
in
> > the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths
as a
> > vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
>
> How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
> of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
> transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
> no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
> animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
> being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
people directly.
> > There are other people who argue
> > strongly to the contrary.
>
> Yes, without any facts.
I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just
a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.
> > All you can hope to do is research the issues for
> > yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your
heart.
>
> Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
At least I have a heart...
> >>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. For instance, I could eat
> >>salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
> >>wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
> >>Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
> >>the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
> >>possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
> >>part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
> >>really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
> >>to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
> >>someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
> >>Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
> >>take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.
> >
> > One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals
don't
> > need a central focus. I think that always having same
meat:potato:vegetable
> > theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.
>
> You have no creativity. None. Remember?
I have a lot of creativity.
> > Getting past that
> > limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
> > vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
> > more interesting.
>
> It's not a limitation if you're creative.
You don't read well, do you?
> > Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
> > far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle.
>
> You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle.
I don't struggle at all, except with the likes of you.
> > Until then, there are
> > lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely
varying
> > facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are
not
> > meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.
>
> What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
> taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!
Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.
> > Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the
vegetarian
> > cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything
from
> > "Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the
> > bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian
Times"
> > magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels
of
> > vegetarian preferences.
>
> Vegetarian Times sucks.
Even you are entitled to your own opinon.
frlpwr
(snip)
> That does nothing to change the fact that
> animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields,
Flood irrigation is at the low-tech end of irrigation techniques.
Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it
enormously wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and
changes in soil chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped
countries or in the western US for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_,
_alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the water-guzzling type.
Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural
floodplains.
> pesticide use,
Except for rodenticides and a few baits used against birds, agricultural
pesticides do not target avian and mammalian species. This makes the
deaths from pesticide exposure of members of these species accidental,
at best, and incidental, at least.
> being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
Only grain fields are commonly combined. What is the cutting height of
most grains crops? Compare these to the cutting heights of alfalfa and
other silage crops. Field animals are much more likely to be injured in
an alfalfa field cut at 2" than in a wheat field cut at 12". That photo
of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of
field deaths...it's of a silage field.
Farmers who use an outward spiral harvesting pattern can eliminate most
field deaths. Give animals an avenue of escape from a loud, vibrating,
smoking behemouth of a machine and they'll take it.
As for the danger posed by "other farm machinery", it can be measured in
the width of tire tracks. Again, animals flee from vibrations in the
soil and loud surface noises. They go down or they go out. Field
animals have not attained "pest" status because they die easily.
Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as
"horrid" as being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a
slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a holding pen with hundreds of
strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods wielded by
unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the
animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain,
sometimes twice, sometimes three times.
> > There are other people who argue
> > strongly to the contrary.
>
> Yes, without any facts.
Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering
and death. 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.
>
> > All you can hope to do is research the issues for
> > yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart.
>
> Your heart doesn't think
Neither does your brain.
> it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that
compassion is an incorrect human response to the suffering of others.
(snip)
> What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
> taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat?
Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing
the demand for meat production.
> Hypocrite!
Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute
item.
(snip)
>
> Vegetarian Times sucks.
Not as much as you do.
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.
Jonathan Ball
> "Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
> news:c_elb.1477$pJ1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>C. James Putz 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.
>>>
>>>There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
>>>the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths
>>>as a vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
>>
>>How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
>>of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
>>transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
>>no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
>>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
>>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
>
>
> There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
> for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
> people directly.
That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.
So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.
The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
behaving according to any moral principle. By
defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.
You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
inconsistency problem.
>
>
>>>There are other people who argue
>>>strongly to the contrary.
>>
>>Yes, without any facts.
>
>
> I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just
> a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.
The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
deaths.
>
>
>>>All you can hope to do is research the issues for
>>>yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your
>>>heart.
>
>>Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
>
>
> At least I have a heart...
No, not really. You have weepy, immature sentiment.
>
>
>>>>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. For instance, I could eat
>>>>salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
>>>>wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
>>>>Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
>>>>the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
>>>>possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
>>>>part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
>>>>really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
>>>>to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
>>>>someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
>>>>Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
>>>>take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.
>>>
>>>One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals
>
> don't
>
>>>need a central focus. I think that always having same
>
> meat:potato:vegetable
>
>>>theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.
>>
>>You have no creativity. None. Remember?
>
>
> I have a lot of creativity.
Hardly.
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....
>
>
>
>
rick etter
>
> "WD West" <wdw...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:947839f6.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > 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.
>
> There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
> the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as
a
> vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
No, there hasn't been anybody that says you will 'always' cause more death
and suffering, only that is is possible you will. And there are no vegan
that have ever been able to refute that fact. They rant and rave about the
killing they think others are doing, but always ignore their own
contributions. That way they can feel good without having to actually
making any changes that would really make a difference.
==================
LOL What a crock. The same combinations are available with or without a
meat dish added.
Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
> far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle. Until then, there
are
> lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely
varying
> facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are
not
> meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.
====================
Which really kills me... This ones always a hoot! You take something and
make it look, feel and taste like something you claim to despise.
Answer this. How many animals do you figure die in the production and
prosessing of 100lbs of tofu meat substitute? How many animals do you
figure died to provide 100 lbs of grass fed beef, or game? Tofu is a
process dependent product. Besides, why would anyone want to knowingly feed
soy products to kids and pre-teens when it is touted as a hormone
replacement food for post-menepausal women?
rick etter
>
> "Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
> news:c_elb.1477$pJ1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > C. James Putz 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.
> > >
> > > There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell
you
> in
> > > the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal
deaths
> as a
> > > vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
> >
> > How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
> > of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
> > transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
> > no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
> > animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
> > being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
>
> There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
> for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
> people directly.
Find them for the beef I eat, killer. the fact that some meat is raised in
certain ways does not eliminate *your* contributions to animal death and
suffering. Pretending otherwise just makes you look ignorant and
hypocritical, killer.
>
> > > There are other people who argue
> > > strongly to the contrary.
> >
> > Yes, without any facts.
>
> I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.
Just
> a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.
================
Ah, comprehension and selective reading again, eh killer? It's been posted
many times.
>
> > > All you can hope to do is research the issues for
> > > yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your
> heart.
> >
> > Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
>
> At least I have a heart...
==============
and no brain....
===============
because you cannot refute the facts.
>
> > > Until then, there are
> > > lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely
> varying
> > > facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they
are
> not
> > > meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.
> >
> > What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
> > taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!
>
> Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.
================
Ignorance, something you know all about, fool...
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:Q_glb.220$I04...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> See James Strut wrote:
>
> > "Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
> > news:c_elb.1477$pJ1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop
production
> > for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number
of
> > people directly.
>
> That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
> not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
> what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.
Oh no, it's not irrelevant. You want to make everyone believe that vegans
contribute to collateral animal deaths without them realizing that the
cattle industry is responsible for most of it, you lying sack of shit.
> So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
> high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
> their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
> meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
> comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
> the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.
I can and I did.
> The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
> deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
> behaving according to any moral principle. By
> defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
> by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
> "veganism" is free of any ethical principles.
Very weak, you can do better than that.
> You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
> inconsistency problem.
Not at all. It doesn't take a vegan to show that your argument is incomplete
at best.
> > I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.
Just
> > a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.
>
> The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
> deaths.
You have no facts.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:Q_glb.220$I04...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>See James Strut wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
>>>news:c_elb.1477$pJ1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
>>>for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
>>>people directly.
>>
>>That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
>>not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
>>what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.
>
>
> Oh no, it's not irrelevant.
Yes, asshole, it is wholly irrelevant. And you know
why, unless you're too stupid to read what I wrote.
Let's see...
> You want to make everyone believe that vegans
> contribute to collateral animal deaths without them realizing that the
> cattle industry is responsible for most of it
No, shitworm. "vegans" DO contribute to massive
collateral animal deaths, with or without a cattle
industry. "vegans" pretend they don't cause animal
death via their diets, and they DO.
The deaths they cause go completely unpunished, and are
unnecessary to the production of food to eat. The only
distinction is that no one eats these dead animals.
>
>
>>So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
>>high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
>>their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
>>meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
>>comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
>>the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.
>
>
> I can and I did.
No, it was illegitimate. You cannot establish your
virtue by making a comparison or contrast to others.
That you think you made a legitimate comparison shows
what a worthless shitbag you are, an absolutely vile shit.
>
>
>>The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
>>deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
>>behaving according to any moral principle. By
>>defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
>>by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
>>"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.
>
>
> Very weak, you can do better than that.
It is killing you, Putz, you wholly unethical lying
shitbag.
>
>
>>You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
>>inconsistency problem.
>
>
> Not at all.
Very much so, shitworm. You are mostly vegetarian, but
you cannot coherently explain why you draw the line
where you do. You are even more incoherent when it
comes to ethics than are "vegans".
>>>I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.
>>>Just a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.
>>
>>The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
>>deaths.
>
>
> You have no facts.
We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.
You are morally incoherent, which is a bad thing to be
for one who claims to be behaving "more" ethically than
others.
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Do you see me disputing that? NO! It's the cattle industry that's
responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans. Vegans contribute to
negligible collateral deaths in comparison. That's what you don't want
people here to know.
> The deaths they cause go completely unpunished, and are
> unnecessary to the production of food to eat. The only
> distinction is that no one eats these dead animals.
Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?
> >>So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
> >>high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
> >>their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
> >>meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
> >>comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
> >>the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.
> >
> >
> > I can and I did.
>
> No, it was illegitimate. You cannot establish your
> virtue by making a comparison or contrast to others.
You're argument is incomplete and incoherent. You can't contain the damage
inherent in the truth, can you?
> That you think you made a legitimate comparison shows
> what a worthless shitbag you are, an absolutely vile shit.
Glad to know I'm getting under you skin.
> >>The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
> >>deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
> >>behaving according to any moral principle. By
> >>defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
> >>by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
> >>"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.
> >
> >
> > Very weak, you can do better than that.
>
> It is killing you, Putz, you wholly unethical lying
> shitbag.
More damage control...
> >>You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
> >>inconsistency problem.
> >
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Very much so, shitworm. You are mostly vegetarian, but
> you cannot coherently explain why you draw the line
> where you do. You are even more incoherent when it
> comes to ethics than are "vegans".
You're trying to change the subject...more damage control. I am vegetarian
but not vegan. You are wrong, as usual (heh, no pun intended).
> >>>I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.
> >>>Just a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.
> >>
> >>The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
> >>deaths.
> >
> >
> > You have no facts.
>
> We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
> deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.
Then produce the facts that back up your assertions. Do it now or everybody
will see you're the lying jerk that I know you are.
> You are morally incoherent, which is a bad thing to be
> for one who claims to be behaving "more" ethically than
> others.
Hardly.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:V8ilb.288$I04...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>See James Strut wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
>>>>>for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number
>>>>>of people directly.
>>>>
>>>>That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
>>>>not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
>>>>what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh no, it's not irrelevant.
>>
>>Yes, asshole, it is wholly irrelevant. And you know
>>why, unless you're too stupid to read what I wrote.
>>Let's see...
>>
>>
>>>You want to make everyone believe that vegans
>>>contribute to collateral animal deaths without them realizing that the
>>>cattle industry is responsible for most of it
>>
>>No, shitworm. "vegans" DO contribute to massive
>>collateral animal deaths, with or without a cattle
>>industry. "vegans" pretend they don't cause animal
>>death via their diets, and they DO.
>
>
> Do you see me disputing that?
Yes: below, when you lie and whine that I have no "facts".
> NO! It's the cattle industry that's
> responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.
The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.
> Vegans contribute to
> negligible collateral deaths in comparison.
The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
big number and there are very big problems with it:
1. The number is large.
2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
how big it is.
3. The deaths could be avoided.
4. There are no consequences for the deaths.
5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a FUCKING THING, to
try to stop causing the deaths.
>
>
>>The deaths they cause go completely unpunished, and are
>>unnecessary to the production of food to eat. The only
>>distinction is that no one eats these dead animals.
>
>
> Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?
No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.
There are no consequences for the collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
their occurrence.
>
>
>>>>So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
>>>>high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
>>>>their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
>>>>meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
>>>>comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
>>>>the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.
>>>
>>>
>>>I can and I did.
>>
>>No, it was illegitimate. You cannot establish your
>>virtue by making a comparison or contrast to others.
>
>
> You're argument is incomplete and incoherent.
It is neither, and you know it, jimmy. You're sweating.
You are attempting to establish "vegan" virtue - in
your case, it's only semi-"vegan", and that is *also*
incoherent - by comparing the numbers.
Look at it this way, jimmy, you stinking little
shitworm. In fact, you've already seen this, so you're
just playing stupid. If you are married but fuck your
co-worker (who isn't your wife) three times a month,
and your shitbag married brother fucks his co-worker
(also not his wife) 20 times a month, you are not
"more" virtuous than he merely because you fuck your
co-worker fewer times than your shitbag brother fucks
his co-worker.
Got it now, jimmy, you fucking hypocritical shitworm?
>
>
>>That you think you made a legitimate comparison shows
>>what a worthless shitbag you are, an absolutely vile shit.
>
>
> Glad to know I'm getting under you skin.
You aren't. I'm toying with you.
>
>
>>>>The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
>>>>deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
>>>>behaving according to any moral principle. By
>>>>defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
>>>>by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
>>>>"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.
>>>
>>>
>>>Very weak, you can do better than that.
>>
>>It is killing you, Putz, you wholly unethical lying
>>shitbag.
>
>
> More damage control...
Nope.
>
>
>>>>You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
>>>>inconsistency problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all.
>>
>>Very much so, shitworm. You are mostly vegetarian, but
>>you cannot coherently explain why you draw the line
>>where you do. You are even more incoherent when it
>>comes to ethics than are "vegans".
>
>
> You're trying to change the subject...more damage control.
Nope. The subject is the appalling moral incoherence
of so-called "ethical vegetarians", and you are one.
That you are vegetarian to some ill-defined extent due
to supposed "ethical" considerations, yet don't take it
all the way, is EXTRA incoherence on your part.
> I am vegetarian but not vegan.
Yes, I said that, shitworm. You can't explain
coherently why you AREN'T "vegan". To the extent you
are an ethical vegetarian at all, you share fully in
the moral incoherence of "vegans"; to the terrible
extent you aren't a full-fledged "vegan", you are MORE
incoherent than they are.
>
>>>>>I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.
>>>>>Just a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.
>>>>
>>>>The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
>>>>deaths.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have no facts.
>>
>>We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
>>deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.
>
>
> Then produce the facts that back up your assertions.
I have: the massive, crushing fact of collateral
animal deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE above.
>
>
>>You are morally incoherent, which is a bad thing to be
>>for one who claims to be behaving "more" ethically than
>>others.
>
>
> Hardly.
Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.
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
-L.
What I did years ago was to gradually wean myself off red meat then
gradually weaned myself off poultry. You will find that as time goes
on, your taste for meat will diminish. Even when I started eating
meat again (which I did briefly), I still preferred some dishes veg -
all Italian dishes, chili and most casseroles. I'm currently
vegetarian (ovo-lacto), but >90% of my meals are vegan. I don't miss
the eat at all, and haven't for a long, long time.
-L.
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...
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> See James Strut wrote:
> > NO! It's the cattle industry that's
> > responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.
>
> The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.
It is important for people to keep it in perspective. You want to
conveniently sweep it under the carpet and hope that nobody notices.
> > Vegans contribute to
> > negligible collateral deaths in comparison.
>
> The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
> big number and there are very big problems with it:
>
> 1. The number is large.
How large?
> 2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
> how big it is.
I care to know. Tell me.
> 3. The deaths could be avoided.
NOt all of them, not practically.
> 4. There are no consequences for the deaths.
There are no consequences for slaughter of cattle for food. What do you
think the consequences should be?
> 5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a FUCKING THING, to
> try to stop causing the deaths.
And what are you doing to stop the slaughter of cattle? Answer: NOTHING, you
could care less. Yet you condemn vegetarians and vegans for incidental
deaths from agriculture.
> > Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?
>
> No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.
How would you propose to punish the slaughter houses then?
> There are no consequences for the collateral animal
> deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
> their occurrence.
What consequences? There are no consequences for slaughtering cattle for the
steaks you eat. Why should there be consequences for incidental deaths
caused from agriculture? You are incoherent and a hypocryte.
> >>>You have no facts.
> >>
> >>We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
> >>deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.
> >
> >
> > Then produce the facts that back up your assertions.
>
> I have: the massive, crushing fact of collateral
> animal deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE above.
You have NEVER produced any facts. You only make flaming assertions that you
can't back up.
> Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
> on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.
Funny, that's my impression of you.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:NEilb.312$I04...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>See James Strut wrote:
>
>
>>>NO! It's the cattle industry that's
>>>responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.
>>
>>The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.
>
>
> It is important for people to keep it in perspective.
No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
them, which invalidates their position.
>
>
>>>Vegans contribute to
>>>negligible collateral deaths in comparison.
>>
>>The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
>>big number and there are very big problems with it:
>>
>>1. The number is large.
>
>
> How large?
>
>
>>2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
>> how big it is.
>
>
> I care to know. Tell me.
You do not care, lying asshole. That's why you haven't
ever attempted to determine it.
>
>
>>3. The deaths could be avoided.
>
>
> NOt all of them, not practically.
The deaths and injuries could be brought down to the
same level of accidental human deaths and injury in
agriculture, if anyone cared to do it. No one cares,
including "vegans". Lying, sanctimonious "vegans" will
greedily consume fresh produce that whose production
and distribution caused massive animal death and
suffering, because they don't care.
>
>
>>4. There are no consequences for the deaths.
>
>
> There are no consequences for slaughter of cattle for food. What do you
> think the consequences should be?
Those who consume beef don't believe the deaths of
cattle are wrong. "vegans" *claim* to believe that the
deliberate or negligently accidental death of animals
is wrong, but of course they're lying, because they
benefit from such death in the form of low prices, and
they take no steps to avoid it.
>
>
>>5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a FUCKING THING, to
>> try to stop causing the deaths.
>
>
> And what are you doing to stop the slaughter of cattle? Answer: NOTHING, you
> could care less.
Because I don't believe killing animals for food is
wrong. Neither do you, apparently, as you are not "vegan".
> Yet you condemn vegetarians and vegans for incidental
> deaths from agriculture.
Because they DO claim to be opposed to unnecessary
killing of animals. They are hypocrites.
>
>
>>>Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?
>>
>>No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.
>
>
> How would you propose to punish the slaughter houses then?
I don't: killing cattle isn't wrong.
>
>
>>There are no consequences for the collateral animal
>>deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
>>their occurrence.
>
>
> What consequences?
Why do you keep getting so badly confused, asshole
jimmy? I don't believe the deaths of cattle are wrong.
"vegans" do, which is why they don't eat beef;
"vegans" also MUST believe that the negligently
accidental death of animals in the course of producing
fruit and vegetables is wrong, but they don't avoid
eating the foods whose production caused the death.
That's a massive inconsistency that demonstrates
"vegans" aren't really following moral principles.
>
>
>>>>>You have no facts.
>>>>
>>>>We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
>>>>deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then produce the facts that back up your assertions.
>>
>>I have: the massive, crushing fact of collateral
>>animal deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE above.
>
>
> You have NEVER produced any facts.
You acknowledge the massive, crushing fact of
collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Too late for
you to back out now, ASSHOLE.
>
>
>>Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
>>on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.
>
>
> Funny, that's my impression of you.
No, it isn't. You haven't caught me in any
inconsistency, and I haven't lied.
You can't explain anything about your bogus moral pose.
usual suspect
>>How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
>>of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
>>transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
>>no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
>>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
>>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
>
> There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
> for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
> people directly.
Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the
suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n
food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher
moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to
you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for
pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet.
>>>There are other people who argue
>>>strongly to the contrary.
>>
>>Yes, without any facts.
>
> I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just
> a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.
No flames, no abuse, no wild assertions.
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
>>>All you can hope to do is research the issues for
>>>yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your
> heart.
>
>>Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
>
> At least I have a heart...
Your mamby-pamby notions are not a matter of having a "heart." It's the
result of not growing up.
>>You have no creativity. None. Remember?
>
> I have a lot of creativity.
See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread.
>>>Getting past that
>>>limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
>>>vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
>>>more interesting.
>>
>>It's not a limitation if you're creative.
>
> You don't read well, do you?
I read, and comprehend, quite well. You still lack creativity.
>>>Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
>>>far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle.
>>
>>You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle.
>
> I don't struggle at all, except with the likes of you.
Everyone has a cross to bear. I'm glad I fulfill such a role in your
worthless life.
>>>Until then, there are
>>>lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely
> varying
>>>facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are
> not
>>>meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.
>>
>>What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
>>taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!
>
> Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.
So it's okay that animals die in the production of your soy burgers, and
it's okay that your soy burger smells, tastes, and feels just like a
real dead ground cow burger. The fact remains that you haven't lost your
appetite for the real thing, which is why you seek out substitutes. Your
conscience is phony.
>>Vegetarian Times sucks.
>
> Even you are entitled to your own opinon.
I mark its most significant decline with the direction taken by the new
editor last year. I prefer substance over style; perhaps this difference
between us explains your support for the magazine's new direction.
usual suspect
>>That does nothing to change the fact that
>>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields,
>
> Flood irrigation is at the low-tech end of irrigation techniques.
It's still used throughout agriculture, isn't it?
> Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it
> enormously wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and
> changes in soil chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped
> countries or in the western US for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_,
> _alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the water-guzzling type.
Thanks for your useless lecture.
> Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural
> floodplains.
Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.
>>pesticide use,
>
> Except for rodenticides and a few baits used against birds, agricultural
> pesticides do not target avian and mammalian species. This makes the
> deaths from pesticide exposure of members of these species accidental,
> at best, and incidental, at least.
Suffering and deaths still occur.
>>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
>
> Only grain fields are commonly combined. What is the cutting height of
> most grains crops? Compare these to the cutting heights of alfalfa and
> other silage crops. Field animals are much more likely to be injured in
> an alfalfa field cut at 2" than in a wheat field cut at 12". That photo
> of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of
> field deaths...it's of a silage field.
I've used a combine to harvest cotton (and milo and maize). I've seen
what happens to deer, rabbits, snakes, and birds. Do you wear cotton
clothing? Your lifestyle is NOT cruelty-free.
> Farmers who use an outward spiral harvesting pattern can eliminate most
> field deaths. Give animals an avenue of escape from a loud, vibrating,
> smoking behemouth of a machine and they'll take it.
>
> As for the danger posed by "other farm machinery", it can be measured in
> the width of tire tracks. Again, animals flee from vibrations in the
> soil and loud surface noises. They go down or they go out. Field
> animals have not attained "pest" status because they die easily.
>
> Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as
> "horrid" as being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a
> slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a holding pen with hundreds of
> strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods wielded by
> unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the
> animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain,
> sometimes twice, sometimes three times.
First, many animals don't die in the field itself; some of them are
bound into bales (straw, hay), some are transported with grains or other
products, and so on. Second, transportation to slaughter rarely is a
matter of days; finishing lots are usually adjacent to slaughterhouses.
Third, animals find slipping and sliding in manure less distasteful than
humans (if you'd grown up around cattle you'd know that).
I'm not saying it's a pretty picture for the end of any animal's life.
The fact remains, animals suffer and die regardless of what one eats
regardless of your personal dietary preferences. The only way around
that is to grow your own food or co-op with others whose sensitivities
match your own.
>>>There are other people who argue
>>>strongly to the contrary.
>>
>>Yes, without any facts.
>
> Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering
> and death. 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.
1) http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
2) personal experiences in agriculture
>>>All you can hope to do is research the issues for
>>>yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart.
>>
>>Your heart doesn't think
>
> Neither does your brain.
My brain works quite well, skag.
>>it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
>
> Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that
> compassion is an incorrect human response to the suffering of others.
In general, the compassion of a vegetarian diet is completely misplaced
and unfounded. Dietary abstention from animal parts does not mean that
such a diet is free of animal death or suffering.
In specific, your sense of compassion is overshadowed by your personal
support of animal rights terrorism.
> (snip)
>>What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
>>taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat?
>
> Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing
> the demand for meat production.
It's all about aesthetics, skag. It's all about moral posturing.
>>Hypocrite!
>
> Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute
> item.
I've already explained this numerous times. Your moral posture allows
you to eat, even desire, something which tastes, feels, and smells just
like a product you find quite immoral. The taste apparently still
appeals to you; your love for the cow and chicken has not yet exceeded
your love for the taste of their flesh. The issue is the *appeal* of
such a close substitute. You still like and want to eat meat.
> (snip)
>
>>Vegetarian Times sucks.
>
> Not as much as you do.
The magazine's quality has dropped significantly over the years. So has
yours, carpetmunch.
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
> importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
> vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
> them, which invalidates their position.
Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make. Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties. The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
vegan's collective contribution. You don't want vegans to know that because
it discredits your wild accusations.
C. James Strutz
"Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
> >>of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
> >>transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
> >>no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
> >>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
> >>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
> >
> > There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop
production
> > for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number
of
> > people directly.
>
> Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the
> suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n
> food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher
> moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to
> you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for
> pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet.
Vegan and vegetarian lifestyle contributes less to pain, suffering, and
death of animals. MOst know there will always be some animal casualties no
matter what choices they make.
> http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
I read this article and it doesn't even consider the HUGE agricultural
industry that supports the production of cattle for meat and which also
contributes to the same collateral animal deaths. It also doesn't say
anything about the author, the professor who was quoted, or who funded his
work. The website is one that is devoted to discrediting the animal rights
movement, hardly a credible source from which to convince any vegan or
vegetarian of anything. What were you thinking?? Oh, I guess you weren't....
> >>Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
> >
> > At least I have a heart...
>
> Your mamby-pamby notions are not a matter of having a "heart." It's the
> result of not growing up.
If you're an example of what it's like to be "grown up" then I'm quite happy
the way I am.
>>>You have no creativity. None. Remember?
> >
> > I have a lot of creativity.
>
> See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread.
I did (http://tinyurl.com/rxg7). I wrote that cookbooks are a source of
ideas for me. Go back and read it to refresh your apparently faulty memory.
> >>What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
> >>taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!
> >
> > Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.
>
> So it's okay that animals die in the production of your soy burgers, and
> it's okay that your soy burger smells, tastes, and feels just like a
> real dead ground cow burger. The fact remains that you haven't lost your
> appetite for the real thing, which is why you seek out substitutes. Your
> conscience is phony.
Go back and read my original response in this thread. I suggested to W.D.
West that he might transition to vegetarian diet through meat alternative
products. I never wrote that I eat them myself. Either you can't read well
or you don't remember things well.
usual suspect
>>No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
>>importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
>>vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
>>them, which invalidates their position.
>
> Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
> in products they buy and use.
They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that. Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.
> The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> through the choices they make.
No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?
If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.
You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.
> Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> because it contributes less to animal casualties.
Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
casualties.
> The cattle industry is
> responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
> vegan's collective contribution.
Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.
> You don't want vegans to know that because
> it discredits your wild accusations.
You're the one engaging in deceit.
Vioxel
>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. 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. For instance, I could eat
>salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
>wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
>Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
>the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
>possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
>part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
>really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
>to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
>someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
>Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
>take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.
Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:
Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
ramen kicking around.
If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
someone who raises hens humanely.
The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
isn't a single best answer.
-Vioxel
Vioxel...@StillNoSpamAustin.rr.comSpamitySpam
Just remove all the spam and such.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:SYwlb.1062$wc3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
>>importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
>>vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
>>them, which invalidates their position.
>
>
> Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
> in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> through the choices they make.
They do not do that, ASSHOLE. They do not "minimize"
anything. To begin with, most don't even KNOW about
collateral deaths, and they aren't trying to learn.
The rate of accidental death and injury for animals
would have to be comparable to the rate for human death
and injury, and we both know it isn't.
> Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> because it contributes less to animal casualties.
It doesn't do a FUCKING THING to eliminate or even
reduce the animal casualties brought about by fruit and
vegetable cultivation, ASSHOLE.
> The cattle industry is
> responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
> vegan's collective contribution.
Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and
they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an
invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not
"vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct
comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human
deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining
food. The number of the former is vastly higher than
the latter, and we all know it.
> You don't want vegans to know that because
> it discredits your wild accusations.
I don't care if they know about it or not, ASSHOLE. It
is irrelevant to the examination of "vegans'" bogus
ethical pose.
Jonathan Ball
> "Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
> news:isxlb.9266$lk7....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>>How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
>>>>of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
>>>>transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
>>>>no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
>>>>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
>>>>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
>>>
>>>There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop
>
> production
>
>>>for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number
>
> of
>
>>>people directly.
>>
>>Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the
>>suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n
>>food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher
>>moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to
>>you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for
>>pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet.
>
>
> Vegan and vegetarian lifestyle contributes less to pain, suffering, and
> death of animals.
It contributes VASTLY more to animal death and
suffering than it does to human death and suffering.
You are making an INVALID comparison, fuckdrip.
usual suspect
> Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:
>
> Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
> yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
> was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
> until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
> ramen kicking around.
>
> If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
> from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
> do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
> someone who raises hens humanely.
Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry
organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on
vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information
from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself.
Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms.
> The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
> right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
> isn't a single best answer.
One should consider facts -- not propaganda -- when making major
decisions. That's all.
Vioxel
>Vioxel wrote:
>> Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:
>>
>> Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
>> yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
>> was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
>> until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
>> ramen kicking around.
>>
>> If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
>> from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
>> do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
>> someone who raises hens humanely.
>
>Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry
>organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on
>vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information
>from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself.
>Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms.
I'm moving to an apartment just a few blocks from Wheatsville. I'll
check them out. :-)
>
>> The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
>> right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
>> isn't a single best answer.
>
>One should consider facts -- not propaganda -- when making major
>decisions. That's all.
-Vioxel
rick etter
>
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:NEilb.312$I04...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > See James Strut wrote:
>
> > > NO! It's the cattle industry that's
> > > responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.
> >
> > The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.
>
> It is important for people to keep it in perspective. You want to
> conveniently sweep it under the carpet and hope that nobody notices.
>
> > > Vegans contribute to
> > > negligible collateral deaths in comparison.
> >
> > The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
> > big number and there are very big problems with it:
> >
> > 1. The number is large.
>
> How large?
Millions and millions... and that's just the birds....
>
> > 2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
> > how big it is.
>
> I care to know. Tell me.
===============
No you don't or you'd have already looked into it, killer.
>
> > 3. The deaths could be avoided.
>
> NOt all of them, not practically.
===============
Yes, they could. Only not and maintain your consumer driven, conveninec
oriented lifestyle. You just prove that your comfort comes far ahead of
your so-called ethics and concern for animals...
>
> > 4. There are no consequences for the deaths.
>
> There are no consequences for slaughter of cattle for food. What do you
> think the consequences should be?
==================
Yes, there are if they are not performed correctly. despite the AR/vegan
display of the same pics over and over, the industry does not operate the
way you seem to think.
>
> > 5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a FUCKING THING, to
> > try to stop causing the deaths.
>
> And what are you doing to stop the slaughter of cattle? Answer: NOTHING,
you
> could care less. Yet you condemn vegetarians and vegans for incidental
> deaths from agriculture.
=================
Hey, idiot, we don't claim to say our diet is all about 'saving' animals.
Animals die for food, period. It's neither good nor bad, just the way it
is. You cannot, and will not ever change that. Now, you on the other hand
make all kinds of claims about caring and minizing/eliminating animal death
and suffering. yet you do nothing to accomplish this claimed goal. In
fact, you prove that you go out of your way to cause even more unnecessary
death and suffering that doesn't concern your 'survival' with each and every
innane post you make to usenet. If, as you say, you(AR/vegans) go to great
lengths to ensure that your 'body-count- is minimized, why are you here?
d? So you're here to punish vegans?
> >
> > No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.
>
> How would you propose to punish the slaughter houses then?
======================
I don't. Nobody does. They aren't wrongful deaths. they provide a source
of food and a livelihood for people. Now, the deaths you cause are just
that, deaths, the animals are left to rot.
>
> > There are no consequences for the collateral animal
> > deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
> > their occurrence.
>
> What consequences? There are no consequences for slaughtering cattle for
the
> steaks you eat. Why should there be consequences for incidental deaths
> caused from agriculture? You are incoherent and a hypocryte.
> ===========================
No stupid, that's the point. You are the hypocrite. You claim it's wrong
to kill animals and eat them, yet you have no qualms about killing even more
and leaving them to rot.
> > >>>You have no facts.
> > >>
> > >>We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
> > >>deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then produce the facts that back up your assertions.
> >
> > I have: the massive, crushing fact of collateral
> > animal deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE above.
>
> You have NEVER produced any facts. You only make flaming assertions that
you
> can't back up.
================
They have been posted many, many times. try using your computer for
something other than your typical spews that cause unnecessary animal death
and suffering...
>
> > Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
> > on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.
>
> Funny, that's my impression of you.
===============
Name a ly. Just one...
>
>
rick etter
>
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:SYwlb.1062$wc3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
> > importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
> > vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
> > them, which invalidates their position.
>
> Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal
casualties
> in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> through the choices they make.
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! You don't even believe that yourself killer. Here
you are on usenet proving with each one of your ignorant, inane posts for
nothing more than your selfish entertainment. I suggest you take up
watching bullfights for entertainment. They kill far fewer bulls than your
contributions to power and communications needs worldwide, hypocrite.
Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> because it contributes less to animal casualties.
========================
A claim that you cannot support, and will never be able to prove. Where's
you facts killer?
The cattle industry is
> responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
> vegan's collective contribution. You don't want vegans to know that
because
> it discredits your wild accusations.
=====================
Why does that then mean all meat must be eliminated from ones diet? All you
have are simple rules for simple minds, hypocrite.
>
>
>
>
>
rick etter
Really? Where's you proof, killer? You're always demanding that from
others, so let's see yours.
>
> > http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
>
> I read this article and it doesn't even consider the HUGE agricultural
> industry that supports the production of cattle for meat and which also
> contributes to the same collateral animal deaths.
========================
Yet all meat doesn't come from this type of production. Why do you simply
lump it all as one, when you know that there are differences?
Just your simple mindedness?
It also doesn't say
> anything about the author, the professor who was quoted, or who funded his
> work. The website is one that is devoted to discrediting the animal rights
> movement, hardly a credible source from which to convince any vegan or
> vegetarian of anything. What were you thinking?? Oh, I guess you
weren't....
> =====================
All we need for your discrediting is for you to continue to support veganism
with your stupidity and delusions.
> > >>Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
> > >
> > > At least I have a heart...
> >
> > Your mamby-pamby notions are not a matter of having a "heart." It's the
> > result of not growing up.
>
> If you're an example of what it's like to be "grown up" then I'm quite
happy
> the way I am.
=================
What? A sanctimonious, hypocritical killer?
>
> >>>You have no creativity. None. Remember?
> > >
> > > I have a lot of creativity.
> >
> > See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread.
>
> I did (http://tinyurl.com/rxg7). I wrote that cookbooks are a source of
> ideas for me. Go back and read it to refresh your apparently faulty
memory.
>
> > >>What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
> > >>taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!
> > >
> > > Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.
> >
> > So it's okay that animals die in the production of your soy burgers, and
> > it's okay that your soy burger smells, tastes, and feels just like a
> > real dead ground cow burger. The fact remains that you haven't lost your
> > appetite for the real thing, which is why you seek out substitutes. Your
> > conscience is phony.
>
> Go back and read my original response in this thread. I suggested to W.D.
> West that he might transition to vegetarian diet through meat alternative
> products. I never wrote that I eat them myself. Either you can't read well
> or you don't remember things well.
==================
Again, how many more animals die for that meat substitute than if one just
ate grass-fed beef or game in the first place? Ever care to even try to
answer, killer?
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite.
>
>
>
>
piddock
> There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
> the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as a
> vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
Yes. And there are those who believe that setting off a nuclear bomb
in a crowded city causes fewer people to die of nuclear explosion.
Others feel the opposite way. With people like Etter and UsualSuspect,
the world has NO right to complain about the way the jury voted
during the OJ Simpson criminal trial.
> One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals don't
> need a central focus.
Why label it a "lifestyle"? I eat my beans or peas out of a can.
I go do something else. I work on the computer. I fix a leaking faucet.
I go to sleep.
P.S. Ignore the hate-filled anti-vegetarian rants of Etter and Usual Suspect.
Nothing they say has ANY importance and nothing they say should be taken
seriously. Don't even respond to them if they mention "vegetarian lifestyle".
usual suspect
>>>If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
>>>from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
>>>do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
>>>someone who raises hens humanely.
>>
>>Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry
>>organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on
>>vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information
>>from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself.
>
>>Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms.
>
> I'm moving to an apartment just a few blocks from Wheatsville. I'll
> check them out. :-)
Remembered something else after I sent the reply. You can also check out
the new Saturday morning farmer's market at Republic Square. I recall
seeing eggs, but I didn't ask about them since I don't eat them. Stuff
sells pretty fast there, so you need to be an earlier riser.
<...>
usual suspect
>>There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
>>the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as a
>>vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
>
> Yes. And there are those who believe that setting off a nuclear bomb
> in a crowded city causes fewer people to die of nuclear explosion.
What school district deserves discredit for churning out a complete
imbecile like you? I hope your parents have sued for shortchanging you.
> Others feel the opposite way. With people like Etter and UsualSuspect,
> the world has NO right to complain about the way the jury voted
> during the OJ Simpson criminal trial.
What relevance is a nine year-old crime to veganism? And what does the
verdict returned in that sham of a trial have to do with this newsgroup?
You are such a moron.
>>One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals don't
>>need a central focus.
>
> Why label it a "lifestyle"? I eat my beans or peas out of a can.
"Jim" (to his friends) is a geek in search of group identification.
> I go do something else. I work on the computer. I fix a leaking faucet.
> I go to sleep.
From all your retarded posts, I figured you lived a pretty exciting
life. Thanks for confirming the obvious, dummy.
> P.S. Ignore the hate-filled anti-vegetarian rants of Etter and Usual Suspect.
Whose posts are filled with hate? Let's see. In AAEV/TPA you accused me
of incest and pedophilia. You're the one engaging in slander and hate
speech, fool. Does your daddy agree with such illegal actions when you
have your powwows to discuss vegetarianism?
> Nothing they say has ANY importance and nothing they say should be taken
> seriously.
What have YOU written of relevance or importance lately? Nothing, not a
word.
> Don't even respond to them if they mention "vegetarian lifestyle".
You're the duplicitous little shit worried about censorship of Michael
Moore, aren't you?
rick etter
"piddock" <pid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c93ec7ed.03102...@posting.google.com...
> "C. James Strutz" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<3f9532e6$1...@news.nauticom.net>...
> > There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you
in
> > the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths
as a
> > vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
>
> Yes. And there are those who believe that setting off a nuclear bomb
> in a crowded city causes fewer people to die of nuclear explosion.
> Others feel the opposite way. With people like Etter and UsualSuspect,
> the world has NO right to complain about the way the jury voted
> during the OJ Simpson criminal trial.
Analogies and critical thinking are way out of your league, aren't they
killer?
>
> > One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals
don't
> > need a central focus.
>
> Why label it a "lifestyle"? I eat my beans or peas out of a can.
> I go do something else. I work on the computer. I fix a leaking faucet.
> I go to sleep.
=================
All the while killing animals needlessly. Why do you do that despite your
claimed ethics, hypocrite?
>
> P.S. Ignore the hate-filled anti-vegetarian rants of Etter and Usual
Suspect.
> Nothing they say has ANY importance and nothing they say should be taken
> seriously. Don't even respond to them if they mention "vegetarian
lifestyle".
========================
Because you can't stand to have the facts of your so-called lifestyle aired
doesn't mean that others don't want to know how their diets affect the
animals they claim to want to 'save'.
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
news:q45fpv82mlgshb57j...@4ax.com...
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.
C. James Strutz
"Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal
casualties
> > in products they buy and use.
>
> They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
> that.
I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. I also agree that
there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But
vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
production. The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
cannot be practically eliminated.
Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many
total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for
food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?
Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
- the steer's life
- animal casualties to production of food for the steer
- animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
- incidental animals casualties
Same for Case 2:
- animal casualties to production of food for people
- animal casualties to transporting food for people
- incidental animal casualties
I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms
of volume. More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. Converting the steer's meat to an
equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more
animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.
> Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
> *nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.
I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.
> > The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> > through the choices they make.
>
> No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
> assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
> has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
> birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
> balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
> justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?
That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that
you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
individuality.
> If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
> Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
> have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
> grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.
Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is
a better alternative than grain-fed beef.
> You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
> solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
> markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.
I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.
> > Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> > because it contributes less to animal casualties.
>
> Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
> casualties.
See above.
> > The cattle industry is
> > responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties
than
> > vegan's collective contribution.
>
> Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
> for feed.
The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.
> > You don't want vegans to know that because
> > it discredits your wild accusations.
>
> You're the one engaging in deceit.
I think my points are quite valid.
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and
> they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an
> invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not
> "vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct
> comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human
> deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining
> food. The number of the former is vastly higher than
> the latter, and we all know it.
You are incoherent. Get help.
usual suspect
>>They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
>>that.
>
> I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal.
You should have stopped right here. This is the main issue.
> I also agree that
> there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But
> vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
> production.
Not entirely accurate. The market for grass-fed livestock is growing.
> The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
> cannot be practically eliminated.
That would be a fine issue, but vegan activists aren't concerned with
minimization. The vegan "solution" is radical and based on the flawed
notion that not eating meat means no animals die.
> Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many
> total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for
> food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
> period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?
>
> Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
> - the steer's life
> - animal casualties to production of food for the steer
Grass-fed animals -- wild game, cattle, lamb, etc. -- do not have
collateral deaths, aside from insects they step upon. Would you count those?
> - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
> - incidental animals casualties
Your argument is valid only if we consider grain-fed animals.
Alternatives exist which do away with your second point.
> Same for Case 2:
> - animal casualties to production of food for people
> - animal casualties to transporting food for people
> - incidental animal casualties
>
> I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
> meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms
> of volume.
What about grass-fed beef? What about grass-fed lamb? What about game?
These are all valid alternatives.
> More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
> lifetime than the steer's meat would feed.
How many people could be fed from the grasses consumed by a deer,
buffalo, or cow?
> Converting the steer's meat to an
> equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
> produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more
> animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.
I think most people would remain undisturbed by such details.
>>Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
>>*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.
>
> I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.
Only marginally.
>>>The idea is to minimize animal casualties
>>>through the choices they make.
>>
>>No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
>>assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
>>has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
>>birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
>>balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
>>justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?
>
> That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that
> you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
> individuality.
Especially when based upon a flawed moralism.
>>If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
>>Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
>>have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
>>grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.
>
> Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is
> a better alternative than grain-fed beef.
What's so special about the life of a steer?
>>You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
>>solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
>>markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.
>
> I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
> anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.
Address the issue rather than express your contempt for me. The solution
you offer is extreme on one end and doesn't even fix the problem on the
other. If people want to eat meat, encourage them to eat stuff that's
humanely raised and sustainable. Encourage them to hunt, get back to nature.
<...>
>>>The cattle industry is
>>>responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties
> than
>>>vegan's collective contribution.
>>
>>Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
>>for feed.
>
> The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.
That can be changed if the market demands, and the market is starting to
push in that direction.
<...>
Jonathan Ball
> "Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
> news:UaBlb.4256$pJ1....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal
>
> casualties
>
>>>in products they buy and use.
>>
>>They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
>>that.
>
>
> I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal.
Exactly right.
> I also agree that
> there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production.
Right again.
Your concession is accepted, jimmy. You're still a
whiny asshole.
> Bit vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
> production. The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
> cannot be practically eliminated.
No, fuckwit. The issue is "vegans'" outrageous claims.
"vegans" claim to be doing something "good" by not
eating meat. They clearly aren't: animals continue to
be killed, in large numbers and without consequence, in
order to produce food for them.
The number of animals killed to produce cattle and
other livestock feed is IRRELEVANT, jimmy, because
we're talking ONLY about the food "vegans" eat. We're
talking about the fact that animals are still killed,
without consequence, to produce food for "vegans", and
the sanctimonious, hypocritical "vegans" don't care.
All they care about is their bogus pose.
>
> Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many
> total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for
> food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
> period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?
>
> Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
> - the steer's life
> - animal casualties to production of food for the steer
> - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
> - incidental animals casualties
>
> Same for Case 2:
> - animal casualties to production of food for people
> - animal casualties to transporting food for people
> - incidental animal casualties
>
> I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
> meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms
> of volume.
That's irrelevant. We're not talking about caloric
efficiency, jimmy, you moronic twat.
> More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
> lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. Converting the steer's meat to an
> equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
> produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more
> animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.
Which is IRRELEVANT to the fuckwitted, hypocritical,
sanctimonious, self-congratulatory "vegans'" claim,
jimmy. Their claim is that they are following a
principle, when they are not; they are following a
stupid, fuckwitted rule that is NOT based on any principle.
If they were really following a principle of, say, "it
is wrong to cause harm to animals", then they would
CARE about animal collateral deaths in fruit/vegetable
production, and they would take steps to minimize
those, too. But they don't, and they never will. It's
[need whiny voice for this] "toooo haaaaaaaaaaaard!",
and moral consistency is not what these goddamned
motherfucking shitbags are about. What they're about,
jimmy, and what YOU'RE about, is adopting a pose from
which they imagine they can look down on the rest of us
and wag a finger in our faces. They want the adoption
of that pose to be easy, and doing something simple
like not eating any animal parts is easy. Doing
something REAL, like growing all their own food in such
a way that the rates of collateral death and injury for
animals are brought down to the same levels as the
rates for humans, is really hard. Morally LAZY
shitbags, which universally describes "vegans", can't
be bothered.
Jonathan Ball
I'm perfectly coherent, scumbag. You are incoherent.
You are even more incoherent than "vegans", scum,
because you can explain NEITHER why you start down the
road of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, nor why you
stop short.
Your attempt to establish virtue by means of comparison
not only is invalid, scumbag, but is in fact indicative
of even LESS virtue. Every respectable thinker on
ethics in the course of history has made clear that
virtue does not reside in a comparison with the
unvirtuous, but rather in doing the right thing in
absolute terms, IRRESPECTIVE of what others do.
The phony, sham virtue you want to set up actually
means that the animal death toll you cause could go UP,
and you still would consider yourself
virtuous...provided the death toll of your dietary
enemy went up by a greater comparison.
Why are you so willfully stupid, jimmy?
C. James Strutz
"usual suspect" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
news:nrSlb.49$xv4...@twister.austin.rr.com...
I showed no contempt for you in this post aside from referring to you as
"Useless Subject" above. I answered you carefully in the same tone in which
you asked me to explain myself. My use of the word 'anal' wasn't meant to be
insulting in any way. It was simply the best word I could use to explain how
I feel about your position on this issue. Having meaningful dialogue with
you is much more constructive than slinging mud at each other.
I am out of this thread for now. I will be away from computers for the
weekend. I'll be hunting mushrooms, not deer!
rick etter
Until you understand a little truth, killer.
>
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....
rick etter
>
> "Useless Subject" <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message
> news:UaBlb.4256$pJ1....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> > C. James Strutz wrote:
> > > Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal
> casualties
> > > in products they buy and use.
> >
> > They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
> > that.
>
> I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. I also agree
that
> there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But
> vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
> production.
No, it is not. No crops are grown for the beef I buy and eat. No crops
are grown for the game I eat.
You've now lost on that count, because now I can easily replace 100s of
1000s of calories with the deaths of just a couple of animals,
from that many calories of factory-farmed, mono culture crop foods. Where
is the benefit in fewer/less/no animal deaths and suffering by eating all my
calories in veggies?
The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
> cannot be practically eliminated.
==================
By including meat. that should be obvious to even the most brain-dead
vegan. It seems to go right over all their heads though.
Why is that? Because they have only simple rules to live by. Simple rules
for simple minds. Meat bad, veggie good. regardless
of the circumstances.
>
> Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how
many
> total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered
for
> food?
=====================
1
Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
> period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?
====================
100s, 1000s? None of you *compassionate* vegan types really care to find
out.
>
> Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
> - the steer's life
> - animal casualties to production of food for the steer
=================
none needed. grass grows just fine. without any extra inputs. Cows, being
what they are, well, cows, can convert that grass into human edible protein
without any intervention from us at all. There also is no need for hormanes
or routine anti-biotics for growing cows. Again, grass does just fine.
Now, how often to you eat grass?
> - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
================
none needed. Cows are grown right here, slaughtered right here, and eaten
right here. Again, there is no need for transporting grass as it grows just
fine all by itself.
> - incidental animals casualties
=================
Which would be what? Those run over by plows, harvesters, sprayers? Don't
think so, none needed. Those that are poisoned to protect the storage
silos? Don't think so.
>
> Same for Case 2:
> - animal casualties to production of food for people
==================
100s, 1,000s, 1,000,000s? How many you want?
> - animal casualties to transporting food for people
=======================
Don't forget processing too. Changing your soy into tofu meat substitutes
is a process intensive operation requiring lots of power.
> - incidental animal casualties
=================
millions poisoned deliberatly, millions poisoned by pesticides, how many
killed in the production of the petro-chemical industry that provides all
the fuels, power, poisons needed to put your *eco* veggies on your plate.
>
> I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
> meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in
terms
> of volume.
=====================
Really? You contend this do you? How good are you at converting grass to
protein? I contend that you are very inefficient at this, to the extreme of
non-existant.
What resources need to go into growing grass? millions of pounds of
ferts/pesticides? Don't think so. millions of gallons of fuel? Millions
of kilowatts? Nope, don't think so. what's left? Oh yaeh, it does use up
a lot of precious sunlight that you could be using to tan with, right?
More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
> lifetime than the steer's meat would feed.
==========================
Really? How much grass you figure it takes to keep you alive? Besides,
your background implication that the world is starving because some people
eat meat is just another vegan delusional ly.
Converting the steer's meat to an
> equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
> produced in Case 1 than in Case 2.
==================
Really? You must have missed math class those days thay did addition, eh?
Therefore, there are proportionally more
> animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.
======================
Wrong. your stupidity knows no bounds, does it killer?
>
> > Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
> > *nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.
>
> I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.
=====================
I believe you're wrong, and you';ve yet to prove that you are right.
>
> > > The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> > > through the choices they make.
> >
> > No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
> > assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
> > has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
> > birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
> > balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
> > justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?
>
> That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue
that
> you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
> individuality.
>
> > If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
> > Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
> > have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
> > grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.
>
> Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef
is
> a better alternative than grain-fed beef.
======================
Um... How much better? care to redo your above *calculations*?
>
> > You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
> > solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
> > markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.
>
> I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
> anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.
>
> > > Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> > > because it contributes less to animal casualties.
> >
> > Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
> > casualties.
>
> See above.
==================
You didn't show any such thing...
>
> > > The cattle industry is
> > > responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties
> than
> > > vegan's collective contribution.
> >
> > Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
> > for feed.
>
> The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.
======================
And you do nothing to make any changes in that production.
meat eaters, on the other hand, are making changes. You can look for
grass-fed, free range meats anywhere now. Your following simple rules
eliminates any part you could have in making these changes come about.
Stopping eating meat is just a blip, not even regeristing. Even if somehow
you managed to make a dent in the meat demand, all you would accomplish is
the greater 'suffering' that you claim factory-farmed animals now endure.
Producers aren't just going to throw up their hands and quit, they're going
to put even more animals into the same system designed for fewer to make up
the loses by producing even cheaper. We provide an alternative, a
lucrative, and more eco-friendly alternative. Try thinking with what ever
part of your brain isn't fried for a change.
>
> > > You don't want vegans to know that because
> > > it discredits your wild accusations.
> >
> > You're the one engaging in deceit.
>
> I think my points are quite valid.
================
No, they are not. They are the same old diatribes without any thought.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite.
>
>
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
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
> > frlsht wrote:
(snip)
> > Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it enormously
> > wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and changes in soil
> > chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped countries or in the western US > > for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_, _alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the > > water-guzzling type.
> Thanks for your useless lecture.
Not useless, since it directs attention to the crops most commonly
watered by flood irrigation, _pastureland_, _grassland_, _alfalfa
fields_, all used to feed livestock. Further, it shows that flood
irrigation systems waste water and damage the soil, proving that growers
who use this method are poor land stewards, even without calculating the
toll their practices take on wildlife.
> > Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural floodplains.
> Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.
Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?
(snip)
> > That photo of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of
> > field deaths...it's of a silage field.
> I've used a combine to harvest cotton (and milo and maize). I've seen what happens > to deer, rabbits, snakes, and birds.
Not that I believe your red dirt anecdote, but haven't you yokels heard
of flushing bars?
> Do you wear cotton clothing?
Exclusively, except for synthetic outerwear and footwear.
> Your lifestyle is NOT cruelty-free.
I would not be foolish enough to claim it is.
(snip)
> > Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as "horrid" as being > > transported for hours, sometimes days, to a slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a > > holding pen with hundreds of strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods > > wielded by unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the
> > animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain, sometimes twice, > > sometimes three times.
> First, many animals don't die in the field itself; some of them are bound into bales > (straw, hay)
What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of
hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one.
> some are transported with grains or other products
Okay, so some are, unfortunately, relocated without their consent.
> Second, transportation to slaughter rarely is a matter of days;
The 48-Hour law exists for a reason. Slaughterhouse guru, Grandin, sets
32 hours as the maximum travel time without unloading and reloading
livestock for a rest stop. There are fewer slaughterhouses in the US
then there were a decade ago and they are more specialized. More
animals are being transported farther distances, not less animals and
not shorter distances.
>> finishing lots are usually adjacent to slaughterhouses.
Uh, how do you think the cattle get to the feedlots, Mr.
My-Family-Are-Ranchers? Do you think they're born there?
> Third, animals find slipping and sliding in manure less distasteful than humans
According to Temple Grandin, the single most stressful aspect of
pre-slaughter handling is loss of footing.
> (if you'd grown up around cattle you'd know that)
I grew up around swine. I know that animals do not have the same
aversion to feces as we do. I also know that animals are terrified of
losing their balance and avoid slippery surfaces like the plague.
> I'm not saying it's a pretty picture for the end of any animal's life.
That's a switch.
> The fact remains, animals suffer and die regardless of what one eats regardless of > your personal dietary preferences.
The prolonged suffering of animals sent to commercial slaughter is not
comparable to the suffering of an ex-sanguinated field mouse. How long
does it take for a 2" animal to lose enough blood to induce
unconsciousness and death?
> The only way around that is to grow your own food or co-op with others whose > sensitivities match your own.
This is what I do, but my location makes it easier for me than most.
(snip)
> > Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering and death. > > 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.
> 1) http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
You mean this?
"One study Davis mentions, for example, found a 50 percent reductionin
gray-tailed voles from just a single mowing of alfalfa."
This is the closest the article comes to quantifiable data. Alfalfa is
a feed crop for livestock and it's cut lower and more often than most
grain crops grown for human consumption.
> 2) personal experiences in agriculture
You know better than to offer anecdotes as evidence. If we're going to
start accepting tales of personal experiences, I'd like to add my own.
Everyday I trudge across a wide field, cut with gang-mowers a minimum of
once a month, to feed cats. This is unused cemetary land, pesticides
and poisons are prohibited by law. Consequently, there is a large
resident population of voles, gophers and shrews.
The cemetary workers mow the weeds to the bare ground. Unlike growers,
they are unfettered by concerns about soil quality and the benefits of
crop residue. By the evening of the day they mow, the entire field is
riddled with newly dug tunnels and holes. It's clear to me that most of
the animals living in the field survive the close-cropping of their
vegetative cover.
(snip)
> My brain works quite well, skag.
I've noticed a marked disintegration whenver Ball isn't around for you
to imitate.
(snip)
> > Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that compassion is an
> > incorrect human response to the suffering of others.
> In general, the compassion of a vegetarian diet is completely misplaced
A diet is not capable of compassion or cruelty, goofy.
> and unfounded. Dietary abstention from animal parts does not mean that such a diet
> is free of animal death or suffering.
Maybe not, but such a diet is free from the suffering and death of
animals held in the throes of the meat industry. It is free from the
suffering and death of animals stalked and killed in the morning mist by
humans wearing, gulp, flannel shirts.
> > In specific, your sense of compassion is overshadowed by your personal support of > > animal rights terrorism.
I believe people who hurt others, unprovoked, deserve to be punished.
Cows, pigs, chickens, deer, rabbits and ducks don't, normally, hurt
others intentionally.
(snip)
> > What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,taste, and/or > > feel like something you *won't* eat?
> Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing the demand for > meat production.
> It's all about aesthetics, skag.
Is this supposed to be a convincing argument?
Let me help you out here. When intelligent people say veganism is about
aesthetics, not ethics, they mean vegans avoid meat because they are
repulsed by the look, taste and feel of meat. You've just given us
evidence they aren't.
> It's all about moral posturing.
If a meat-eater were to advocate eating only pasture-raised,
farm-slaughtered animals, would you say he was "posturing"?
(snip)
> >Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute item.
> I've already explained this numerous times.
Always unsuccessfully.
> Your moral posture allows you to eat, even desire, something which tastes, feels,
> and smells just like a product you find quite immoral. The taste apparently still
> appeals to you; your love for the cow and chicken has not yet exceeded your love for > the taste of their flesh.
If anything, people who enjoy or crave the taste of meat and yet abstain
from meat products are _more_ ethical than those for whom meat has no
appeal. Their dietary choices require self-denial and self-sacrifice.
> The issue is the *appeal* of such a close substitute. You still like and want to eat > meat.
As long as you don't, no principle of veganism is broken.
(snip)
> The magazine's quality has dropped significantly over the years. So has yours,
> carpetmunch.
You'll never be anything but Ball's lowly apprentice, pal. Try to find
your own style. Mimicry doesn't become you.
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.
MEow
http://groups.google.com said:
> Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
>really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
>to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
>someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
>Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
>take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.
I agree with those who say "go slow". I used to eat meat at almost
every meal and dislike vegetables, but I have changed my taste
gradually while learning to cook. At first it wasn't a decision to
transfer to veganism, but just to live healthier - So, I gradually
stopped with fast food and learned how to cook simple things; I begun
to include different vegetables as I learned how to cook them and I
learned to like them in moderate amounts. After changing gradually for
a while, I decided to become vegetarian and did so over night, from
the time I made the decision - But I had made some big changes in my
diet even before deciding to become a vegetarian, so the change wasn't
so hard for me. The change to veganism came almost 3 years after,
partly helped by advice and recipes from this newsgroup. Now I enjoy
all kinds of different vegetables, and I do mean enjoy :0)
I don't see why you can't make a similar progress in your diet, only
with the clear aim of becoming vegetarian, which I didn't have at the
time. Consider how most people didn't like coffee, beer, whiskey and
other such things first time they tried it, but they learned to like
it - I can't see why you can't do the same with vegetables. I did :0)
I can't help you with cookbooks, but go and look for a vegetarian
cookbook, see if there's one which appeals to you and begin to try the
recipes. Keep an eye out for Mr.Falafel, as he posts a lot of good
recipes, depending on how experienced a chef you are.
In any case: belated welcome to AFV, feel free to ask more questions
as they come up and don't let the trolls scare you away :0)
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
Hi, I'm the .signature virus. Copy me into your .sig file and help me
spread!
frlpwr
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> > > frlsht wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>
>
> Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?
>
it?
> (snip)
> > > Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as "horrid" as > > > being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a slaughterhouse, being unloaded > > > into a holding pen with hundreds of strange animals, being pushed and shocked > > > with prods wielded by unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and
> > > gore of the animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain, > > > sometimes twice, sometimes three times.
>
> > First, many animals don't die in the field itself; some of them are bound into > > bales (straw, hay)
>
> What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of
> hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one.
I need to add that, when you say animals die after being bound in bales
of hay, you are talking about animals that die in silage fields.
>
(snip)
> > Second, transportation to slaughter rarely is a matter of days;
>
> The 48-Hour law exists for a reason. Slaughterhouse guru, Grandin, sets
> 32 hours as the maximum travel time without unloading and reloading
> livestock for a rest stop. There are fewer slaughterhouses in the US
> then there were a decade ago and they are more specialized. More
> animals are being transported farther distances, not less animals and
> not shorter distances.
>
Well?
> >> finishing lots are usually adjacent to slaughterhouses.
>
> Uh, how do you think the cattle get to the feedlots, Mr.
> My-Family-Are-Ranchers? Do you think they're born there?
Well?
>
> > Third, animals find slipping and sliding in manure less distasteful than humans
> >According to Temple Grandin, the single most stressful aspect of
> >pre-slaughter handling is loss of footing.
>
> > (if you'd grown up around cattle you'd know that)
>
> I grew up around swine. I know that animals do not have the same
> aversion to feces as we do. I also know that animals are terrified of
> losing their balance and avoid slippery surfaces like the plague.
Well? Do you think Grandin is wrong? Do you think animals don't mind
slipping and sliding?
>
> > I'm not saying it's a pretty picture for the end of any animal's life.
>
> That's a switch.
>
> > The fact remains, animals suffer and die regardless of what one eats regardless of > > your personal dietary preferences.
>
> The prolonged suffering of animals sent to commercial slaughter is not
> comparable to the suffering of an ex-sanguinated field mouse. How long
> does it take for a 2" animal to lose enough blood to induce
> unconsciousness and death?
Well?
>
(snip)
>
> > > Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering and death. > > 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.
>
> > 1) http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
>
> You mean this?
>
> "One study Davis mentions, for example, found a 50 percent reduction in
> gray-tailed voles from just a single mowing of alfalfa."
>
> This is the closest the article comes to quantifiable data. Alfalfa is
> a feed crop for livestock and it's cut lower and more often than most
> grain crops grown for human consumption.
Well? Do you think deaths in alfalfa fields are comparable to deaths in
wheat fields?
Would you accept Davis' claim of "millions and millions" collateral
deaths as scientific quantification?
>
> > 2) personal experiences in agriculture
>
> You know better than to offer anecdotes as evidence. If we're going to
> start accepting tales of personal experiences, I'd like to add my own.
> Everyday I trudge across a wide field, cut with gang-mowers a minimum of
> once a month, to feed cats. This is unused cemetary land, pesticides
> and poisons are prohibited by law. Consequently, there is a large
> resident population of voles, gophers and shrews.
>
> The cemetary workers mow the weeds to the bare ground. Unlike growers,
> they are unfettered by concerns about soil quality and the benefits of
> crop residue. By the evening of the day they mow, the entire field is
> riddled with newly dug tunnels and holes. It's clear to me that most of
> the animals living in the field survive the close-cropping of their
> vegetative cover.
>
My cemetary anecdote cancels your red dirt anecdote.
> (snip)
> > Dietary abstention from animal parts does not mean that such a diet
> > is free of animal death or suffering.
>
> Maybe not, but such a diet is free from the suffering and death of
> animals held in the throes of the meat industry. It is free from the
> suffering and death of animals stalked and killed in the morning mist by
> humans wearing, gulp, flannel shirts.
This is the limited claim of veganism, not the generalized claim of no
suffering and no death.
>
> > > In specific, your sense of compassion is overshadowed by your personal support > > > of animal rights terrorism.
>
> I believe people who hurt others, unprovoked, deserve to be punished.
Do you hurt animals?
> Cows, pigs, chickens, deer, rabbits and ducks don't, normally, hurt
> others intentionally.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,taste, > > > and/or feel like something you *won't* eat?
>
> > Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing the demand > > for meat production.
>
> > It's all about aesthetics, skag.
>
> Is this supposed to be a convincing argument?
>
> Let me help you out here. When intelligent people say veganism is about
> aesthetics, not ethics, they mean vegans avoid meat because they are
> repulsed by the look, taste and feel of meat. You've just given us
> evidence they aren't.
Do you finally get it, dummy?
(snip)
> > Your moral posture allows you to eat, even desire, something which tastes, feels,
> > and smells just like a product you find quite immoral. The taste apparently still
> > appeals to you; your love for the cow and chicken has not yet exceeded your love > > for the taste of their flesh.
>
> If anything, people who enjoy or crave the taste of meat and yet abstain
> from meat products are _more_ ethical than those for whom meat has no
> appeal. Their dietary choices require self-denial and self-sacrifice.
Well?
>
> (snip)
>
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.
usual suspect
>>>Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.
>>
>>Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?
>
> Since you haven't supported your claim, can I assume you have withdrawn
> it?
Let me modify my statement. Many vegans consume standard crop rices as a
daily staple. This is an observation made from personal experience,
acquaintances, etc.
If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
evidence.
>>What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of
>>hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one.
Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.
> I need to add that, when you say animals die after being bound in bales
> of hay, you are talking about animals that die in silage fields.
Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
crops.
<snip>
> Do you hurt animals?
I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
didn't lose any sleep.
<snip>
>>If anything, people who enjoy or crave the taste of meat and yet abstain
>>from meat products are _more_ ethical than those for whom meat has no
>>appeal. Their dietary choices require self-denial and self-sacrifice.
No, they're amoral hypocrites. Their dietary choices cause the suffering
of even more animals. Kill a cow, feed a person very well for a year.
Grow a crop of soybeans to make TVP and you kill more than one animal,
none of which get eaten.
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.
frlpwr
>
> frltrd wrote:
> >>>Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.
> >>
> >>Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?
> >
> > Since you haven't supported your claim, can I assume you have withdrawn
> > it?
>
> Let me modify my statement. Many vegans consume standard crop rices as a
> daily staple. This is an observation made from personal experience,
> acquaintances, etc.
But you aren't a vegan for ethical reasons. Why would your "personal
experience" tell us anything about the purchasing behavior of ethical
vegans?
As for your "acquaintances", why should I believe you have access to
their pantries or that you know enough to judge the source of the items
you might find there?
> If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
> evidence.
It is my position that rice is not a daily staple for most ethical
vegans, as you claim. Unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to think people
will accept my "personal experience" or the personal experiences of my
"acquaintances" as proof.
> >>What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of
> >>hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one.
>
> Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
> sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.
Compression of this magnitude would likely kill a small animal very
quickly, no "horrid" death there, nothing compared to the slaughter
process which often takes days to complete. If a rodent survives
baling, there is no reason it couldn't chew its way out. The care
livestock operators take to prevent rodents from burrowing into set
bales illustrates this.
>
> > I need to add that, when you say animals die after being bound in bales
> > of hay, you are talking about animals that die in silage fields.
>
> Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
> crops.
No matter, if the material is baled it's been cut and set for livestock
feed. Animal deaths that occur as a result must be assigned to
livestock production, not human consumption.
>
> <snip>
> > Do you hurt animals?
>
> I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
> didn't lose any sleep.
You didn't stop to see if the animal was dead or injured and in need of
treatment or mercy-killing? Asshole.
>
> <snip>
> >>If anything, people who enjoy or crave the taste of meat and yet abstain
> >>from meat products are _more_ ethical than those for whom meat has no
> >>appeal. Their dietary choices require self-denial and self-sacrifice.
>
> No, they're amoral hypocrites. Their dietary choices cause the suffering
> of even more animals. Kill a cow, feed a person very well for a year.
You're either stupid or a liar. Animals are killed to house the "cow",
to feed the "cow", to protect the "cow", to medicate the "cow", to
transport the "cow", to slaughter the "cow", to process the "cow" and to
store the flesh of the "cow".
Not only that, _no one_ you or I know eats beef and nothing but beef for
a solid year. This is an extreme example that has no basis in reality.
> Grow a crop of soybeans to make TVP and you kill more than one animal,
> none of which get eaten.
What makes you think that comparing one "cow" to a crop of soybeans is a
legitimate comparison? It only makes sense to look for deaths per
portion. Every portion of meat _requres_ the death of, at least, one
animal. If one death was assigned to every 4 oz. portion of soybeans,
we could expect to see tens of thousands of animals per acre and we
don't.
I'm still waiting for your reply concerning transport time to slaughter
and a retraction of your statement that animals don't mind slipping and
sliding in feces and gore.
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...
usual suspect
>>>>>Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?
>>>
>>>Since you haven't supported your claim, can I assume you have withdrawn
>>>it?
>>
>>Let me modify my statement. Many vegans consume standard crop rices as a
>>daily staple. This is an observation made from personal experience,
>>acquaintances, etc.
>
> But you aren't a vegan for ethical reasons. Why would your "personal
> experience" tell us anything about the purchasing behavior of ethical
> vegans?
"Ethical vegan" is an oxymoron. Stop moving goalposts.
> As for your "acquaintances", why should I believe you have access to
> their pantries or that you know enough to judge the source of the items
> you might find there?
Perhaps their asking to borrow a couple cups of rice clues me in to the
fact that they eat it. Or perhaps the fact that a Google search of afv
found over 4500 hits for rice. Go figure, huh.
>>If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
>>evidence.
>
> It is my position that rice is not a daily staple for most ethical
> vegans, as you claim.
That's a goalpost move, you fat cow. I said most/many vegans. You are
adding "ethical."
> Unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to think people
> will accept my "personal experience" or the personal experiences of my
> "acquaintances" as proof.
You're brazenly deceitful enough to move the goalposts, aren't ya.
>>>>What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of
>>>>hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one.
>>
>>Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
>>sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.
>
> Compression of this magnitude would likely kill a small animal very
> quickly,
Are you sure? Where's your evidence, Farmer von Dyke?
> no "horrid" death there, nothing compared to the slaughter
> process which often takes days to complete.
Ipse dixit. Have you any proof?
> If a rodent survives
> baling, there is no reason it couldn't chew its way out.
Ipse dixit. You don't even know if a rodent can breathe adequately in a
bale, much less consume any hay or straw (yeah right). Here's your
experiment. Get a blanket and roll yourself up so tight that you can
barely get air into your lungs. Then fidget around until you tire. Then
start eating like there's no tomorrow and tell us if the fucking blanket
doesn't get TIGHTER as you eat.
> The care
> livestock operators take to prevent rodents from burrowing into set
> bales illustrates this.
Do you consider the liberal use of poisons to be "care"?
>>>I need to add that, when you say animals die after being bound in bales
>>>of hay, you are talking about animals that die in silage fields.
>>
>>Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
>>crops.
>
> No matter, if the material is baled it's been cut and set for livestock
> feed.
Hay yes, straw not necessarily. Straw has other uses, including new age
housing. It's far more likely to be used in some kind of non-feed use or
burned for energy or just to get rid of the stuff. Note that its
compressive strength is sufficient enough to be used in load-bearing
walls. That should tell you something about how tight it is when baled.
http://www.calricestraw.org/uses/uses.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/strawhouse/house-of-straw.html
I'll overlook your ignorance of baling if you overlook mine about what
assholes like you keep in your cupboards.
> Animal deaths that occur as a result must be assigned to
> livestock production, not human consumption.
For hay, okay. For straw, NO.
>><snip>
>>
>>>Do you hurt animals?
>>
>>I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
>>didn't lose any sleep.
>
> You didn't stop to see if the animal was dead or injured and in need of
> treatment or mercy-killing? Asshole.
I was going about 70 mph around midnight on a busy highway; I don't
think it's wise for people to stop suddenly on highways. More power to
it if it lived. It was probably a skunk or possum.
>><snip>
>>>>If anything, people who enjoy or crave the taste of meat and yet abstain
>>>
>>>>from meat products are _more_ ethical than those for whom meat has no
>>>
>>>>appeal. Their dietary choices require self-denial and self-sacrifice.
>>
>>No, they're amoral hypocrites. Their dietary choices cause the suffering
>>of even more animals. Kill a cow, feed a person very well for a year.
>
> You're either stupid or a liar. Animals are killed to house the "cow",
> to feed the "cow", to protect the "cow", to medicate the "cow", to
> transport the "cow", to slaughter the "cow", to process the "cow" and to
> store the flesh of the "cow".
Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no. What about a deer? What about other game,
large or small? What about migratory game birds?
> Not only that, _no one_ you or I know eats beef and nothing but beef for
> a solid year. This is an extreme example that has no basis in reality.
It's a fair example and proves that valid and humane alternatives to
your extremist lifestyle DO exist.
>>Grow a crop of soybeans to make TVP and you kill more than one animal,
>>none of which get eaten.
>
> What makes you think that comparing one "cow" to a crop of soybeans is a
> legitimate comparison?
It's one you and other vegans like to make, albeit with great sanctimony.
> It only makes sense to look for deaths per
> portion.
Why?
> Every portion of meat _requres_ the death of, at least, one
> animal. If one death was assigned to every 4 oz. portion of soybeans,
> we could expect to see tens of thousands of animals per acre and we
> don't.
Do you count insects as animals? What about the water, energy, etc.,
required to convert however many pounds of soybeans into TVP and tofu?
> I'm still waiting for your reply concerning transport time to slaughter
> and a retraction of your statement that animals don't mind slipping and
> sliding in feces and gore.
I'm not retracting anything, you gruesome old hag. Your sloppy reasoning
might impress your fellow (space) travelers, but it doesn't hold up to
scrutiny.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<Cnclb.6058$S52....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>WD West wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
>>>Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
>>>as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
>>
>>Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
>>
>>On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
>>fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
>>are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
>>course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
>>but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
>>those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
>>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>
>
> Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?
No. Why don't you address my objection to so-called
"ethical" vegetarianism, instead of engaging in
juvenile ad hominem?
> Are these guys for real?
What "guys"? I am for real. What's your problem?
> Finally, are they also 12-years-old?
Who are "they"?
In my case, no. Why do you ask?
> I'm new to this
> group, and these posts are going to keep me amused for a while, I can
> tell...
Liar. You won't be around more than a few days.
C. James Strutz
"usual suspect" <n...@fat.chx> wrote in message
news:8_xnb.3932$qo4....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no. What about a deer? What about other game,
> large or small? What about migratory game birds?
You claim to be vegan for health purposes. Since deer and other game aren't
fed antibiotics, growth hormones, steroids, etc., and are very low in
saturated fat and cholesterol then why won't you eat them?
usual suspect
>>Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no. What about a deer? What about other game,
>>large or small? What about migratory game birds?
>
> You claim to be vegan for health purposes.
I stopped using the word "vegan" to describe anything about me several
months ago. I still remain committed to good health.
> Since deer and other game aren't
> fed antibiotics, growth hormones, steroids, etc., and are very low in
> saturated fat and cholesterol then why won't you eat them?
I may resume eating game in the future, but as I've noted in the past
I'm not exactly a fan of the taste and feel of meat. It's too heavy for
running, imo, which is more important to me right now.
FWIW, I resumed hunting this season. We have a major overpopulation of
deer in my state, and I'm tired of seeing cars (and people) destroyed
from collisions with deer. I donated the meat to a program which
distributes it to the needy.
frlpwr
>
> frlcnt wrote:
> >>>>>Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.
> >>>>
> >>>>Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?
> >>>
> >>>Since you haven't supported your claim, can I assume you have withdrawn
> >>>it?
> >>
> >>Let me modify my statement. Many vegans consume standard crop rices as a
> >>daily staple. This is an observation made from personal experience,
> >>acquaintances, etc.
> >
> > But you aren't a vegan for ethical reasons. Why would your "personal
> > experience" tell us anything about the purchasing behavior of ethical
> > vegans?
>
> "Ethical vegan" is an oxymoron.
Is there something about being vegan that makes it impossible to be
ethical? That's the condition required for the term to be an oxymoron.
> Stop moving goalposts.
>
I'm not. You don't eat meat for health reasons. Why would you care if
animals are killed in the procurement of your food?. There's no point
including vegans like you in a discussion of food choices based on the
number of collateral deaths or the "horidness" of those deaths.
> > As for your "acquaintances", why should I believe you have access to
> > their pantries or that you know enough to judge the source of the items
> > you might find there?
>
> Perhaps their asking to borrow a couple cups of rice clues me in to the
> fact that they eat it.
They would have to be asking to borrow rice every day for you to be able
to conclude that rice is their "daily staple".
> Or perhaps the fact that a Google search of afv
> found over 4500 hits for rice. Go figure, huh.
Even if each of these hits was a receipe for rice, (they're not), that
would not prove that rice is a "daily staple" for vegans.
Looking over the receipes in afv today, I can find only one calling for
rice noodles.
>
> >>If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
> >>evidence.
> >
> > It is my position that rice is not a daily staple for most ethical
> > vegans, as you claim.
>
> That's a goalpost move, you fat cow. I said most/many vegans. You are
> adding "ethical."
Health-oriented vegans have no place in a discussion of collateral
deaths. It's a non-issue for them.
Oh, and I would not be considered fat by anyone, anyplace, anytime.
>
> > Unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to think people
> > will accept my "personal experience" or the personal experiences of my
> > "acquaintances" as proof.
>
> You're brazenly deceitful enough to move the goalposts, aren't ya.
Okay, cry-baby, we'll make it many vegans. Now prove that rice is a
_daily staple_ for many vegans.
> >>>>What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of
> >>>>hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one.
> >>
> >>Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
> >>sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.
> >
> > Compression of this magnitude would likely kill a small animal very
> > quickly,
>
> Are you sure? Where's your evidence, Farmer von Dyke?
It's common sense, Mr.
My-Family-Are-Ranchers-Who-Think-Animals-Don't-Mind-Slipping
and-Sliding-in-Feces-and-Gore. Either an animal dies from baling or it
can work its way out.
> > no "horrid" death there, nothing compared to the slaughter
> > process which often takes days to complete.
>
> Ipse dixit. Have you any proof?
I asked you first. Can you prove that the deaths of field animals are
"horrid"?
> > If a rodent survives
> > baling, there is no reason it couldn't chew its way out.
>
> Ipse dixit. You don't even know if a rodent can breathe adequately in a
> bale,
If a farmer baled his hay tight enough to prevent air circulation, he
would lose the bale to mold.
> much less consume any hay or straw (yeah right).
Where did I say the animal had to "consume" the hay or straw? Rodents
chew up materials all the time without consuming them. Reduce blades of
straw to smaller pieces and you create an avenue of escape.
> Here's your experiment. Get a blanket and roll yourself up so tight that you can
> barely get air into your lungs. Then fidget around until you tire. Then
> start eating like there's no tomorrow and tell us if the fucking blanket
> doesn't get TIGHTER as you eat.
There's a difference between eating your way out and chewing your way
out, dumbo. If rodents ate everything they chewed on they would have no
nesting materials.
As for your "experiment", I would simply gnaw an opening in the blanket
and spit out the fleece.
>
> > The care
> > livestock operators take to prevent rodents from burrowing into set
> > bales illustrates this.
>
> Do you consider the liberal use of poisons to be "care"?
You're pathetic and desperate. Clearly, the "care" of livestock
operators is for their stored bales. My point, as you well know, is
that rodents CAN and DO burrow into set bales. The process of burrowing
in is no different than the process of burrowing out.
> >>>I need to add that, when you say animals die after being bound in bales
> >>>of hay, you are talking about animals that die in silage fields.
> >>
> >>Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
> >>crops.
> >
> > No matter, if the material is baled it's been cut and set for livestock
> > feed.
>
> Hay yes, straw not necessarily. Straw has other uses, including new age
> housing. It's far more likely to be used in some kind of non-feed use or
> burned for energy or just to get rid of the stuff.
Okay.
> Note that its compressive strength is sufficient enough to be used in load-bearing
> walls. That should tell you something about how tight it is when baled.
Note that in order to rodent proof the walls of straw-constructed
buildings a wire stucco netting must be applied to both sides of the
bales, the inner walls must be plastered and the outer walls must be
stuccoed.
(snip)
> I'll overlook your ignorance of baling
You have yet to show that baling or any other field practice causes
animals to experience a "horrid death".
> if you overlook mine about what
> assholes like you keep in your cupboards.
What I want you to do is to stop acting like your uninformed opinions
are facts.
>
> > Animal deaths that occur as a result must be assigned to
> > livestock production, not human consumption.
>
> For hay, okay. For straw, NO.
Can we get back to the point of this? Your claim that animals
experience "horrid" deaths in the fields.
>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Do you hurt animals?
> >>
> >>I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
> >>didn't lose any sleep.
> >
> > You didn't stop to see if the animal was dead or injured and in need of
> > treatment or mercy-killing? Asshole.
>
> I was going about 70 mph around midnight on a busy highway; I don't
> think it's wise for people to stop suddenly on highways.
Don't your highways have shoulders? You're a runner. Would it be too
much for you to trot back to the point of collision and check for a
wounded animal?
> More power to it if it lived.
What if you wounded it and it suffered for hours on the side of the road
before dying?
> It was probably a skunk or possum.
Do skunks and possums have less capacity for suffering than other
animals?
>
> >><snip>
> > You're either stupid or a liar. Animals are killed to house the "cow",
> > to feed the "cow", to protect the "cow", to medicate the "cow", to
> > transport the "cow", to slaughter the "cow", to process the "cow" and to
> > store the flesh of the "cow".
>
> Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no.
Aren't pastures seeded or sprigged, fertilized, sprayed and cut for
winter feed? Don't field animals die during these activities? Aren't
range cattle supplementally fed in winter or dry months to make up for
the lack of or poor quality of seasonal grasses? What about cows close
to calving? Don't they get special feed?
What about predator control? What do range managers do to praire dog
towns? Doesn't your family innoculate their animals? I know you are not
farm slaughtering large herds of steer, that's against the law. That
means you transport them to a licensed plant for slaughter and
processing. Rodent control is mandatory in slaughterhouses and
meat-processing plants.
> What about a deer? What about other game,
> large or small? What about migratory game birds?
What are you getting on about? YOU said that one "cow" = one death and
you're wrong.
>
> > Not only that, _no one_ you or I know eats beef and nothing but beef for
> > a solid year. This is an extreme example that has no basis in reality.
>
> It's a fair example and proves that valid and humane alternatives to
> your extremist lifestyle DO exist.
>
Eating beef from one "cow" and only beef from one "cow" is as extreme as
a vegan eating handgrown fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and legumes and
only handgrown fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and legumes. Between
these two extremes, the vegan diet causes no deaths and the beef diet
causes one death. Bzzzzt.
(snip)>
> > It only makes sense to look for deaths per
> > portion.
>
> Why?
>
Because that's how most people in our society procure and prepare their
food.
> > Every portion of meat _requres_ the death of, at least, one
> > animal. If one death was assigned to every 4 oz. portion of soybeans,
> > we could expect to see tens of thousands of animals per acre and we
> > don't.
>
> Do you count insects as animals?
The line gets fuzzy. I have difficulty seeing insects as individual
animals with individual interests.
> What about the water, energy, etc.,
> required to convert however many pounds of soybeans into TVP and tofu?
What about the water, energy, etc. required to operate a slaughterhouse
or a feedlot? What about insect control at these facilities? What about
cattle dipping? What about worming? Good god, man, the collateral
deaths are racking up!
> > I'm still waiting for your reply concerning transport time to slaughter
> > and a retraction of your statement that animals don't mind slipping and
> > sliding in feces and gore.
>
> I'm not retracting anything, you gruesome old hag. Your sloppy reasoning
> might impress your fellow (space) travelers, but it doesn't hold up to
> scrutiny.
Then please show some evidence to refute Grandin's study showing loss of
footing as the most important factor in pre-slaughter stress and explain
how transport time for pre-slaughter animals has shortened when there
are fewer slaughterhouses and more animals being slaughtered than a
decade ago.
Your attempt to side-step your previous statements by bringing up space
travelers doesn't fool anyone.
usual suspect
>>"Ethical vegan" is an oxymoron.
>
> Is there something about being vegan that makes it impossible to be
> ethical? That's the condition required for the term to be an oxymoron.
It's damn sure a lot harder to be ethical as a vegan. It's a phony,
hypocritical kind of ethical. But it suits you, huh.
>>Stop moving goalposts.
>
> I'm not. You don't eat meat for health reasons. Why would you care if
> animals are killed in the procurement of your food?. There's no point
> including vegans like you in a discussion of food choices based on the
> number of collateral deaths or the "horidness" of those deaths.
Then why are you ranting and raving about it?
>>>As for your "acquaintances", why should I believe you have access to
>>>their pantries or that you know enough to judge the source of the items
>>>you might find there?
>>
>>Perhaps their asking to borrow a couple cups of rice clues me in to the
>>fact that they eat it.
>
> They would have to be asking to borrow rice every day for you to be able
> to conclude that rice is their "daily staple".
Well, again, we have discussions about food and all that. That's how I
know it's a daily staple.
>>Or perhaps the fact that a Google search of afv
>>found over 4500 hits for rice. Go figure, huh.
>
> Even if each of these hits was a receipe for rice, (they're not), that
> would not prove that rice is a "daily staple" for vegans.
Many of them are recipes, contain instructions, etc. I looked through a
couple pages and the only ones that dealt with ethical issues involved
questions about ingredients in certain brands of packaged rice dishes.
Funny, huh.
> Looking over the receipes in afv today, I can find only one calling for
> rice noodles.
Are you going to chime in and tell that poster what a traitor he is to
your movement for supporting the murderous rice industry, lol?
>>>>If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
>>>>evidence.
>>>
>>>It is my position that rice is not a daily staple for most ethical
>>>vegans, as you claim.
>>
>>That's a goalpost move, you fat cow. I said most/many vegans. You are
>>adding "ethical."
>
> Health-oriented vegans have no place in a discussion of collateral
> deaths. It's a non-issue for them.
Then why do you keep pursuing such a discussion with me?
> Oh, and I would not be considered fat by anyone, anyplace, anytime.
I consider you fat, right here, right now.
>>>Unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to think people
>>>will accept my "personal experience" or the personal experiences of my
>>>"acquaintances" as proof.
>>
>>You're brazenly deceitful enough to move the goalposts, aren't ya.
>
> Okay, cry-baby, we'll make it many vegans. Now prove that rice is a
> _daily staple_ for many vegans.
Already have, SAG.
>>>>>>What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of
>>>>>>hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one.
>>>>
>>>>Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
>>>>sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.
>>>
>>>Compression of this magnitude would likely kill a small animal very
>>>quickly,
>>
>>Are you sure? Where's your evidence, Farmer von Dyke?
>
> It's common sense, Mr.
> My-Family-Are-Ranchers-Who-Think-Animals-Don't-Mind-Slipping
> and-Sliding-in-Feces-and-Gore. Either an animal dies from baling or it
> can work its way out.
Ipse dixit.
>>>no "horrid" death there, nothing compared to the slaughter
>>>process which often takes days to complete.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. Have you any proof?
>
> I asked you first. Can you prove that the deaths of field animals are
> "horrid"?
Horrid is an adjective, and it's also pretty subjective. You probably
think one of my arrows going through is 'horrid,' while I find
suffocation, starvation, and being thrashed much more horrid.
<snip stupid houdini crap>
> You're pathetic and desperate.
No, sweetheart, you are.
<snip>
>>>>>I need to add that, when you say animals die after being bound in bales
>>>>>of hay, you are talking about animals that die in silage fields.
>>>>
>>>>Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
>>>>crops.
>>>
>>>No matter, if the material is baled it's been cut and set for livestock
>>>feed.
>>
>>Hay yes, straw not necessarily. Straw has other uses, including new age
>>housing. It's far more likely to be used in some kind of non-feed use or
>>burned for energy or just to get rid of the stuff.
>
> Okay.
Don't argue with me. I know my bales.
>>Note that its compressive strength is sufficient enough to be used in load-bearing
>>walls. That should tell you something about how tight it is when baled.
>
> Note that in order to rodent proof the walls of straw-constructed
> buildings a wire stucco netting must be applied to both sides of the
> bales, the inner walls must be plastered and the outer walls must be
> stuccoed.
Rodents generally don't burrow in bales as a matter of habit. They
burrow between them, and they burrow in walls. That is why walls are
covered (and it needn't be with stucco: many SBHs are covered with
normal siding).
> (snip)
>
>>I'll overlook your ignorance of baling
>
> You have yet to show that baling or any other field practice causes
> animals to experience a "horrid death".
You don't consider thrashing, mutilation, suffocation, or starvation horrid?
>>if you overlook mine about what
>>assholes like you keep in your cupboards.
>
> What I want you to do is to stop acting like your uninformed opinions
> are facts.
You're the one whose opinions remain unsubstantiated. Oh yeah, you
offered the BS "common sense" above. When was the last time you even SAW
a bale in a field, much less touched one to see how tightly it was baled?
>>>Animal deaths that occur as a result must be assigned to
>>>livestock production, not human consumption.
>>
>>For hay, okay. For straw, NO.
>
> Can we get back to the point of this? Your claim that animals
> experience "horrid" deaths in the fields.
Is it your claim that they don't?
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Do you hurt animals?
>>>>
>>>>I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
>>>>didn't lose any sleep.
>>>
>>>You didn't stop to see if the animal was dead or injured and in need of
>>>treatment or mercy-killing? Asshole.
>>
>>I was going about 70 mph around midnight on a busy highway; I don't
>>think it's wise for people to stop suddenly on highways.
>
> Don't your highways have shoulders?
Yes.
> You're a runner.
Yes.
> Would it be too
> much for you to trot back to the point of collision and check for a
> wounded animal?
Yes. Many late night accidents occur when sleepy or unattentive drivers
see cars on the shoulder and inadvertently crash into them. Is one
fucking animal worth endangering my own life, the lives of others in my
car, and the lives of other drivers and passengers?
>>More power to it if it lived.
>
> What if you wounded it and it suffered for hours on the side of the road
> before dying?
It's dead either way, right?
>>It was probably a skunk or possum.
>
> Do skunks and possums have less capacity for suffering than other
> animals?
Probably not, but possum have sharp teeth and skunks will spray.
<snip: have to meet someone for supper>
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.