Vegan/ARA Fallacy: Objecting to the 1001st Death

It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.

Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The
vegans and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves
were responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths
number 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because
they're uneaten.

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
relies ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
one's actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
and ARAs raise about animal cruelty.

The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and
to protect the public's safety.

Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some
croplands like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding
from irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're
wounded and left to die or for scavenging.

If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and
ARAs would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit
as cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more
candid that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
causes many animals to die or become injured.

Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come
from the deaths of the first 1000.

Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
1001st Death" proves it.

Ipse dixit and false.

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

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

Your posting history on the issue proves it. You're a chronic
buck-passer when it comes to taking responsibility for your own principles:
http://tinyurl.com/3wnlv

RESTORING THE REST OF MY POST

END RESTORE

Your posting history also proves it, fatso: http://tinyurl.com/3wnlv

Exactly. I've always shown that your assertion is without
any support and false.

They keep mum on the first 1000 deaths up to the point that someone informs
them of the deaths. At that point, then begin handwaving and temporizing
about doing "all they can" to minimize those deaths, e.g. by buying only
"locally produced" produce.

This gets back to the basic fallacy underlying the "vegan"
pseudo-philosophy. It's the eating, not the killing, that bothers "vegans".
As John Mercer memorably put it in an earlier discussion on the topic - the
topic that won't go away: "The only distinction is an esthetic one--the
disposition of the corpses produced."

"vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because they
don't eat the corpses.

The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
"vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous belief
that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an animal death.
Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found more commonly among
omnivores, most often when they talk about the number of meals that may be
had from the meat from one large animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a
death" attributable to one hamburger, for example.

The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef, and
those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot say
they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
together.

The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish, causing
one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The rice
eater caused 1000 deaths.

As long as one doesn't eat the corpses, one can pretend not to know.

Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You do
an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately stupid
"vegans".

Thank you.

> Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
>trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
>buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
>something else.

You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.

snip rest of ignorant spew....

"Retard" <ret...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5po6r0lft1e7kp0il...@4ax.com...

> >"Retard" <ret...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

> >Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral
suffering

>
> Thank you.

I don't know why you'd thank me for pointing out that you trivialize
collateral suffering. It's not something of which you should be proud. You
shouldn't be proud of being clumsy and ineffectual, either.

Non sequitur. You cannot conclude that, because grass fed
beef accumulates collateral deaths, then ALL vegetable
products accumulate them. Your conclusion doesn't logically
follow from your premise.

Like you'd know. Dumbass.

Like you'd know. Dumbass.

news:rf27r0hm00aqnfb6a...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:04:54 GMT, Ted Bell <ted....@philhendrie.show>

Whatever floats your boat, munchkin.

I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
fallacies.

1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
practices

2) veganism isn't a numbers game, it is about making choices that seek to
reduce _animal exploitation_, and vegans acknowledge that collateral deaths
are a part of all human activities, we simply seek to avoid such where it is
_practical and possible_ - it is both practical and possible NOT to eat
meat, or reduce meat intake, however humans have to eat plant foods to be
healthy, and furthermore, increasing meat consumption further precipitates
an environmental catastrophy

3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they trample
other creatures and ingest them by the thousand in every mouth of grass,
they compete with other herbivores and produce clouds of methane, and 90% of
the plant energy they ingest doesn't go to the table

4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and dangerous
machinery - a veganic food supply would cause minimal collateral death, and
is free of animal exploitation - the same cannot be said for meat

5) all of the above points are factual, whereas there is no factual basis
for the claim that eating beef lowers total numbers of animal deaths

6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept - I would rather live with
people who want less suffering and explotation, even if that only amounted
to 1 death less, that 1 life is all that animal has, and even if no animals
were saved, it would still be a worthy ambition

If enough people were vegans, then that would in turn create sufficient
market to produce veganic food. All arguments that point to there being
avoidable animal suffering and exploitation _strengthen the vegan argument_.
They do not weaken it, as suggested by this thread and others similar.

John

Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.

"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not intend
to reflect a specific number of deaths.

I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue of
animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.

This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical to
always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical or
possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the basic
rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself morally
upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.

It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
being high in collateral animal deaths.

> or reduce meat intake,

That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.

Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any type
that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.

Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.

> the plant energy they ingest doesn't go to the table.

90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any other
way.

It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a workable
solution to feeding the human population.

Your points are misleading.

That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/animals/Davis-LeastHarm.htm

"Vegans" do not respect any such noble principle. "Veganism" means, as much
as is practical and possible, (read *convenient* <har har>), not consuming
animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is known
to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a rice/soy/carrot/pea
concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
choose the moose.

No they don't, they highlight vegan hypocrisy.

It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
avoidable. In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.

=================
No, you have no 'need' to eat plants. there is no need for brocolli. You
*want* brocolli. there is a difference, killer. When conmpared to the
usenet vegan diet here on usenet, it is very easy to have a meat included
diet that causes far less animal death and suffering and environmental
damage.

========================
LOL How many deer, rabbits, birds, reptiles, and fish do you figure a cow
eats? Oh, wait, you want to suddenly talk about bugs! Well golly gee,
let's do just that! You lose real big time for your veggies if you want to
include the deaths of bugs just to produce your veggies, hypocrite.

========================
Rice also produces clouds of methane. Difference is, ruminants are a
natural part of the environement, massive fields of rice crops are not.
Plus, that plant energy is just what these animals were intended to eat.
grasses that grow just fine in natural habitats. habitats that are
destroyed by mono-culture crop farming. Your crops are the very definition
of habitat destruction, killer.

======================
And would not 'feed the world'. Heck, it wouldn't even feed you're lard
butt probably.

=====================
Yes, it can. Bcesaue you cannot grow any crop without exploiting animals in
one way or another.

====================
LOL I've just shown that many of your 'facts' are just your blind ignorance
to a religion.

=================
ROTFLMAO Talk about making a 'morally relevant' statement! What a hoot!!
So, killing any number of animals is better than killing any number fewer as
long as you 'want less suffering'? You really are an idiot, hypocrite.

================
No, because you are an insignificant, marginalized bunch of ignorant loons
tracking your bloody footprints are over usenet, killer.

>
> John
>
Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm

http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/news/archives/ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/notebook/agriculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm

http://www.greenenergyohio.org/default.cfm?exec=Page.View&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/Licensed2Killexecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_map/articles/article_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy/project_fact_sheets/500-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/envImp/04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public_Affairs/Policy_Statements/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/articles/2004/cleanup012012004.html

Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kmPMnV7pZC4C:www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html

To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

And, an extra, just because it's 'organic' doesn't make it safe.
Special potatoes and celery were bred to increase their resistance
pest, and create one where pesticides were not needed. The results
were good, as to not needing extra pesticides, however....

"...Breeding methods and other "substitutes" used as
alternatives to pesticide chemicals can expose consumers to
greater risks. This is a recognized problem particularly in
cases where farmers breed plants to become more
insect-resistant, a "natural" substitute to using synthetic
pesticides. In one particular case, breeders grew a special
type of highly insect-resistant celery to avoid using
pesticides. It wasn't until after the people handling the
celery developed a serious rash that it was discovered the
special celery contained 6,200 parts per billion of
carcinogenic psoralens, a natural chemical that heightens
sensitivity to the sun's rays; conventionally grown celery
protected with synthetic pesticides contains approximately
800 parts per billion. The same occurred when scientists
bred a "pest-free" potato. The breeders found that the
potato "was so full of natural pesticides that it was acutely
poisonous to humans." By using synthetic pesticides, therefore,
farmers and food producers often are indirectly protecting
consumers from potential risks from natural pesticides which
scientists have found can be carcinogenic..."
http://www.consumeralert.org/pubs/research/CRFeb00.htm

As for those that are too selfish to live up to their stated 'ethics' and
cry because it is not
'practical' or even because it is not possible to live a live without their
modern
conveniences, consider Eustace Conway. Lives in NC, doesn't use electic,
doesn't have a TV, and I doubt a comoputer either.
"...Eustace has gone to the woods to live deliberately, fronting only the
essential facts of life, to see if he could not learn what it had to teach,
and not when he came to die discover that he had not lived. Eustace has
lived in the woods for 20 years. He hasn't had a sip of a soft drink in that
time or electricity (no TV) or running water. He learns by visiting
extremes; once when Eustace severely cut his thumb, he sewed it back
together with twelve stitches, and used plant medicine..."
http://www.turtleislandpreserve.com/eustace.htm

So, it is possible to live your 'ethics', but not if you're too selfish to
really live up to your goals. So, most vegans just pretend they do 'good',
rant about others, and display their hatred for those that won't live the
way they themselves fail miserably at.

>
>

It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
veganisms.

It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.

This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.

Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be vegans.
However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
activity. Where possible it should be reduced. It is hard to establish
numbers, hence the lack of rules.

where are the numbers?

I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.

How?

Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

There is no reason it would not work for most.

Exceptions mislead!

This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can we
should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.

It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
beings.

John

You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually
live, not the lifestyles we imagine. My kharma includes the lives of animals
in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that
spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely
painlessly.

You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in agriculture
that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I
consume no animal products=I harm no animals".

That was obfuscation, you illustrated my point.

People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a flaw
because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans.

> Veganism is inclusive

Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior club.

The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves
slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption.

<snips not noted>

You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and possible
NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and
possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet
vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and possible
NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the
hypocrisy?

"it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice"

It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms.

You don't know the number of pigs that die because I have a couple of strips
of bacon with my breakfast on the weekend, but you still have a rule against
it.

You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not
hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal
death. If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely
represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that goes
into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of soya
beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered.

I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan
publication I know of.

Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism?

A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is processed
through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion of
the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable, untended,
or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds
populations depends on raising animals.

People can't eat trees.

That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously.

It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is
available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world.

Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death. Just because your
<gag> tempeh steak </gag> has no visible animal content does not mean it
does not carry a legacy of at least that small amount of animal death.

I think you are already living on the moon John.

=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of you....

================
1 facet that you cannot even reduce you impact on yourself, because you
dogmatically follow your simple rule for your simple mind! what a hoot!

====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on usenet!

=====================
And you have been shown that it is possible, and reasonable to reduce your
bloody footprints by including the right kind of meats. But then, since all
you have is a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat,' you have to
focus only on what you think others are doing.

==================
Always snipped out, un-noted of course. Why is that? Numbers have been
posted many, many times showing the massive deaths that occur in crop
production. Why do you continue to ignore tham, and focus only on what
others eat, hypocrite?

=================
Before that most was cropland. The forests were not origninally cut down
for ranches stupid. The early settlers cleared land for crops and lumber.
There was no market for large scale meat operations, dolt. Families
typically had what animals they needed to work the land and provide for
their own food.

==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.

====================
No, they prove the nonsense of veganism. vegans keep claiming that all
vegan diets are better than any meat-included diet. The whole house of
cards comes tumbling down arond your feet, killer.

=====================
What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose, fool!
He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute meats
cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing into
tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive inputs
from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting the
fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the world,
not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously terminally
ignorant if you wish to dispute that.

========================
You'd be destroying the natural habitat of an area. Very few areas are
natural fruit and nut trees, killer.

======================
If it's so easy, why are you here, contributing to unnecessary animal death
and suffering for nothing more than your entertainment?

>
> John
>
>
>
>

No, you haven't.

There is no "need" for farmers to "go 'vegan'", except
in your warped ideology.

You can't escape the fact that you are blaming the
farmer for YOUR failure to live as you claim to live:
"cruelty free". Your claim is false, and you know it;
when you stand by the claim, you become a liar.

As I've demonstrated numerous times, it very much IS a
numbers game. First, "vegans" begin by believing the
classic Denying the Antecedent fallacy:

if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals

Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
believing this fallacy. When it is pointed out to them
that it IS a fallacy, leading to the inescapable
conclusion that refraining from consuming animal
products does NOT mean one leads a "cruelty free"
lifestyle, they ALL retreat to a numbers game: they
begin claiming, without support, that they cause fewer
instances of animal death and suffering.

Prove it.

Their "advocacy" is ineffectual and does not absolve
them of responsibility for being cheerful accomplices
in the non-"veganic" (that's not even a word) slaughter
of animals in agriculture.

No, they aren't. They're spin; blatant propagandizing
based on half truths at best.

It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.

As far as numbers go, usual has posted in
alt.food.vegan proof that at it's very best the
meat industry has a 2.5:1 crop:finalproduct
ratio. Vegan foods of coarse have a 1:1.

As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
farming goes, at best the meat industry
causes 2.5 times the cds.

Why do you have to keep on being reminded
that veganism is not a religion?

No it's not. Veganic farming, I believe uses
compassionate harvesting (=manual, usually).

If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
1 cd for you.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
MUCH IS about a numbers game.

It IS a form of religion. A belief system need not
have priests and sacred texts to be a religion,
although "veganism" has things very much like priests
and sacred texts.

You are wrong, and you had no basis for making the
claim in the first place; it's pure fabrication.

There is no such word as "veganic".

NO. They do NOT.

You mean farming. There's no such thing as "veganic farming," which is
oxymoronic.

Ipse dixit. You object only to the 1001st death, and you also eat fake
meat. Your objections are hypocritical.

<snip more romantic bs about third-world farming practices>

That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily intentional.

Two minor corrections:

Meant to be "snip of romantic bs about third-world *subsistence* farming
practices."

Its, even.

Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.

The numbers, when calculated properly will always
show eating vegan is better.

I don't agree. At it's most extreme, it could be called
a lifestyle or a philosophy.

There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
it a few days ago.

IIRC, a 900 pound bull moose will dress out at about 500 pounds. That's
2000 quarter-pound servings from one dead animal. Your rice, Yves
fake-meat sausage, and other foods result in many more animal
casualities and fatalities. How many meals do you get from all those
dead mice, frogs, rats, snakes, birds, deer, and whatever else gets run
over, sliced, diced, poisoned, or drowned so you can eat fake meat and
machine-harvested rice? If it's more than 2000, you can claim victory in
the counting game. Until then, what I told you before stands:

Moose-included diet: one animal death results in many meals.
Your vegan diet: many animal deaths result in one meal.

=================
No, it does not, and he should you that too! Why do your selectivly pick
and choose, then dishonestly spin what you are told, killer?

================
No, it is not. hy do you repeat this ly over and over? trying to convince
yourself?

==================
But it is, your dogmatic faith in the lys that you keep posting prove it,
hypocrite.

====================
And you can feed the world how? Face it, you know as little about that as
anything else you've posted. Try learning about it, killer. It applies to
large scale farms as well....

====================
No fool. There is no need for me to compare any meat to any specific
veggies. You have already made the claim that all vegan diets are better
than any meat-included diets. You made the original comparison, so all I
have to do is show you how you lied. Very easy to do really, just read what
you write, and poof, the lys are there...

> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.
>