Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message oups.com... On Jul 5, 10:11 pm, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote: snip... Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you, Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest? ========================= Again, a proven liar. Show where i have made this claim, killer. If I've misinterpreted your position, I apologize. I've made a good faith effort to interpret it correctly. You've certainly stated that *I* don't care about animals. ======================== Not in any meaningful way. your continued actions prove that. Perhaps you could tell me who does, then. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer about what I mean by "someone in our society". Maybe if someone dropped out of the consumer society and grew all their own food and made their own electricity, you'd finally admit that they care about animals to some extent. =========================== Anyone who doesn't cause the massive UNNECESSARY deaths like you do. The problem is neither I, nor you, will really hear about them because they aren't tooting their own horn all over the world from from the usenet pulpit. The lie you continue to spew is the one that just because you don't eat meat means you care about animals more than someone who does. It's a lie. Proven over and over again by you're own actions. By "someone in our society" I meant someone who participates at some level in the processes in which just about everyone, with virtually no exceptions, participates. So, what exactly would it take for you to admit that I care about animals? And can you point me to anyone who does? =============================== First off, I think you protest too much. Having to tell everyone how much you care kinda proves my point that you are really doing nothing. If you truly cared, you wouldn't have to try to convince us, huh? If not, then what's your objection to what I said? Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational arguments you've raised against it. ====================== veganism causes no/less/fewer deaths just because the diet portion contains no meat. Completely unsupported by you, and everyother usenet vegan, hypocrite... Well, as far as I'm concerned that's not true. I've given you some data in the past about how much crop production is required to feed the United States according to its current eating habits. I think it is reasonable to conclude that if everyone went vegan that would be a change for the better, not necessarily the only way to achieve a substantial change for the better. ========================== And the point you always ignore is that those same people could change to non-crop fed beef. The pasture and range is already there. ALL beef cattle already spend most of their lives there. The production through large feedlots operations is a method developed after WWII. If you really wanted a difference, and fewer crops grown, you'd promote meats raised that way. But you won't, because your religion is based on your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' So, you're contention that if everyone went vegan is just another unsupported claim. Replacing the crops that cattle eat would not be a one-to-one conversion. Feed crops are not the same as people edible crops, nor are they grown the same. Our foods require more intensive operations in power and inputs. Plus, what 'vegan' diet is always better? All bananas? You'd claim they are vegan, but I'd say they are not. Too much killing and environmental damage goes into them. Plus, they depend on the petro-chemical industry to ship them all over the world. That's yet another of your problems. You've never once compared the foods you do eat to each other. You won't. I don't think it is reasonable to say that this assertion of mine is "completely unsupported". If you really want to contest it I think you should make some effort to give some reason why we should doubt it. On the other hand, if you're just saying that there may be some non-vegan diets which are at least as good, on that point we are agreed. ==================== Progress..... So you admit that your privious claims that being vegan means you've killed fewer animal was a lie? snip... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 6, 12:02 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message oups.com... On Jul 5, 10:11 pm, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote: snip... Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you, Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually dohave rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest? ========================= Again, a proven liar. Show where ihavemade this claim, killer. If I've misinterpreted your position, I apologize. I've made a good faith effort to interpret it correctly. You've certainly stated that *I* don't care about animals. ======================== Not in any meaningful way. your continued actions prove that. That's a joke. Perhaps youcouldtell me who does, then. Perhaps I shouldhavebeen a bit clearer about what I mean by "someone in our society". Maybe if someone dropped out of the consumer society and grew all their own food and made their own electricity, you'd finally admit that they care about animals to some extent. =========================== Anyone who doesn't cause the massive UNNECESSARY deaths like you do. "Massive"? I think there's reasonable doubt about that. You've never made any reasonable attempt to give an estimate. The problem is neither I, nor you, will really hear about them because they aren't tooting their own horn all over the world from from the usenet pulpit. They may or may not exist. So these people, who have become self- sufficient in food and electricity in order to stop supporting harm to animals, are the only people who really care about animals. Is that right? The lie you continue to spew is the one that just because you don't eat meat means you care about animals more than someone who does. It's a lie. Proven over and over again by you're own actions. It means I care more about animals than most people, in my view. I don't really care what you think about it. I think that what you think about it is a joke. By "someone in our society" I meant someone who participates at some level in the processes in which just about everyone, with virtually no exceptions, participates. So, what exactly would it take for you to admit that I care about animals? And can you point me to anyone who does? =============================== First off, I think you protest too much. Having to tell everyone how much you care kinda proves my point that you are really doing nothing. If you truly cared, you wouldn'thaveto try to convince us, huh? I'm not interested in trying to convince you. You were the one who brought the subject up. I think that your opinion about the matter is a joke, and I'm bothering to say so. You can think what you like. If not, then what's your objection to what I said? Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational arguments you've raised against it. ====================== veganism causes no/less/fewer deaths just because the diet portion contains no meat. Completely unsupported by you, and everyother usenet vegan, hypocrite... Well, as far as I'm concerned that's not true. I've given you some data in the past about how much crop production is required to feed the United States according to its current eating habits. I think it is reasonable to conclude that if everyone went vegan that would be a change for the better, not necessarily the only way to achieve a substantial change for the better. ========================== And the point you always ignore is that those same peoplecouldchange to non-crop fed beef. The pasture and range is already there. ALL beef cattle already spend most of their lives there. The production through large feedlots operations is a method developed after WWII. If you really wanted a difference, and fewer crops grown, you'd promote meats raised that way. But you won't, because your religion is based on your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' I'm not convinced that I could make a substantial improvement by switching to grass-fed beef. You've still yet to tell me where I can buy this mythical grass-fed beef with zero crop inputs. I think that the current contribution to animal suffering made by my diet is very small. I don't think I need to worry about fine details like whether I may be able to make some slight improvement by switching to some form of grass-fed beef. Your diet may be just as good as mine. My diet is a lot better than most people's. And I do a lot of activism to try and improve conditions for animals as well. The idea that I don't care is a joke. So, you're contention that if everyone went vegan is just another unsupported claim. Replacing the crops that cattle eat would not be a one-to-one conversion. Feed crops are not the same as people edible crops, nor are they grown the same. Our foods require more intensive operations in power and inputs. We would be growing fewer crops if everyone went vegan. I've adequately supported this statement, you haven't cast any serious doubt on it. Some forms of grass-fed beef might be a reasonable approach as well, I've never denied that. Plus, what 'vegan' diet is always better? All bananas? You'd claim they are vegan, but I'd say they are not. Too much killing and environmental damage goes into them. Plus, they depend on the petro-chemical industry to ship them all over the world. That's yet another of your problems. You've never once compared the foods you do eat to each other. You won't. All right, well, you have a different idea of what counts as a reasonable standard than I do. Fine, you can hold yourself to that standard if you want. But in actual fact you don't care about animals in the slightest, you just want to try and argue that I don't for some reason. Well, I think it's a joke, and I'm not particularly interested in what you think. So there you go. I don't think it is reasonable to say that this assertion of mine is "completely unsupported". If you really want to contest it I think you should make some effort to give some reason why we should doubt it. On the other hand, if you're just saying that there may be some non-vegan diets which are at least as good, on that point we are agreed. ==================== Progress..... I've explicitly said I agreed with this point time and time again. I've never denied it. So you admit that your privious claims that being vegan means you've killed fewer animal was a lie? Sigh. There are two different claims. One is "For most Westerners, making the transition to a vegan diet would be a big improvement." The other is "Every vegan diet is better than every conceivable non-vegan diet". I make the first claim but not the second. You constantly conflate these two claims, I keep pointing out that they are different claims but it still hasn't sunk in. snip...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|