collateral damage of organic rice

Jonathan Ball wrote in message ...
>Saerah wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Ball wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Saerah wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok, well do you eat things made with wheat? That's what seitan is made
>>
>> of.
>>
>>>>I'm sure that somewhere in your diet there are things made from soy , as
>>>>tofu is. Considering you know nothing about my diet,
>>>
>>>False. We know that animals are killed in the course
>>>of growing, harvesting, storing, processing and
>>>distributing the elements of your diet.
>>>
>>
>>
>> animals are killed in the course of growing and processing nearly
EVERYONE'S
>> food. what is your point?
>
>My point, an excellent point, is that "vegans" are
>lying when they claim to be leading "cruelty-free"
>lifestyles. Another excellent point I make is that
>"vegans" are not "minmizing" their death toll, as it is
>trivially easy to show that some diet other than the
>one any particular "vegan" follows could cause less death.
>
>>
>>
>>>>(other than the fact
>>>>that i know what seitan is) how exactly can you make assumptions about
how
>>>>it may be affecting my reasoning skills? In addition, every vegan i know
>>>>is well aware of the fact that animals die in the production of both
their
>>>>'satples', as you put it, and many, many non-food items they use every
day.
>>
>>>No, most "vegans" either aren't aware of it, or have
>>>some slight awareness but don't like to think of it.
>>>One way or another, they make outrageous claims about
>>>being "more ethical" than meat eaters, simply because
>>>they don't consume any animal parts. Their ethical
>>>claims are bullshit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, perhaps its possible that the vegans i know are simply more aware
of
>> these things.
>
>They're still liars. They still are claiming to be
>"minimizing" the animal suffering and death they cause,
>and they are doing no such thing. Any "vegan" who eats
>rice, and lots do, is not minimizing, but he still LIES
>and claims he is.
>

not necessarily. i know quite a few people who have less of a problem with
the killing of animals than with the actual eating of them. they dont want
to eat dead animals. i dont see how this is hypocritical.

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

Saerah wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote in message
> <2xgNb.9294$zj7.3996@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>Saerah wrote:
>
>
>>>i don't see the logic in that, is all.
>>
>>Of course you don't: you're a "vegan", which means you
>>live in a logic-free environment.
>>
>
>
> No, I'm not a vegan. Sorry to disappoint you.

You are some kind of vegetarian for incoherent ethical
reasons; that's close enough.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

Jonathan Ball wrote in message ...
>Saerah wrote:
>> Jonathan Ball wrote in message
>> <2xgNb.9294$zj7.3996@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>>
>>>Saerah wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>i don't see the logic in that, is all.
>>>
>>>Of course you don't: you're a "vegan", which means you
>>>live in a logic-free environment.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, I'm not a vegan. Sorry to disappoint you.
>
>You are some kind of vegetarian for incoherent ethical
>reasons; that's close enough.
>

im not a vegetarian.

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

rick etter wrote in message ...

>Then you defend the diet with the same kind of ignorance and stupidity.
You
>say exactly the same things many of them do. I know that everything I do
>causes death and suffering, but.... Then it descends into their typical
>simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat' and somehow that magically
makes
>their diet/lifestyle an almost kill-free zone. It's a ly, to themselves
and
>everyone else.
>

what part of 'some people do not want to eat dead animals, even though
everything else they eat may also cause animal death as well' do you not
understand? why does this bother you so much? not everyone has access to
locally produced grass fed beef. are you saying that those people, who would
otherwise eat factory farmed meats, would *still* contribute less to animal
deaths than if they were to become vegetarian? i dont think so.

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

Saerah wrote:
> rick etter wrote in message ...
>
>
>>Then you defend the diet with the same kind of ignorance and stupidity.
>
> You
>
>>say exactly the same things many of them do. I know that everything I do
>>causes death and suffering, but.... Then it descends into their typical
>>simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat' and somehow that magically
>
> makes
>
>>their diet/lifestyle an almost kill-free zone. It's a ly, to themselves
>
> and
>
>>everyone else.
>>
>
>
> what part of 'some people do not want to eat dead animals, even though
> everything else they eat may also cause animal death as well' do you not
> understand? why does this bother you so much?

In and of itself, it doesn't bother me at all; I doubt
it bothers Rick, either. What bothers both of us is
all the rest of the "vegan" package: sanctimonious
criticism of those who do eat meat, and raging illogic
behind their position.

I don't know where you're reading the thread, given the
excessive number of newsgroups to which the original
poster, "Allyb", posted initially. Rick and I both
follow talk.politics.animals (I also follow misc.rural,
so like Yossarian in "Catch-22", I see everything
twice.) T.p.a. is crawling with "vegans" who exhibit
the offensive traits I stated above. I don't just mean
they are deluded; I mean they aggressively display
their sanctimony and illogic in attacking meat eaters.

It's important you understand this: I am not trying to
get anyone to eat meat. What I am doing is disabusing
dishonest, hypocritical, sanctimonious "vegans" of
their delusions. I am telling them that they are
achieving *neither* the practical results (fewer animal
deaths) nor the exalted moral status they think they
are, based on ONLY refraining from eating meat. The
example of grass-fed beef, and how it might substitute
for some higher-death foods they eat, is intended only
as a heuristic. It works; or I should say, it *would*
work, if "vegans" weren't so blinded by their
dishonesty and sanctimony.

> not everyone has access to locally produced grass fed beef.

The location of the producer is irrelevant, as I
suspect you know. A consumer in NYC trying to follow
the least-harm diet, and choosing between (say)
soybeans and grass-fed beef, is going to cause harm due
to transportation no matter which he selects: both
come from far away. However, the death caused by the
beef is undoubtedly less than that caused by the
production of the soybeans. Even if you challenge my
assumption that it is "undoubtedly" less, the
possibility remains that it *could* be less; but if the
NYC consumer is a "vegan", and categorically rejects
the beef, then he clearly is *not* motivated by an
honest desire to follow the least-harm diet, as he
piously proclaims.

Are you beginning to get it, now?

> are you saying that those people, who would
> otherwise eat factory farmed meats, would *still* contribute less to animal
> deaths than if they were to become vegetarian? i dont think so.

No, I doubt that's what he's trying to say at all.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

Jonathan Ball wrote in message
>Saerah wrote:
<snip>
>
>I don't know where you're reading the thread, given the
>excessive number of newsgroups to which the original
>poster, "Allyb", posted initially. Rick and I both
>follow talk.politics.animals (I also follow misc.rural,
>so like Yossarian in "Catch-22", I see everything
>twice.) T.p.a. is crawling with "vegans" who exhibit
>the offensive traits I stated above. I don't just mean
>they are deluded; I mean they aggressively display
>their sanctimony and illogic in attacking meat eaters.
>

im reading this in misc.rural . i also read alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.

>It's important you understand this: I am not trying to
>get anyone to eat meat. What I am doing is disabusing
>dishonest, hypocritical, sanctimonious "vegans" of
>their delusions. I am telling them that they are
>achieving *neither* the practical results (fewer animal
>deaths) nor the exalted moral status they think they
>are, based on ONLY refraining from eating meat. The
>example of grass-fed beef, and how it might substitute
>for some higher-death foods they eat, is intended only
>as a heuristic. It works; or I should say, it *would*
>work, if "vegans" weren't so blinded by their
>dishonesty and sanctimony.
>
>> not everyone has access to locally produced grass fed beef.
>
>The location of the producer is irrelevant, as I
>suspect you know. A consumer in NYC trying to follow
>the least-harm diet, and choosing between (say)
>soybeans and grass-fed beef, is going to cause harm due
>to transportation no matter which he selects: both
>come from far away. However, the death caused by the
>beef is undoubtedly less than that caused by the
>production of the soybeans. Even if you challenge my
>assumption that it is "undoubtedly" less, the
>possibility remains that it *could* be less; but if the
>NYC consumer is a "vegan", and categorically rejects
>the beef, then he clearly is *not* motivated by an
>honest desire to follow the least-harm diet, as he
>piously proclaims.
>
>Are you beginning to get it, now?
>

i guess, but you sure arent going to convince anyone of the obvous flaws in
their arguments by using the most offensive (to them at least) rhetoric you
can. you arent accomplishing anything by convincing an ethical vegetarian
that all meat eating people will defend their right to eat meat by any means
they can. unless you can play the numbers game, which y'all refuse to do,
youarent proving anything other than that *you* are convinced that you are
right, no matter what.

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

Saerah wrote:

<snip>

> i guess, but you sure arent going to convince anyone of the obvous flaws in
> their arguments by using the most offensive (to them at least) rhetoric you
> can.

<snip>

One major problem with jonnie's rhetoric (among others) is that it
relies on attacks on others' motives. As you see, he cares nothing
for the ethics of the argument, or for any of the practical arguments
he presents against veganism -- the supposed virtues of (virtually
unobtainable) "grass-fed beef" or whatever. He has no stake in any
of the ethical reasons people may have for being vegan or vegetarian,
and he does not understand that they are real to those who are ethical
vegetarians -- not for some imaginary "sanctimony" or desire to look
superior, but because many of us (including me) genuinely believe the
system which creates meat in the developed world is morally wrong.

I have been vegetarian for close to 25 years, vegan for a number of
those years. I believe strongly that subject-of-a-life animals (to
use Regan's term) do have a moral standing which makes it unethical
for us to use them as objects, as things, as merchandise, as slaves.
I would not eat meat, even "grass-fed" beef, because of this. My
position on hunting is not absolute: in the developed world, I consider
sport hunting wrong, because it takes life without true necessity.
In subsistence cultures, it may be necessary, and I see it as a less-
serious moral offense. I agree that the collateral deaths in
agribusiness are morally wrong, I agree I share some responsibility
because I participate in the culture where they take place. However,
I feel they are the equivalent of sweatshop labor in the production
of products: it is not the products which are immoral; it is the
methods of producing them. I agree we should try to reduce the number
of collateral deaths in veggie production, return to more small-scale,
humane, organic, and careful farming methods: small, local, family farms
which use careful, sustainable, lower-tech, and more natural methods
of farming with lower death-tolls in production. I see this as a real
and possible goal, and an ethical imperative.

It is not my personal "sanctity" which concerns me, as much as the
horrible toll in death and suffering created by factory farming of
animals and large-scale argribusiness. I've been active in animal care
and rescue all my life, and I see no reason why a chicken or a cow is
less worthy of concern than a dog or cat.

<snip>

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:47:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:

>Saerah wrote:

>> not everyone has access to locally produced grass fed beef.
>
>The location of the producer is irrelevant, as I
>suspect you know. A consumer in NYC trying to follow
>the least-harm diet, and choosing between (say)
>soybeans and grass-fed beef, is going to cause harm due
>to transportation no matter which he selects: both
>come from far away. However, the death caused by the
>beef is undoubtedly less than that caused by the
>production of the soybeans.

Then why did you earlier write;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

ipse dixit wrote in message <89ld0014ajb4o7ecnne02t31rn5c0qlinl.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:47:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not>
wrote:
>
>>Saerah wrote:
>
>>> not everyone has access to locally produced grass fed beef.
>>
>>The location of the producer is irrelevant, as I
>>suspect you know. A consumer in NYC trying to follow
>>the least-harm diet, and choosing between (say)
>>soybeans and grass-fed beef, is going to cause harm due
>>to transportation no matter which he selects: both
>>come from far away. However, the death caused by the
>>beef is undoubtedly less than that caused by the
>>production of the soybeans.
>

PLEASE watch your attributions, ok?

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

Saerah wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote in message
>
>>Saerah wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>I don't know where you're reading the thread, given the
>>excessive number of newsgroups to which the original
>>poster, "Allyb", posted initially. Rick and I both
>>follow talk.politics.animals (I also follow misc.rural,
>>so like Yossarian in "Catch-22", I see everything
>>twice.) T.p.a. is crawling with "vegans" who exhibit
>>the offensive traits I stated above. I don't just mean
>>they are deluded; I mean they aggressively display
>>their sanctimony and illogic in attacking meat eaters.
>>
>
>
> im reading this in misc.rural . i also read alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.
>
>
>>It's important you understand this: I am not trying to
>>get anyone to eat meat. What I am doing is disabusing
>>dishonest, hypocritical, sanctimonious "vegans" of
>>their delusions. I am telling them that they are
>>achieving *neither* the practical results (fewer animal
>>deaths) nor the exalted moral status they think they
>>are, based on ONLY refraining from eating meat. The
>>example of grass-fed beef, and how it might substitute
>>for some higher-death foods they eat, is intended only
>>as a heuristic. It works; or I should say, it *would*
>>work, if "vegans" weren't so blinded by their
>>dishonesty and sanctimony.
>>
>>
>>>not everyone has access to locally produced grass fed beef.
>>
>>The location of the producer is irrelevant, as I
>>suspect you know. A consumer in NYC trying to follow
>>the least-harm diet, and choosing between (say)
>>soybeans and grass-fed beef, is going to cause harm due
>>to transportation no matter which he selects: both
>>come from far away. However, the death caused by the
>>beef is undoubtedly less than that caused by the
>>production of the soybeans. Even if you challenge my
>>assumption that it is "undoubtedly" less, the
>>possibility remains that it *could* be less; but if the
>>NYC consumer is a "vegan", and categorically rejects
>>the beef, then he clearly is *not* motivated by an
>>honest desire to follow the least-harm diet, as he
>>piously proclaims.
>>
>>Are you beginning to get it, now?
>>
>
>
> i guess, but you sure arent going to convince anyone of the obvous flaws in
> their arguments by using the most offensive (to them at least) rhetoric you
> can.

Letting them know they're exposed is good enough. I
don't really expect them to come around; I have several
years of experience with them in t.p.a. and a.a.e.v.,
and they not only are delusional, they are WILLFULLY
delusional: stupid by choice.

> you arent accomplishing anything by convincing an ethical vegetarian
> that all meat eating people will defend their right to eat meat by any means
> they can.

That's not what I'm attempting to do. Specifically, I
am not defending meat eating (this is key), and I am
not using any means I can. I am showing that THEIR
condemnation of meat eating is fatally flawed
logically, and based on an ugly sentiment: sanctimony.
I am only employing one means: rigorous logic.

> unless you can play the numbers game, which y'all refuse to do,

With good reason: it's a stupid, irrelevant game;
"winning" the game does not validate the "vegan's"
position or claim.

Let's look again at what "vegans" claim. They all
begin by claiming they aren't causing *any* animal
death, by virtue of not consuming any animal parts.
This false claim is easily disposed of, and any "vegan"
who sticks around here more than a few days quietly
drops it.

Their fallback position, however, is no better. The
fallback claim is that they are, SOLELY as a result of
not consuming animal parts, either a) "minimizing", or
b) reducing (as much as they can) their animal death
toll. This is where the grass-fed beef example comes
in, very usefully.

You may or may not have seen me make another crushing
blow against them. It doesn't rely on introducing meat
into the debate at all. Let's assume some lying,
hypocritical, sanctimonious "vegan" (we can henceforth
dispense with the adjectives in the discussion, as they
are not in dispute) claims to be "minimizing" her death
toll, and let's also assume she includes rice in her
diet. It is laughably easy to show that, by
substituting some less lethally produced alternative
grain for the rice, she could reduce her death toll
still further. What have we accomplished? We have
shown that the "vegan":

a) wasn't "minimizing"
b) didn't care to ensure that her claim was well
thought out
c) was, instead, following a stupid consumption rule -
"don't consume animal parts" - that is logically
IRRELEVANT to minimizing the death toll

In terms of destroying the moral and political basis
for "veganism", I think that's quite an accomplishment.

> youarent proving anything other than that *you* are convinced that you are
> right, no matter what.

No, emphatically NOT "no matter what"; rather, based on
compelling logic.

Please be clear on what my claims and position are. I
am *not* defending meat eating, at least certainly not
directly. Rather, I am attacking the shoddy logic
behind "veganism", and the bogus moral position
"vegans" claim to occupy. I do this by pointing out
that following their inadequate consumption rule, which
is ALL that practically distinguishes "vegans" from the
rest of us in terms of their market behavior, does not
lead them to where they claim it does, either in terms
of practical results or moral stature.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:27:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.DeleteThis@whitehouse.not>
wrote:
>
>>Saerah wrote:
>>
>>Let's look again at what "vegans" claim. They all
>>begin by claiming they aren't causing *any* animal
>>death, by virtue of not consuming any animal parts.
>

i didnt say that. watch your quotes.

<snip to end>
--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:13:57 -0500, "Saerah" <anisaerah RemoveThis @worldlinkisp.com> wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:27:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not>wrote:
>>>
>>>Let's look again at what "vegans" claim. They all
>>>begin by claiming they aren't causing *any* animal
>>>death, by virtue of not consuming any animal parts.
>>
>
>i didnt say that. watch your quotes.
>
You've responded to my post but directed your
comment at Jonathan Ball. I've not claimed
you made any quotes, Saerah.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

"ipse dixit" <nospam.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in message
news:74qd00dv8t8qlc35o4e7e69rb24amet8qf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:13:57 -0500, "Saerah" <anisaerah.TakeThisOut@worldlinkisp.com>
wrote:
> >ipse dixit wrote in message ...
> >>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:27:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball
<jonball.TakeThisOut@whitehouse.not>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Let's look again at what "vegans" claim. They all
> >>>begin by claiming they aren't causing *any* animal
> >>>death, by virtue of not consuming any animal parts.
> >>
> >
> >i didnt say that. watch your quotes.
> >
> You've responded to my post but directed your
> comment at Jonathan Ball. I've not claimed
> you made any quotes, Saerah.


See, your dishonest snipping is catching up to you. The way you posted,
you are saying this was hers.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice