Goonius wrote:
>>There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
>>for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
>>asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
>>and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
>>dietary response does not address the problem.
>>
>>You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
>>being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
>>
>>Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
>>responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
>>you are lying and being evasive?
>
>
> I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
> pry from James.
The bullshit you squeeze out below has nothing to do
with what I was asking of James. You're an idiot.
>
> Let's start with the facts:
>
> The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> 38,000 children die of starvation each day. If we were to do away with
> the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> feed 1,300,000,000 people. That's more than the entire population of
> the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> population of this country alone nearly four times over.
Sorry; not facts. Not even close to facts. You
exhibit the typical appalling ignorance of world hunger
that most "vegans" do. I'm not surprised
First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
considered edible by humans. Cattle, the biggest
consumers, are fed something called "dent" corn. You
wouldn't eat it, ever. It's true that the resources
used to produce the feed grain would be freed up, but
that's different from what you wrote. What you wrote
is false, period.
Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
"causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.
>
> But here is your pedestal of sorts:
>
>
>>>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
>>>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
>>>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
>>>>>
>>>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have
>>>>>never considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from
>>>>>agriculture.
>
>>>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
>>>
>>>How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on here?!
>>
>>It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with
>>such information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
>>superiority despite the evidence against them.
>
>
> And granted I can't dispute that.
Then you're finished. Well, I see you're going to try
to explain it away; I suppose civility demands I read
it, but I know I'm not going to learn anything.
> No matter how we live we're going to
> inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
> Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> which is done by the meat industry alone.
A meat consumer need not eat any commercially produced
meat. Remember what it is we're addressing; you seem
to have forgotten. We're addressing the "vegan's"
****witted belief that excluding meat from his diet,
all by itself, is *necessarily* going to mean he's
doing more to reduce animal death and suffering than
ANYONE who consumes a meat-included diet.
Remember: we're not playing a counting game. The
"vegan" says he's (in order of the lies they tell):
a. not causing any animal death and suffering;
b. "minimizing" animal death and suffering;
c. "reducing" animal death and suffering.
Each claim is weaker than the one that precedes it, and
all are false.
>
> Consider this:
>
> - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by human beings: 20
> - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by livestock: 80
Not the same corn.
> - Percentage of soy grown in United States eaten by livestock: 90
So?
> - Percentage of oats grown in United States eaten by livestock: 95
So?
> - Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
It isn't wasted. It's an input used to produce an
output that people want to buy and consume.
> - Percentage of carbohydrate wasted by cycling grain through
> livestock: 99
Same.
> - Percentage of dietary fiber wasted by cycling grain through
> livestock: 100
Same.
> - Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on 1 acre of land: 20,000
Irrelevant. There's plenty of land to grow potatoes in
addition to the grain fed to livestock. Why aren't
potatoes being grown and shipped to starving people
today, presumably for free?
[snip remaining meaningless and irrelevant
"statistics", many of which are bogus, but leave:]
> - The driving force behind the destruction of the tropical
> rainforests: American meat habit
Bullshit. Do some real research. All you've done is
read some bullshit off a webpage, which copied it from
another webpage, which copied it... It's all crap
spewed by ignorant activists, and it's all shit.
> - Amount of meat imported annually by U.S. from Costa Rica, El
> Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama: 200,000,000
> pounds
You're a ****ing liar. Look at the official charts, up
through 2002:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cattle/Trade.htm.
Look at the chart "U.S. beef imports", about halfway
down the page. A precise number isn't given, but it is
perfectly obvious that the amount of beef imported from
Central America doesn't amount even to 100 million
pounds. Meanwhile, beef imports from Australia and
Canada *each* are over 1 BILLION pounds, and another
600 million from New Zealand.
Furthermore, NO fresh beef is imported from Central
America, as foot-and-mouth disease is rampant.
Now look at the similar chart for pork, at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Hogs/trade.htm. In
2001, the latest year for which data are available,
"all others", which would include Central America,
didn't even amount to 50 million pounds of imports.
Now look at the page for poultry, at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Poultry/trade.htm.
Again, the last year for which data are available is
2001. We see that the U.S. imported negligible amounts
of poultry meat: 14 million pounds of broiler chicken
products, and about 1 million pounds of turkey
products, almost all of the latter from Canada.
This is what's wrong with this forum. A lying
cocksucker like you can spew out completely bogus
"data", and it takes a responsible, honest person like
me 20-30 minutes to dig up the facts to refute your
bullshit. In a fair world, you'd have to pay me
something for correcting your bullshit. I don't
suppose an apology for lying will be forthcoming, either.
> - Amount of meat eaten by average person in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> - Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama:
> - Less than the average American housecat
Bullshit. You're a liar.
[snip additional inflammatory bullshit]
> So laid out in these simplistic terms
Laid out in these simplistic, SIMPLE-MINDED terms, we
see that you are a polemical liar.
> (and don't worry I won't leave
> you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> considered edible by humans.
>
> I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> it comes down to numbers.
No, it emphatically does not. Not when we're
considering the bullshit ethical claims of "vegans",
which are predicated on a complete ABSENCE of any numbers.
> None of us can, at this point in time
> certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.
Any *given* person at this point in time can clearly
and even relatively easily do much, much better than he
is. Only "vegans" are under any burden to do so,
because they alone have made stupid, false claims about
"minimizing" and so on.
> In fact, I'm highly
> skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
> skepticism is my nature
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! After that credulous posting
of extremist bullshit above?!
> and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
> will come as close as is possible.
You aren't even trying.
[...]