On Nov 1, 5:17*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> Your GOAL is to do nothing. Were you unaware of that?
>
> >> >It's nonsense.
>
> >> It's another fact that you don't like, but it's obviously true.
>
> >Actually, it's obviously complete nonsense... to any person of normal
> >cognitive ability.
>
> * * By deliberately avoiding animal products you are trying NOT TO have an
> influence.

I've explained the motivation for avoiding animal products many times.
It's to reduce the amount of suffering that takes place. This really
shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

> You can't trick me into believing that's not the case either, even if
> you truly are gullible enough to have somehow been tricked into believing it's
> not yourself. How were you, if you were?
>
> >> But! If you
> >> want to pretend you're doing something to help some livestock with your
> >> lifestyle, then what livestock do you think it's helping and how do you think it
> >> helps? And btw encouraging other people to go vegan and do nothing is NOT an
> >> example of you doing something, even when the people you encourage don't do as
> >> you suggest. Now if you suggested that people who buy cage raised eggs buy cage
> >> free THEN you would be doing something, but NOT when you encourage vaganism.
>
> >Going vegan is taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering
> >experienced by farm animals.
>

This is correct.

> * * It's an attempt to do nothing in regards to farm animals, and you can't even
> pretend that it's not an attempt to do nothing. You do no more than people do
> when they die. Less actually, since you still make plenty of contributions to
> animal deaths with the by-products you contribute to, and the veggies you eat.
>
> >So is donating money to organizations
> >which encourage other people to be vegan.
>

So is this.

> * * By doing that you encourage other people to do nothing LIKE YOU. It's only
> when they DO NOT do what you encourage that they would possibly buy cage free
> eggs. It seems even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to figure that one
> out.
>
> >> >> If not, you should
> >> >> become aware of it. Here's a clue for you: People who want to help livestock
> >> >> with their lifestyle become conscientious consumers of animal products. People
> >> >> who want to do nothing for livestock with their lifestyles avoid animals
> >> >> products instead. That's a basic you should really learn to comprehend, and if
> >> >> you don't like your position then you should move on to a more AW approach as
> >> >> I've been encourageing you to do for years.
>
> >> >Taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by
> >> >livestock is not "doing nothing" for livestock.
>
> >> Vegans do no more than dead people, so maybe we should try to persuade
> >> ourselves to believe dead people help livestock?
>
> >Dead people don't perform any actions.
>
> * * You don't perform any actions that contribute to better or decent lives for
> livestock with your lifestyle,

I've made a change in my lifestyle which reduces my contribution to
the amount of suffering that livestock experience.

> but only to the deaths of wildlife. IF you make
> financial contributions deliberately to help livestock, tell us what kind you
> make and why you contribute to them through donations while deliberately
> avoiding contributing to them with your lifestlyle.
>
> >> Maybe you should since they
> >> "help" them as much as you do, but I won't be fooled into it. They don't, just
> >> as vegans don't.
>
> >> >> >> >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from
> >> >> >> >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.
>
> >> >> >> LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging
> >> >> >> veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid
> >> >> >> enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately
> >> >> >> dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY kind of
> >> >> >> egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely?
>
> >> >> >Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages
> >> >> >people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism..
>
> >> >> I'm in favor of that INSTEAD OF full veganism, not as a lame step in that
> >> >> direction. Why go from contributing to decent conditions for livestock to doing
> >> >> nothing, and do it deliberately???
>
> >> >The rationale for going completely vegan is that it is the best way to
> >> >reduce suffering.
>
> >> That's a matter of opinion. There's nothing wrong with the opinion that
> >> contributing to decent lives for livestock might be as good or better an
> >> approach than doing nothing.
>
> >You would need to be specific about the approach you would take, and
> >provide evidence that it is as good or better than being vegan.
>
> * * Buying grass raised dairy and even grain fed contributes to fewer deaths
> than buying rice milk imo, since cattle don't flood and drain fields nor do
> farmers in order to raise cattle....unless they feed them rice of course. Also
> buying grass raised beef over buying tofu, and buying wild caught seafood over
> tofu because the beef contributes to far less than one death per serving and the
> seafood to one death or less per serving, while the tofu is likely to contribute
> to several deaths per serving.

We've been through this before. It's 0.001 deaths per serving, where
by "serving" we mean something that gives you the daily requirement of
protein.

You haven't provided conclusive evidence that these changes you
suggest would be improvements.

> Also it's very good to contribute to the cage
> free method of egg production in the USA imo, which means it's better than NOT!

Why?

> Those are some ways. So from my pov encouraging someone to buy cage free eggs is
> admirable, while encouraging them to go vegan and do nothing is pathetic.
>

And why do you think that?

> >> >> >> >> >> And from the
> >> >> >> >> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
> >> >> >> >> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
> >> >> >> >> >> the cost could never enter into it.
>
> >> >> >> >> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
> >> >> >> >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
> >> >> >> >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
> >> >> >> >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
> >> >> >> >> >most economically efficient way possible.
>
> >> >> >> >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent
> >> >> >> >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in
> >> >> >> >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of
> >> >> >> >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.
>
> >> >> >> >And why would that be, exactly?
>
> >> >> >> Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at
> >> >> >> all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does. That
> >> >> >> one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out.
>
> >> >> >You're a fool.
>
> >> >> You're the fool for being unable to appreciate it even after it has been
> >> >> pointed out for you. It's your cognitive dissonance again IF you really can't
> >> >> comprehend, trying to protect you from facts you don't want to believe even
> >> >> though from my position they are so absurd as to be unbelievable.
>
> >> >If I decided that I wanted to "contribute to decent lives for
> >> >livestock", I would have to weigh up any opportunity costs of doing
> >> >so, in particular opportunity costs that would prevent me from making
> >> >the outcome better in other ways. Such considerations clearly *do*
> >> >"enter into it". You are a fool for thinking otherwise.
>
> >> Apparently there's no condition in which you can comprehend that it might be
> >> better to contribute to decent lives for livestock than to do nothing, making
> >> you very much the fool from my position. In part that's because such a
> >> restriction necessarily makes you unable to distinguish between which lives
> >> would be worth contributing to and which not, since you feel that none are.
>
> >You're an idiot.
>
> * * What I said is true.

No.

> If your brain interpreted it as "idiocy" then it's your
> cognitive dissonance AGAIN trying to protect your feeble mind from FACTS that
> are in conflict with what it WANTS TO believe.

No, actually, it was just a common-sense observation: you're an idiot.

> Notice also that you can't even
> pretend that I'm wrong, because I'm not. So you again come up as the fool, and
> also the idiot.>> >> >> >> So far it still appears that you
> >> >> >> >> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could
> >> >> >> >> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the
> >> >> >> >> subject to humans and away from livestock.
>
> >> >> >> >You're an idiot.
>
> >> >> >> What I said is a fact and IF you can't appreciate it that means YOU are the
> >> >> >> idiot, not me for presenting it.
>
> >> >> >What you said is laughable nonsense.
>
> >> >> It's a fact you can't refute, but which you apparently hate and wish that
> >> >> you could.
>
> >> >It's obvious nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for
> >> >thinking I hate livestock, just because I take into account the
> >> >interests of other beings as well. Do *you* hate livestock? If not,
> >> >then why don't you yourself put into practice the plan that you
> >> >suggest?
>
> >> A number of reasons but one is that I feel regular grain fed beef cattle in
> >> general have lives I shouldn't be ashamed to contribute to.