On May 31, 4:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Anybody" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>
> >> oups.com...
>
> >> > > On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> > >> <dh@.> wrote in
> >> > >> messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
> >> > >> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >> > >> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
> >> > >> >>the livestock exist.
>
> >> > >> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
> >> > >> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> >> > >> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> >> > >> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> >> > >> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>
> >> > >> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare.
> >> > >> What
> >> > >> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell
> >> > >> you,
> >> > >> Zero.
>
> >> > > Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare
> >> > > in
> >> > > their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any
> >> > > consideration.
>
> >> > > ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
> >> > > to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
> >> > > eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
> >> > > worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
> >> > > has. No one ever will.
>
> >> > >> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of
> >> > >> ARAs
> >> > >> who
> >> > >> say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
>
> >> > > Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
> >> > > acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...
>
> >> > He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn
> >> > their own
> >> > argument back on them.
>
> >> I told him that back in 1999.
>
> >> > He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
> >> > liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the
> >> > elimination
> >> > of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand
> >> > that
> >> > it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from
> >> > their
> >> > utility, nobody cares.
>
> >> Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.
>
> >> > You're right, by imparting this false importance to
> >> > their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I
> >> > emphasize
> >> > *unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get
> >> > a
> >> > clue in order to be a half-wit.
>
> >> Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.
>
> > When are you and Douche going into your Net-cop routine Goo?
>
> > Surely there must be some spelling felons you're just itchin' to ream
> > out.
>
> Why do you keep changing your nym Ronnie? Nobody cares enough to killfile
> you.



Flags of convenience Douche.







- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> *consumption*.
>
> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> livestock.
>
> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> you're looking at the production of consumer
> electronics, for example, then the output is
> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> television set is going to cost several hundred
> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> than others.
>
> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> higher priced because they use more resources to
> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> devices.
>
> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> I hope this helps.

The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction. Also, we
could feed more people from a given amount of land. That's the sense
of "efficiency" being used. It shouldn't be too obscure. You may argue
that we shouldn't bother to take into account environmental
externalities or the fact that a lot of people are going hungry, but
that's precisely the point at issue. There's no "unbelievably stupid
mistake" involved. I hope this helps.

On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> livestock.
>
> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> consumer demand.
>

No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
not enough internalization of externalities.

> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> could use bicycles.

You've totally missed the point.

> People want meat. As long as the
> meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> matters.
>

Ipse dixit. It should be clear to any reasonably intelligent person
what the intended sense of efficiency is. If you want to argue that
considerations of efficiency in that sense don't matter, then, um,
you've got to do just that, argue the point. Offer the slightest
reason to think that efficiency in that sense doesn't matter. In other
words, actually engage with the argument instead of talking about an
irrelevant sense of "efficiency".


>
>
>
>
> >> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >> substitutable.
>
> > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >> than others.
>
> > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >> produce.
>
> > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >> devices.
>
> >> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >> I hope this helps.
>
> > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On May 31, 7:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > pearl wrote:
> > > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> *consumption*.
>
> > >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > >> livestock.
>
> > > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > consumer demand.
>
> No-one's disputing that.

Yes, stupid "vegans" are. They're bitching that the demand itself is
for "inefficient" things. They're stupid, and they're wrong. Things
cannot be inefficient; the method of production of particular things
can be.


> > Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > could use bicycles.
>
> You've totally missed the point.

No. I absolutely get the point. Stupid "vegans" - you, for example -
think people want "food". That's false.


> > People want meat. As long as the
> > meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> > combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> > matters.
>
> Ipse dixit.

False. That is *the* definition of efficiency, rupie-the-boy.

> > >> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > >> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > >> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > >> you're looking at the production of consumer
> > >> electronics, for example, then the output is
> > >> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > >> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > >> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > >> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > >> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > >> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > >> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > >> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > >> television set is going to cost several hundred
> > >> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > >> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > >> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > >> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> > >> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > >> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > >> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > >> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > >> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > >> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > >> substitutable.
>
> > > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> > >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> > >> As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > >> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > >> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > >> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > >> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > >> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > >> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > >> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > >> than others.
>
> > > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> > >> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > >> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > >> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > >> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > >> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > >> higher priced because they use more resources to
> > >> produce.
>
> > > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> > >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > >> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > >> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > >> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > >> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > >> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> > >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> > >> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > >> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > >> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > >> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > >> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > >> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > >> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > >> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > >> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > >> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > >> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > >> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > >> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > >> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > >> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > >> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > >> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > >> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > >> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > >> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > >> devices.
>
> > >> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > >> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > >> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > >> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > >> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > >> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > >> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > >> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > >> I hope this helps.
>
> > > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> > Yes.

On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > *consumption*.
>
> > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > livestock.
>
> > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > than others.
>
> > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > devices.
>
> > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > I hope this helps.
>
> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.

That's the wrong argument. But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.

On Jun 1, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On May 31, 7:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > > > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > > >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > >> *consumption*.
>
> > > >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > > >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > > >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > > >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > > >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > > >> livestock.
>
> > > > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > > > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > > Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > > another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > > inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > > consumer demand.
>
> > No-one's disputing that.
>
> Yes, stupid "vegans" are. They're bitching that the demand itself is
> for "inefficient" things. They're stupid, and they're wrong. Things
> cannot be inefficient; the method of production of particular things
> can be.
>

They're saying that consumer preferences are having a pernicious
impact on the environment and on the global distribution of food. The
onus is on you to argue that this is false or that we shouldn't be
concerned about these things.

> > > Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > > as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > > could use bicycles.
>
> > You've totally missed the point.
>
> No. I absolutely get the point. Stupid "vegans" - you, for example -
> think people want "food". That's false.
>

Sane people do not dispute the fact that people want food. What you
are really trying to say is that I think that food is homgeneous. This
is not what I think, and I don't think anyone else thinks it either.
The argument is that meat production has effects which are
undesirable. The onus is on you to argue that these effects don't
really happen, or that they're not really undesirable. You haven't
made the slightest attempt to do that, so you haven't really engaged
with the argument.

> > > People want meat. As long as the
> > > meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> > > combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> > > matters.
>
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> False.

It's clearly true. You offered no argument.

>That is *the* definition of efficiency, rupie-the-boy.
>

The onus is on you to show that the considerations raised by the
argument you are attacking "don't matter". You haven't made the
slightest attempt to do this.

On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > *consumption*.
>
> > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > > livestock.
>
> > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > > than others.
>
> > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > > devices.
>
> > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > > I hope this helps.
>
> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> That's the wrong argument.

Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.

> But it figures that's the one a stupid,
> over-reaching **** like you would try to make.

I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
thread, I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
number of people.

The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
amusing. However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
adhere to reasonable rules of civility.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

[..]
>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>
> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction. Also, we
> could feed more people from a given amount of land. That's the sense
> of "efficiency" being used. It shouldn't be too obscure. You may argue
> that we shouldn't bother to take into account environmental
> externalities or the fact that a lot of people are going hungry, but
> that's precisely the point at issue. There's no "unbelievably stupid
> mistake" involved. I hope this helps.

Why am I not surprised that the whole thing went right over your head?

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>
>> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>
>> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> >> *consumption*.
>>
>> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> >> livestock.
>>
>> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>
>> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>
>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>> consumer demand.
>>
>
> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> not enough internalization of externalities.
>
>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>> could use bicycles.
>
> You've totally missed the point.

No, you have. He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen. This is
clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in symbiosis,
and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to produce.
An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.

On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> >> livestock.
>
> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> >> consumer demand.
>
> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >> could use bicycles.
>
> > You've totally missed the point.
>
> No, you have.

Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
he gives.

> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.

No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
constitutes efficiency.

> This is
> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in symbiosis,
> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to produce.
> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>

All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
argument.

> - Show quoted text -

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>> > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> > > *consumption*.
>>
>> > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> > > livestock.
>>
>> > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>> > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
>> > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>> > > you're looking at the production of consumer
>> > > electronics, for example, then the output is
>> > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>> > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>> > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>> > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
>> > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>> > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>> > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>> > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>> > > television set is going to cost several hundred
>> > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>> > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>> > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
>> > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>
>> > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>> > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>> > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
>> > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>> > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>> > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>> > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>> > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>> > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>> > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>> > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>> > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>> > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>> > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>> > > than others.
>>
>> > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>> > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>> > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>> > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>> > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>> > > higher priced because they use more resources to
>> > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>> > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>> > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>> > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>> > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>> > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>
>> > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>> > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>> > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>> > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>> > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>> > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>> > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>> > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>> > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>> > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>> > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>> > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>> > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>> > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>
>> > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>> > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>> > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>> > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>> > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>> > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>> > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>> > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>> > > devices.
>>
>> > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>> > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>> > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>> > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>> > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>> > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>> > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>> > > meat production falls to the ground.
>>
>> > > I hope this helps.
>>
>> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
>> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.

Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?

Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental destruction
than plants, this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat. The
truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined soapbox
for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.

>> That's the wrong argument.
>
> Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
> is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
> haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.

He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero. And now
you're demanding HE offer reasons?? You have nerve, if nothing else.

>> But it figures that's the one a stupid,
>> over-reaching **** like you would try to make.
>
> I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
> thread,

Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to implied
arguments allegedly made by other people. Then you have the gall to demand
that others support their arguments.

> I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
> engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
> number of people.

Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.

> The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
> amusing.

I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too? You project this
attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns to
grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
ain't half as smart as you think you are.

> However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
> adhere to reasonable rules of civility.

Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe, but unecessary,
you won't reply to any of his points anyway, you never do. You just posture
and bluff until we lose patience with you then you play the victim.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> pearl wrote:
>> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>
>> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>
>> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> >> >> *consumption*.
>>
>> >> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> >> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> >> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> >> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> >> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> >> >> livestock.
>>
>> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>
>> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>
>> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>> >> consumer demand.
>>
>> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>>
>> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>> >> could use bicycles.
>>
>> > You've totally missed the point.
>>
>> No, you have.
>
> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> he gives.
>
>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> constitutes efficiency.
>
>> This is
>> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
>> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
>> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
>> symbiosis,
>> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
>> produce.
>> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
>> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
> argument.

No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency, and
the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency is a
cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.

On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> pearl wrote:
> >> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> >> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> >> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> >> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> >> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> >> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> >> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> >> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> >> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> >> >> livestock.
>
> >> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> >> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> >> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> >> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> >> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> >> >> consumer demand.
>
> >> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> >> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> >> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> >> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >> >> could use bicycles.
>
> >> > You've totally missed the point.
>
> >> No, you have.
>
> > Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> > he gives.
>
> >> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> >> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> > No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> > constitutes efficiency.
>
> >> This is
> >> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
> >> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
> >> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
> >> symbiosis,
> >> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
> >> produce.
> >> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
> >> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
> > argument.
>
> No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency, and
> the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency is a
> cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.

What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.

It's a completely different approach to Jon's. Jon is rejecting the
conception of "efficiency" on which the argument is based.

On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >> > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >> > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> > > *consumption*.
>
> >> > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> > > livestock.
>
> >> > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >> > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >> > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >> > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> >> > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> >> > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >> > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >> > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >> > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >> > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >> > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >> > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >> > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >> > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> >> > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >> > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >> > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >> > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> >> > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >> > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >> > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >> > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >> > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >> > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >> > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >> > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >> > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >> > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >> > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >> > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >> > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >> > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >> > > than others.
>
> >> > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >> > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >> > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >> > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >> > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >> > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> >> > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >> > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >> > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >> > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >> > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >> > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> >> > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >> > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >> > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >> > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >> > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >> > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >> > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >> > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >> > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >> > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >> > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >> > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >> > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >> > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >> > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >> > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >> > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >> > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >> > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >> > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >> > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >> > > devices.
>
> >> > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >> > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >> > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >> > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >> > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >> > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >> > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >> > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >> > > I hope this helps.
>
> >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>

Poor you.

I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it, that seems very
unlikely to me if you took reasonable efforts to plan your diet in a
sensible way.

If you really couldn't find any vegan food that you found tasty, well,
doesn't life suck. I've never met any other vegans with that problem.
Does that fact justify you in eating factory-farmed meat? Well, you
can have a go at justifying that if you like, that goes beyond what I
was discussing in my post.

> Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental destruction
> than plants,

No. They argue that this is almost always true, which is undeniable.

> this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
> truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
> simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat.

Give some examples.


> The
> truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined soapbox
> for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.
>

The environmental argument for veganism is basically correct. A
typical vegan diet causes much less environmental damage than a
typical meat-eater's diet. Yes, there are some complexities. You know
perfectly well that I acknowledge those complexities, yet for some
reason you choose to ignore that fact. There are many different
arguments for veganism, perhaps they do not suffice to exclude every
conceivable non-vegan diet. If you want to berate people for not
acknowledging that fact, you should be talking to people other than
me.


> >> That's the wrong argument.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
> > is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
> > haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>
> He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
> to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.

Er, actually, no. I've explained why the argument which he's
addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes. When you say
"he's claiming that it's the wrong argument" you're just repeating
what he said, you're not doing much to clarify his point. Is he
claiming that that's not the argument he was talking about? Well,
fine, but then the onus is on him to show why anyone should be
interested in his refutation of the argument he was talking about,
i.e. that it isn't just a straw man he made up. Or if he's claiming
that the argument is flawed, then again the onus is on him to show
that. However that may be, he's done absolutely nothing to cast any
doubt on this argument.


> And now
> you're demanding HE offer reasons??

Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
argument.

> You have nerve, if nothing else.
>

Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
you like? The issue is whether the benefits to the environment
achieved by going vegan are such as to provide rational motivation for
a concerned individual to go vegan. That's what the argument is about.
You want to try and argue against this, go ahead.

> >> But it figures that's the one a stupid,
> >> over-reaching **** like you would try to make.
>
> > I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
> > thread,
>
> Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to implied
> arguments allegedly made by other people.

What I'm saying is that Jon's babbling does not bear on any "pro-
vegan" argument anyone has actually made. Since he obviously believes
he has undermined a popular argument for veganism that is a relevant
point.

> Then you have the gall to demand
> that others support their arguments.
>

Get a life.

> > I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
> > engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
> > number of people.
>
> Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
> some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.
>

God help me, Dutch, you are so ****ing stupid. Jon thinks he's made an
objection to a widely promoted argument for veganism. He hasn't, and I
was pointing out this fact. Very simple. No impertinence involved.

> > The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
> > amusing.
>
> I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too?

Yes, I find it absolutely hysterical.

> You project this
> attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns to
> grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
> ain't half as smart as you think you are.
>

Well, not that this has anything to do with finding it ironic that
Ball calls me "stupid" and "over-reaching", but actually, I'm afraid I
am. I've spent a lot more time studying moral philosophy and thinking
about these issues than any of you antis have. I've got a much better
insight into the arguments than you do. I know you don't recognize
that, well, that's fine by me. I don't need any validation from you.
I'm still happy to engage with you as long as you remain reasonably
civil.

> > However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
> > adhere to reasonable rules of civility.
>
> Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe,

Get a life, you stupid twit.

On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >> > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >> > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> > > *consumption*.
>
> >> > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> > > livestock.
>
> >> > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >> > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >> > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >> > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> >> > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> >> > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >> > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >> > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >> > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >> > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >> > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >> > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >> > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >> > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> >> > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >> > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >> > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >> > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> >> > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >> > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >> > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >> > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >> > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >> > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >> > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >> > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >> > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >> > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >> > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >> > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >> > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >> > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >> > > than others.
>
> >> > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >> > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >> > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >> > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >> > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >> > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> >> > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >> > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >> > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >> > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >> > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >> > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> >> > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >> > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >> > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >> > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >> > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >> > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >> > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >> > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >> > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >> > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >> > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >> > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >> > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >> > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >> > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >> > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >> > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >> > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >> > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >> > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >> > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >> > > devices.
>
> >> > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >> > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >> > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >> > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >> > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >> > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >> > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >> > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >> > > I hope this helps.
>
> >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>
> Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental destruction
> than plants, this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
> truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
> simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat. The
> truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined soapbox
> for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.
>
> >> That's the wrong argument.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
> > is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
> > haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>
> He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
> to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero. And now
> you're demanding HE offer reasons?? You have nerve, if nothing else.
>
> >> But it figures that's the one a stupid,
> >> over-reaching **** like you would try to make.
>
> > I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
> > thread,
>
> Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to implied
> arguments allegedly made by other people. Then you have the gall to demand
> that others support their arguments.
>
> > I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
> > engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
> > number of people.
>
> Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
> some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.
>
> > The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
> > amusing.
>
> I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too? You project this
> attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns to
> grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
> ain't half as smart as you think you are.
>

Okay, let's just say for the sake of argument that I've got an over-
inflated idea about my level of insight into moral philosophy. Well,
there it is. We know what I think about it and we know what you think
about it. What of it? I'm here to discuss issues in animal ethics, not
to discuss my failings as a person. You want to set up a forum about
what a contemptible individual Rupert McCallum is, go ahead. This
forum is about animal ethics.

> > However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
> > adhere to reasonable rules of civility.
>
> Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe, but unecessary,
> you won't reply to any of his points anyway, you never do. You just posture
> and bluff until we lose patience with you then you play the victim.-

I made some perfectly reasonable comments about Jon's arguments, and
predictably, he immediately resorted to personal abuse. Which
basically means he's lost the argument. As always. It's not about
playing the victim. It's just that I've decided that I don't choose to
engage with people who want to argue about their opponents rather than
about the issues. Which goes for you too. Stick to addressing the
points I've made about Jon's arguments, not to commenting on my merits
as a person. Otherwise I won't bother responding.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> roups.com...
>>
>> >> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >> pearl wrote:
>> >> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> >> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>
>> >> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>
>> >> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> >> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> >> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> >> >> >> *consumption*.
>>
>> >> >> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> >> >> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> >> >> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> >> >> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> >> >> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> >> >> >> livestock.
>>
>> >> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>> >> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>> >> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>> >> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>> >> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>> >> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>
>> >> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>> >> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>> >> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>> >> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>> >> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>> >> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>> >> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>> >> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>> >> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>> >> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>
>> >> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>> >> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>> >> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>> >> >> consumer demand.
>>
>> >> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>> >> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>> >> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>>
>> >> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>> >> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>> >> >> could use bicycles.
>>
>> >> > You've totally missed the point.
>>
>> >> No, you have.
>>
>> > Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>> > he gives.
>>
>> >> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>> >> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>
>> > No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>> > constitutes efficiency.
>>
>> >> This is
>> >> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which
>> >> are
>> >> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more
>> >> complex
>> >> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
>> >> symbiosis,
>> >> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
>> >> produce.
>> >> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
>> >> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
>> > argument.
>>
>> No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency,
>> and
>> the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency
>> is a
>> cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
> accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
> of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
> them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
> account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
> foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.
>
> What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
> arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
> for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
> efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
> adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
> out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.

What I am saying is that when advocates of veganism point out that consuming
plants is more efficient from a strict calorie-conversion point of view than
consuming animals, then extrapolate that to conclude that we should never
consume animals, they are perpetrating a hoax. Nobody lives their lives
according to strict caloric efficiencies, if they did then they would have a
much more complex and difficult job than simply avoiding animal products.

>
> It's a completely different approach to Jon's. Jon is rejecting the
> conception of "efficiency" on which the argument is based.

It's not a completely different approach, his was simply more thorough. The
essence of his argument is that efficiency in the sense of choosing the food
that causes the least environmental damage is not followed by vegans,
because avoiding meat and other animal products in and of itself does not do
that, and that is essentially all vegans do. That is also the point I made.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]

>> >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
>> >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>
>> Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>>
>
> Poor you.

Why poor me? I eat a delicious and varied diet. I am extremely fortunate to
have the resources and opportunity to have access to the very best food
available

> I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it, that seems very
> unlikely to me if you took reasonable efforts to plan your diet in a
> sensible way.

You don't know everything, despite what you think. I followed a vegetarian
diet for many years, eventually it stopped serving my needs, and I did plan
it well. Humans have relied on meat as a source of nutrition since our
species evolved, why is it so difficult to believe that some people cannot
thrive without it at all times of their life?

> If you really couldn't find any vegan food that you found tasty, well,
> doesn't life suck.

Not at all, fortunately I am not hogtied by some irrational eating disorder
that controls my eating habits.

> I've never met any other vegans with that problem.

None that would admit it you mean.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

> Does that fact justify you in eating factory-farmed meat?

Oooo the big boogie-man "factory-farmed meat"! You forget that not everyone
cringes in horror when you utter that phrase.

> Well, you
> can have a go at justifying that if you like, that goes beyond what I
> was discussing in my post.

How do you know I eat factory farmed meat? I have said to you that I can
justify it, just as you can justify eating conventional commercially grown
produce. That doesn't mean I do.

>
>> Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental
>> destruction
>> than plants,
>
> No. They argue that this is almost always true, which is undeniable.

No they don't argue almost, they're not the paragons of reason you portray.
Most vegans here say that it is cruel and horrible to kill animals to eat
their flesh. It is like a religious belief.

>> this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
>> truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
>> simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat.
>
> Give some examples.

Surely I don't need to. The basic hard truths about conventional agriculture
are synthetic nitrogen, herbicides and pesticides, which strip the life out
of the food and the soil and pollute the water. Not to mention the
collateral killing of animals and exploitation of cheap immigrant labour.
Contrast this horror show with the raising of organic free-range livestock
in conjunction with plant foods in a symbiosis, as is done in some places.

>> The
>> truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined
>> soapbox
>> for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.
>>
>
> The environmental argument for veganism is basically correct.

No it's not, it's simplistic and basically misleading and dishonest.

A
> typical vegan diet causes much less environmental damage than a
> typical meat-eater's diet.

That's what I mean by dishonest. A person's morals are not based on
averaging, they are based on how well they adhere to principles which they
claim to believe in. The claim you just made nobody would disagree with, but
that is NOT the claim vegans make, they claim that is WRONG to kill animals
to eat their flesh. It is a visceral aversion to that act which they express
like a religious belief.

> Yes, there are some complexities. You know
> perfectly well that I acknowledge those complexities, yet for some
> reason you choose to ignore that fact.

You don't talk like you acknowledge them, you wave your hand at them and pay
them lip service.

>There are many different
> arguments for veganism, perhaps they do not suffice to exclude every
> conceivable non-vegan diet. If you want to berate people for not
> acknowledging that fact, you should be talking to people other than
> me.

There are no valid arguments for veganism, it's corrupt and should be
rejected by any thinking person. If people want to follow strict vegetarian
diets that is a different thing.

>> >> That's the wrong argument.
>>
>> > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
>> > is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
>> > haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>>
>> He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable
>> effort
>> to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.
>
> Er, actually, no. I've explained why the argument which he's
> addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.

You didn't explain anything, you asserted it.

When you say
> "he's claiming that it's the wrong argument" you're just repeating
> what he said, you're not doing much to clarify his point. Is he
> claiming that that's not the argument he was talking about? Well,
> fine, but then the onus is on him to show why anyone should be
> interested in his refutation of the argument he was talking about,
> i.e. that it isn't just a straw man he made up. Or if he's claiming
> that the argument is flawed, then again the onus is on him to show
> that. However that may be, he's done absolutely nothing to cast any
> doubt on this argument.

Did you even read what he wrote?


>> And now
>> you're demanding HE offer reasons??
>
> Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
> argument.
>
>> You have nerve, if nothing else.
>>
>
> Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
> think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
> pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
> you like?

I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you little
shit, not pitiful whinging.

The issue is whether the benefits to the environment
> achieved by going vegan are such as to provide rational motivation for
> a concerned individual to go vegan. That's what the argument is about.
> You want to try and argue against this, go ahead.

I could argue that you should only eat broccoli and tomatoes and nothing
else or something like that because that would arguably cause less
enviromental damage than the diet you advocate. I could argue that any
concerned indivdual should do that. What is your argument against that and
how is different than my argument against veganism?

>> >> But it figures that's the one a stupid,
>> >> over-reaching **** like you would try to make.
>>
>> > I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
>> > thread,
>>
>> Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to
>> implied
>> arguments allegedly made by other people.
>
> What I'm saying is that Jon's babbling does not bear on any "pro-
> vegan" argument anyone has actually made. Since he obviously believes
> he has undermined a popular argument for veganism that is a relevant
> point.

Well you're mistaken, the bogus efficiency argument comes up all the time.

>
>> Then you have the gall to demand
>> that others support their arguments.
>>
>
> Get a life.

Get more orginal lines.

>> > I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
>> > engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
>> > number of people.
>>
>> Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
>> some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.
>>
>
> God help me, Dutch, you are so ****ing stupid. Jon thinks he's made an
> objection to a widely promoted argument for veganism. He hasn't, and I
> was pointing out this fact. Very simple. No impertinence involved.

Yes he has, we hear it here constantly in one form or another, at least once
a week.

I Googled "Arguments for vegetarianism" and the first hit was this
http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Ste...etarianism.htm

And here is the text that follows right after the introduction

----------------------------------------------
The Arguments for Vegetarianism

A. The Argument from Distributive Justice

This first argument was advanced as early as 1971 by Frances
Moore Lappé,[v] and has been repeated by such philosophers as Peter
Singer,[vi] James Rachels,[vii] Stephen R. L. Clark,[viii] and Mary
Midgley,[ix] and mentioned in passing by still others.[x] The argument can
be reconstructed as follows:


1. 16 to 21 lbs. of grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of beef. 6
to 8 lbs. of grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of pork. 4 lbs. of
grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of turkey meat. 3 lbs. of grain
and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of chicken meat.[xi]

2. Therefore, converting grain and soy to meat is a very wasteful means of
producing food. [From 1]

3. Every day millions of human beings in the world suffer and die from
lack of sufficient grains and legumes for a minimally decent diet.

4. By choosing to eat meat when sufficient grains and vegetables are
available for a healthy diet for oneself, one participates in and
perpetuates a very wasteful means of producing food.

5. If one eats meat knowing 3 and 4, then one endorses a very wasteful
means of producing food, and shows an insensitivity to malnourished and
starving human beings.

6. By knowingly participating in and perpetuating a very wasteful means of
producing food, the meat-eater shows a selfish refusal to share with
starving human beings food that could have been made available to them, and
thereby shows disregard for the principle of distributive justice.

7. Developing nations mimic the dietary habits of Americans, and
Americans are setting a harmful, irresponsible example by wasting grain to
produce and consume meat.

8. Therefore, members of affluent nations ought to adopt vegetarian diets
and boycott meat so as not to be implicated in the wasteful and unjust
system of meat production, and to show concern for the welfare of
unfortunate human beings.

Basically, the idea here is that eating meat perpetuates a system which
indirectly harms other human beings. Therefore, to choose to be a part of
this system indicates a disregard for those people, and this in effect
contaminates one's moral character.
---------------------------------------------

Essentially the efficiency argument he dismantled.


>
>> > The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
>> > amusing.
>>
>> I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too?
>
> Yes, I find it absolutely hysterical.

Good, its true.

>> You project this
>> attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns
>> to
>> grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
>> ain't half as smart as you think you are.
>>
>
> Well, not that this has anything to do with finding it ironic that
> Ball calls me "stupid" and "over-reaching", but actually, I'm afraid I
> am. I've spent a lot more time studying moral philosophy and thinking
> about these issues than any of you antis have. I've got a much better
> insight into the arguments than you do. I know you don't recognize
> that, well, that's fine by me. I don't need any validation from you.
> I'm still happy to engage with you as long as you remain reasonably
> civil.

I find you a complete waste of time. You're an arrogant toad who doesn't
answer questions and assumes he's right by royal appointment. And reading
and thinking a lot doesn't make you intelligent or smart. You can't aquire
wisdom by reading.

>
>> > However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
>> > adhere to reasonable rules of civility.
>>
>> Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe,
>
> Get a life, you stupid twit.

I have a fine life thanks, and a healthy diet, in large part thanks to my
ability to break out of the chains of "ethical vegetarianism". And in case
you're concerned, I eat a restricted calorie diet, locally raised organic
chicken and locally caught salmon most nights, along with all organically
grown produce, and I would bet the impact on the earth and of animal
suffering caused by my diet beats the hell out of most vegan diets.

On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> pearl wrote:
> > >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> >> *consumption*.
>
> > >> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > >> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > >> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > >> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > >> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > >> >> livestock.
>
> > >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > >> consumer demand.
>
> > > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> > > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> > >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > >> could use bicycles.
>
> > > You've totally missed the point.
>
> > No, you have.
>
> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> he gives.
>
> > He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> > presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> constitutes efficiency.

That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct. But it *is*
offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
"inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.


> > This is
> > clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which are
> > committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more complex
> > than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in symbiosis,
> > and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to produce.
> > An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
> > asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Rudy's
> argument.
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On May 31, 10:05 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > > *consumption*.
>
> > > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > > > livestock.
>
> > > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > > > than others.
>
> > > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > > > devices.
>
> > > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > > > I hope this helps.
>
> > > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> > That's the wrong argument.
>
> Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming.

Of course you're not.

> You claim the argument
> is flawed?

Yes, because it's based on a misconception of efficiency.


> Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you.

Already done.


> You haven't done this yet,

Yes, I have. I have thoroughly explained the misconception.


> I was simply pointing out this fact.

No, because it's not a fact.

> > But it figures that's the one a stupid,
> > over-reaching **** like you would try to make.
>
> I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
> thread, I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
> engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
> number of people.
>
> The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
> amusing. However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
> adhere to reasonable rules of civility.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > > On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > >> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > >> > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > >> > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> > > *consumption*.
>
> > >> > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > >> > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > >> > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > >> > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > >> > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > >> > > livestock.
>
> > >> > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > >> > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > >> > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > >> > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > >> > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > >> > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > >> > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > >> > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > >> > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > >> > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > >> > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > >> > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > >> > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > >> > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > >> > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > >> > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > >> > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > >> > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > >> > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > >> > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > >> > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > >> > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > >> > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > >> > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > >> > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > >> > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > >> > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > >> > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > >> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > >> > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > >> > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > >> > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > >> > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > >> > > than others.
>
> > >> > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > >> > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > >> > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > >> > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > >> > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > >> > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > >> > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > >> > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > >> > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > >> > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > >> > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > >> > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > >> > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > >> > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > >> > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > >> > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > >> > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > >> > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > >> > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > >> > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > >> > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > >> > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > >> > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > >> > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > >> > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > >> > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > >> > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > >> > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > >> > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > >> > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > >> > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > >> > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > >> > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > >> > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > >> > > devices.
>
> > >> > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > >> > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > >> > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > >> > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > >> > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > >> > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > >> > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > >> > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > >> > > I hope this helps.
>
> > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>
> Poor you.
>
> I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,

You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
have any legitimate reason to doubt him.


> that seems very unlikely to me

No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.

> > >> That's the wrong argument.
>
> > > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
> > > is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
> > > haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>
> > He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
> > to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.
>
> Er, actually, no.

ERRRRRRRRR, yes, rupie - you've done zero apart from spouting classic
"vegan" dogma.


> I've explained why the argument which he's
> addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.

You're lying. People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.
The environmental argument is something different.

"vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.


> > And now
> > you're demanding HE offer reasons??
>
> Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
> argument.

You're mixing it up with another argument.

Understand, rupie, that even if the environmental effects of livestock
production were fully mitigated, it still would take more resources to
produce livestock, and "vegans" would be claiming, wrongly, that the
resources are "wasted".


> > You have nerve, if nothing else.
>
> Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have,

No, you really do show an appalling amount of arrogance, rupie.

On Jun 1, 8:11 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> roups.com...
>
> >> >> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >> pearl wrote:
> >> >> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> >> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> >> >> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> >> >> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> >> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> >> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> >> >> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> >> >> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> >> >> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> >> >> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> >> >> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> >> >> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> >> >> >> livestock.
>
> >> >> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >> >> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >> >> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >> >> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >> >> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >> >> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> >> >> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >> >> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >> >> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >> >> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >> >> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >> >> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >> >> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >> >> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >> >> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >> >> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> >> >> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> >> >> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> >> >> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> >> >> >> consumer demand.
>
> >> >> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> >> >> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> >> >> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> >> >> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >> >> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >> >> >> could use bicycles.
>
> >> >> > You've totally missed the point.
>
> >> >> No, you have.
>
> >> > Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> >> > he gives.
>
> >> >> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> >> >> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> >> > No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> >> > constitutes efficiency.
>
> >> >> This is
> >> >> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which
> >> >> are
> >> >> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more
> >> >> complex
> >> >> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
> >> >> symbiosis,
> >> >> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
> >> >> produce.
> >> >> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
> >> >> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
> >> > argument.
>
> >> No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency,
> >> and
> >> the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency
> >> is a
> >> cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
> > accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
> > of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
> > them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
> > account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
> > foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.
>
> > What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
> > arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
> > for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
> > efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
> > adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
> > out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.
>
> What I am saying is that when advocates of veganism point out that consuming
> plants is more efficient from a strict calorie-conversion point of view than
> consuming animals, then extrapolate that to conclude that we should never
> consume animals, they are perpetrating a hoax. Nobody lives their lives
> according to strict caloric efficiencies, if they did then they would have a
> much more complex and difficult job than simply avoiding animal products.
>

Yes, the last point is certainly correct. I don't think anyone's
really advocating that we live our lives according to strict caloric
efficiencies. If they were, then of course you're right, they're being
hypocritical. It may, however, still be that people who are concerned
about the impact their lifestyle has on the environment might have a
rational motivation to go vegan. The typical vegan diet is not the
only possible equilibrium point between the desire to reduce one's
environmental impact and other, more self-interested desires, but it
is one possible equilibrium point. Someone might learn about the
environmental impact of modern farming and thereby become rationally
motivated to reduce their consumption of animal products, possibly to
the point of going vegan, possibly not that far, possibly even
further. Other strategies might be possible as well.

But this is a completely different point to the one Jon is making.
What Jon is doing is questioning the relevance of the notion of
calorie-conversion efficiency. That's a completely different strategy.
And I happen to believe he hasn't really addressed the most common
arguments that might be made for the relevance of this notion. So you
were wrong to say I missed the point. I was addressing Jon's argument,
then you introduced a completely new argument of your own, with which,
as it happens, I essentially agree.

>
>
> > It's a completely different approach to Jon's. Jon is rejecting the
> > conception of "efficiency" on which the argument is based.
>
> It's not a completely different approach, his was simply more thorough. The
> essence of his argument is that efficiency in the sense of choosing the food
> that causes the least environmental damage is not followed by vegans,

No, he never made that argument. He argued that the notion of
efficiency in question wasn't relevant.

> because avoiding meat and other animal products in and of itself does not do
> that, and that is essentially all vegans do. That is also the point I made.

You're seeing things that aren't there. Jon never made that point.
It's your point, not his.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > oups.com...
>
> > > > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> pearl wrote:
> > > >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > > >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > > >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > >> >> *consumption*.
>
> > > >> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > > >> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > > >> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > > >> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > > >> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > > >> >> livestock.
>
> > > >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > > >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > > >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > > >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > > >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > > >> consumer demand.
>
> > > > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> > > > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > > > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> > > >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > > >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > > >> could use bicycles.
>
> > > > You've totally missed the point.
>
> > > No, you have.
>
> > Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> > he gives.
>
> > > He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> > > presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> > No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> > constitutes efficiency.
>
> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.

In my view, you've misread the argument.

> But it *is*
> offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
> ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
> "inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.
>

The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones. You've never offered
any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, which
is simply: production of animal food products *usually* causes a lot
more suffering than plant food production, it is ethically obligatory
(or at least preferable) not to financially support gratuitous
unnecessary suffering when you can avoid doing so with no real
sacrifice, therefore it is ethically obligatory (or at least
preferable) to follow a vegan diet or at least a diet with only some
specially-selected animal products. That's basically the argument
which motivates most people to go vegan. You haven't shown that
there's anything wrong with it. You've shown that some of the strict
animal rights positions which are advanced in the literature might be
hard to sustain in a non-hypocritical way once we confront certain
facts about what it takes to sustain our lifestyles. Fine, so maybe we
should abandon these strict animal rights positions, or alternatively,
maybe we should make radical changes to our lifestyles such as growing
all our own food. But, if we decide to abandon the strict animal
rights positions, it doesn't at all follow that the status quo is
perfectly all right. You seem to think it does, but you've never
really produced any good arguments for this.

You've raised interesting questions about how far the ethical
arguments for veganism might be taken, and posed the challenge of
fitting them into a coherent and comprehensive ethical framework,
which is an important challenge. But you haven't shown that your own
ethical views are superior.

The argument you're addressing in this thread is really an
environmental argument, and I don't think you've done much to
undermine it. You haven't shown that the generally accepted definition
of economic efficiency has any bearing on the issue.

There are basically two arguments. One argument is that an individual
concerned about the impact of his lifestyle on the environment might
be rationally motivated to cut down on animal products. Interestingly,
I saw a news item recently indicating that the Environmental
Department of the UK Government appears to agree with this position,
although they fall short of recommending a vegan lifestyle, believing
that making such recommendations is not very likely to be productive.

Now, one way to read your argument is as a sort of free-market
environmentalism. You might be saying that the environmental costs of
meat production are fully reflected in the price, because as land,
high-quality soil, and so forth become more scarce, the price will
increase, and farmers who own land will have an incentive to farm it
in a sustainable way, and so forth. We might need some government
regulation to deal with the possible problem of anthropogenic climate
change, but never mind that. This is basically an economic debate, and
I acknowledge that your knowledge of economics is superior to mine,
but I also believe there are some qualified people who would take a
different position. Hence I suspend judgement on this matter. However,
I'm not sure this really affects the main point that an individual
concerned to reduce his environmental impact might rationally be
motivated to cut down on animal products. That's what the so-called
"efficiency argument" is really about. If you've got a good criticism
of this argument, then I don't think we've seen it yet.

Another argument, which Mylan Engel Jr. made in his essay "Taking
Hunger Seriously", is that if large numbers of people go vegan that
will have a desirable effect on global food distribution. He wasn't
very clear about the mechanism by which this would happen, but I think
the idea is that the demand for the crops which we produce to feed to
farm animals would decrease, hence the market price would decrease,
hence the parts of the crops suitable for human consumption would
become more affordable to starving people in the Third World, so that
fewer people would starve.

Now, perhaps you want to claim that this is shoddy economics and that
the effect in question wouldn't really happen. That's as may be.
Again, I acknowledge your superior knowledge in this department.

Alternatively, you might want to make an argument in moral philosophy,
saying that people shouldn't be coerced into making such choices,
because the entitlement theory of justice is correct, and that means
that, just as a suitor who is rejected because the object of his love
finds a more desirable partner has not had his rights violated, so the
starving people in the Third World who find it more difficult to buy
food because people in the developed world with more buying power want
to eat meat have not had their rights violated.

Well, that's all very well, but the suggestion that people should be
coerced into making those choices was never really on the table. The
claim was that if you were concerned about starvation in the Third
World you might rationally be motivated to go vegan. If it is conceded
that the effect in question would happen, then this argument from the
entitlement theory of justice doesn't really undermine that claim.

I'm not all that crazy about Mylan Engel Jr's argument. But the
environmental argument seems like a pretty reasonable one to me. If
you're concerned about climate change, or soil degradation, or
deforestation, then you might rationally be motivated to cut down on
your consumption of animal products in an effort to do something about
these problems. That's what all the talk about "efficiency" really is
about. Your notion of efficiency which is used by economists is not
really germane to the argument, as far as I can tell.

On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
> > think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
> > pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
> > you like?
>
> I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
> serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you little
> shit, not pitiful whinging.
>

When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure what
situation you're describing, exactly. Is it that some of your other
family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they were
experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably have
consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
(supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all stages
of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what a
qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made your
own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the situation
right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too expensive
and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that went.
Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to start
eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about which
I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat by
making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say that
vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.

Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
think it's called for. There was an occasion a while back where I was
arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
to reducing suffering, and you replied that in your experience going
vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
problems for you. If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet could
have been overcome with a little imagination. As I say, I know quite a
few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.
Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.

I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at least
to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way. I
mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not trying
to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be possible
for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address the
rest of your post.

On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > oups.com...
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > >> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > >> > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > >> > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > > >> > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > >> > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > >> > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > >> > > *consumption*.
>
> > > >> > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > > >> > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > > >> > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > > >> > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > > >> > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > > >> > > livestock.
>
> > > >> > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > > >> > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > > >> > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > > >> > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > > >> > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > > >> > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > > >> > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > > >> > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > > >> > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > > >> > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > > >> > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > > >> > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > > >> > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > > >> > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > > >> > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > > >> > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > > >> > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > > >> > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > > >> > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > > >> > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > > >> > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > > >> > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > > >> > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > > >> > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > > >> > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > > >> > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > > >> > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > > >> > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > > >> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > > >> > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > > >> > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > > >> > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > > >> > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > > >> > > than others.
>
> > > >> > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > > >> > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > > >> > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > > >> > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > > >> > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > > >> > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > > >> > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > > >> > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > > >> > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > > >> > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > > >> > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > > >> > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > > >> > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > > >> > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > > >> > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > > >> > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > > >> > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > > >> > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > > >> > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > > >> > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > > >> > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > > >> > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > > >> > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > > >> > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > > >> > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > > >> > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > > >> > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > > >> > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > > >> > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > > >> > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > > >> > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > > >> > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > > >> > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > > >> > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > > >> > > devices.
>
> > > >> > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > > >> > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > > >> > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > > >> > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > > >> > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > > >> > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > > >> > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > > >> > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > > >> > > I hope this helps.
>
> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>
> > Poor you.
>
> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>
> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>

The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.

> > that seems very unlikely to me
>
> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>

I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.

> > > >> That's the wrong argument.
>
> > > > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
> > > > is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
> > > > haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>
> > > He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
> > > to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.
>
> > Er, actually, no.
>
> ERRRRRRRRR, yes, rupie - you've done zero apart from spouting classic
> "vegan" dogma.
>

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken, Ball. For one thing, I haven't made
any arguments for veganism at all. What I've done is correctly point
out that you're misconstruing the argument that meat production is a
wasteful use of resources. It's nothing to do with economic
efficiency.

> > I've explained why the argument which he's
> > addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.
>
> You're lying.

No, I'm not. I sincerely believe what I'm saying.

> People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.

Show me where.

> The environmental argument is something different.
>
> "vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
> because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
> That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
> it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.
>

Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it. There are
closely related arguments about environmental impact and food
distribution. I'd never encountered anyone who totally divorces the
argument from those concerns. Why would anyone care about how much
resources are used, apart from these other concerns?

You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
misreading them. I'm not all that fussed either way, anyway. Yes,
you're correct that the argument is flawed, but it's a bit like
shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

> > > And now
> > > you're demanding HE offer reasons??
>
> > Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
> > argument.
>
> You're mixing it up with another argument.
>
> Understand, rupie, that even if the environmental effects of livestock
> production were fully mitigated, it still would take more resources to
> produce livestock, and "vegans" would be claiming, wrongly, that the
> resources are "wasted".
>

Says you. I really find it very implausible. But I'm not too fussed.
If it was your goal to demolish this argument, well, congratulations,
you've succeeded.

> > > You have nerve, if nothing else.
>
> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have,
>
> No, you really do show an appalling amount of arrogance, rupie.

Ball, you're a fool. Your hobby is treating people you meet on usenet
like dirt. *That* is arrogance. I express myself in a reasonable and
polite way. You calling me arrogant is utterly absurd.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 1, 9:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On May 31, 10:05 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > > > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > > > *consumption*.
>
> > > > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > > > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > > > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > > > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > > > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > > > > livestock.
>
> > > > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > > > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > > > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > > > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> > > > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> > > > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > > > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > > > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > > > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > > > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > > > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > > > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > > > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > > > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> > > > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > > > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > > > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > > > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > > > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > > > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > > > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > > > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > > > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > > > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > > > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > > > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > > > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > > > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > > > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > > > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > > > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > > > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > > > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > > > > than others.
>
> > > > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > > > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > > > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > > > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > > > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > > > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> > > > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > > > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > > > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > > > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > > > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > > > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > > > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > > > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > > > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > > > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > > > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > > > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > > > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > > > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > > > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > > > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > > > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > > > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > > > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > > > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > > > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > > > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > > > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > > > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > > > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > > > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > > > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > > > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > > > > devices.
>
> > > > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > > > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > > > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > > > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > > > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > > > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > > > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > > > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > > > > I hope this helps.
>
> > > > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > > > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> > > That's the wrong argument.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming.
>
> Of course you're not.
>

Well, if you could have foreseen that without my telling you, then
perhaps you should have made an effort to clarify what you were
saying.

> > You claim the argument
> > is flawed?
>
> Yes, because it's based on a misconception of efficiency.
>

Elaborate. How is the argument that meat production has undesirable
environmental consequences based on a misconception of efficiency?
Elsewhere you were saying this was a different argument to the one you
wanted to attack.

> > Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you.
>
> Already done.
>

Elsewhere you said this argument wasn't your target. Make up your
mind. How does anything you've said bear on the environmental
argument?

> > You haven't done this yet,
>
> Yes, I have. I have thoroughly explained the misconception.
>

Make up your mind what we're talking about, the environmental
argument, or your "efficiency argument" (which I am not convinced
anyone actually makes). Yes, you have demolished this "efficiency
argument". Do you claim that your points have a bearing on the
environmental argument? If so, you'll have to explain further I'm
afraid, I'm still in the dark as to what the relevance is.

> > I was simply pointing out this fact.
>
> No, because it's not a fact.
>

I believe it is a fact that you haven't addressed the environmental
argument, and I believe elsewhere you agree with me. But if you think
you have... well, by all means try to convince me.

On Jun 2, 4:16 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 8:11 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> > > On Jun 1, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > roups.com...
>
> > >> > On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > >> roups.com...
>
> > >> >> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> >> >> pearl wrote:
> > >> >> >> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> >> >> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > >> >> >> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > >> >> >> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> >> >> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> >> >> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> >> >> >> *consumption*.
>
> > >> >> >> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > >> >> >> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > >> >> >> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > >> >> >> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > >> >> >> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > >> >> >> >> livestock.
>
> > >> >> >> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > >> >> >> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > >> >> >> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > >> >> >> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > >> >> >> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > >> >> >> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > >> >> >> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > >> >> >> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > >> >> >> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > >> >> >> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > >> >> >> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > >> >> >> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > >> >> >> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > >> >> >> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > >> >> >> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > >> >> >> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > >> >> >> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > >> >> >> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > >> >> >> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > >> >> >> consumer demand.
>
> > >> >> > No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> > >> >> > should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > >> >> > not enough internalization of externalities.
>
> > >> >> >> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > >> >> >> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > >> >> >> could use bicycles.
>
> > >> >> > You've totally missed the point.
>
> > >> >> No, you have.
>
> > >> > Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> > >> > he gives.
>
> > >> >> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> > >> >> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>
> > >> > No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> > >> > constitutes efficiency.
>
> > >> >> This is
> > >> >> clearly demonstrated by the errors of omission he illustrated which
> > >> >> are
> > >> >> committed by vegans. A true efficiency equation would be far more
> > >> >> complex
> > >> >> than "veganism", for one thing it would use animals and plants in
> > >> >> symbiosis,
> > >> >> and it would utilize animals where plants were not as efficient to
> > >> >> produce.
> > >> >> An obvious example is the consumer choice between South American grown
> > >> >> asparagus and locally obtained fish or game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> > All this is as may be, but it's completely different to Jon's
> > >> > argument.
>
> > >> No it isn't, I dealt with the same issues, what constitutes efficiency,
> > >> and
> > >> the fact that veganism only pretends to be about efficiency. Efficiency
> > >> is a
> > >> cover story for veganism, just like animal suffering.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > You did not deal with the issue of what constitutes efficiency. You
> > > accepted (for the sake of argument only, perhaps) the basic premises
> > > of the argument about what constitutes efficiency and tried to turn
> > > them against the advocate of the argument, arguing that on this
> > > account certain non-vegan foods would be more "efficient" than vegan
> > > foods. It's a completely different approach to Jon's.
>
> > > What you have succeeded in showing is the following. Let us ignore all
> > > arguments for veganism except the efficiency argument. Let us grant
> > > for the sake of argument the conception of efficiency advocated by the
> > > efficiency argument. Let us assume that the typical vegan diet is
> > > adequately "efficient". Then this argument will not suffice to rule
> > > out some non-vegan diets. This is correct. Well done.
>
> > What I am saying is that when advocates of veganism point out that consuming
> > plants is more efficient from a strict calorie-conversion point of view than
> > consuming animals, then extrapolate that to conclude that we should never
> > consume animals, they are perpetrating a hoax. Nobody lives their lives
> > according to strict caloric efficiencies, if they did then they would have a
> > much more complex and difficult job than simply avoiding animal products.
>
> Yes, the last point is certainly correct. I don't think anyone's
> really advocating that we live our lives according to strict caloric
> efficiencies. If they were, then of course you're right, they're being
> hypocritical. It may, however, still be that people who are concerned
> about the impact their lifestyle has on the environment might have a
> rational motivation to go vegan. The typical vegan diet is not the
> only possible equilibrium point between the desire to reduce one's
> environmental impact and other, more self-interested desires, but it
> is one possible equilibrium point. Someone might learn about the
> environmental impact of modern farming and thereby become rationally
> motivated to reduce their consumption of animal products, possibly to
> the point of going vegan, possibly not that far, possibly even
> further. Other strategies might be possible as well.
>
> But this is a completely different point to the one Jon is making.
> What Jon is doing is questioning the relevance of the notion of
> calorie-conversion efficiency. That's a completely different strategy.
> And I happen to believe he hasn't really addressed the most common
> arguments that might be made for the relevance of this notion. So you
> were wrong to say I missed the point. I was addressing Jon's argument,
> then you introduced a completely new argument of your own, with which,
> as it happens, I essentially agree.
>
>
>
> > > It's a completely different approach to Jon's. Jon is rejecting the
> > > conception of "efficiency" on which the argument is based.
>
> > It's not a completely different approach, his was simply more thorough. The
> > essence of his argument is that efficiency in the sense of choosing the food
> > that causes the least environmental damage is not followed by vegans,
>
> No, he never made that argument.

Sorry, he did make this point in his first post. But it's not his main
point, it's just an aside. It's certainly not the "essence of his
argument". There were no grounds for saying I'd missed the point just
because I didn't comment on this observation he'd made.

But yes, he did make the point, and of course the observation is
correct, eating a diet which is optimal in terms of resources-per-
calories requires more than just veganism.


> He argued that the notion of
> efficiency in question wasn't relevant.
>
> > because avoiding meat and other animal products in and of itself does not do
> > that, and that is essentially all vegans do. That is also the point I made.
>
> You're seeing things that aren't there. Jon never made that point.
> It's your point, not his.
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>>>>>> consumer demand.
>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>>>>>> could use bicycles.
>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
>>>> No, you have.
>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>>> he gives.
>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>>> constitutes efficiency.
>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
>
> In my view, you've misread the argument.

Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.

"vegans" do it all the time, rupie: they claim it is
an "inefficient" use of resources to produce meat - and
they are wrong, for the well elaborated reason I gave.


>> But it *is*
>> offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
>> ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
>> "inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.
>>
>
> The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
> in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones.

They are sophomoric and wrong; they're just shit. The
fact that YOU participate in animal killing proves it.



> You've never offered
> any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, [snip 1500 words of chaff]

I've offered very good criticisms of them in all their
forms, and their strongest form is quite weak indeed.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>>>>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>>>>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>>>>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>>>>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>>>>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>>>>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>>>>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>>>>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>>>>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>>>>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>>>>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>>>>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>>>>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>>>>>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>>>>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>>>>>>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
>>>>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>>>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>>>>>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>>>>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>>>>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>>>>>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>>>>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>>>>>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>>>>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>>>>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>>>>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>>>>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>>>>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>>>>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>>>>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>>>>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>>>>>>>> than others.
>>>>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>>>>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>>>>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>>>>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>>>>>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>>>>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>>>>>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>>>>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>>>>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>>>>>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>>>>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>>>>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>>>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>>>>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>>>>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>>>>>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>>>>>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>>>>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>>>>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>>>>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>>>>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>>>>>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>>>>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>>>>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>>>>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>>>>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>>>>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>>>>>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>>>>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>>>>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>>>>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>>>>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>>>>>>>> devices.
>>>>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>>>>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>>>>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>>>>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>>>>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>>>>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>>>>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>>>>>>> I hope this helps.
>>>>>>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
>>>>>>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>>> Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>>> Poor you.
>>> I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
>> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>>
>
> The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.

No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
disbelieve him.


>
>>> that seems very unlikely to me
>> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>
> I mean what I say.

You mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.


>>>>>> That's the wrong argument.
>>>>> Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
>>>>> is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
>>>>> haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>>>> He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
>>>> to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.
>>> Er, actually, no.
>> ERRRRRRRRR, yes, rupie - you've done zero apart from spouting classic
>> "vegan" dogma.
>>
>
> No, I'm afraid you're mistaken

No. I'm not. You've done zero apart from spouting
classic "vegan" dogma.



>>> I've explained why the argument which he's
>>> addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.
>> You're lying.
>
> No, I'm not. I sincerely believe what I'm saying.

No, you know you're lying.


>
>> People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.
>
> Show me where.

lesley, aka the slut "pearl". Do your own search for
her laughable bullshit about "feed conversion ratio".

Also:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...fb0c24458944ce


But farming animals is an inefficient, unsustainable and
problematic way of producing food. Apart from those who
feed on
pasture where it is difficult to grow crops, farmed
animals use more
food calories than they produce in the form of meat.
They also compete
directly with people for other precious resources,
notably water.
http://groups.google.com/group/demon...ee116aa6b75f46

[meat production] is an inefficient use of fresh water
and land for the production of food,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...9bd38a04228c74

Clearly meat production is a very inefficient use of water
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...411178db014ccf


rupie, do your own research from now on.

The point is, rupie, you fat ****, that "vegans" make
this "inefficiency" argument all the time. It is a
*separate* argument from the environmental degradation
argument, although the "vegans" often state them
together. The "inefficiency" argument is made all the
time, it is based on a laughable misconception of
efficiency, and it is fatuous of you to dispute that.


>
>> The environmental argument is something different.
>>
>> "vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
>> because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
>> That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
>> it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.
>>
>
> Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it.

You're willfully blind.


> You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
> right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
> misreading them.

There is zero chance of that.


> I'm not all that fussed either way, anyway. Yes,
> you're correct that the argument is flawed, but it's a bit like
> shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?
>
>>>> And now
>>>> you're demanding HE offer reasons??
>>> Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
>>> argument.
>> You're mixing it up with another argument.
>>
>> Understand, rupie, that even if the environmental effects of livestock
>> production were fully mitigated, it still would take more resources to
>> produce livestock, and "vegans" would be claiming, wrongly, that the
>> resources are "wasted".
>>
>
> Says you. I really find it very implausible. But I'm not too fussed.
> If it was your goal to demolish this argument, well, congratulations,
> you've succeeded.
>
>>>> You have nerve, if nothing else.
>>> Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have,
>> No, you really do show an appalling amount of arrogance, rupie.
>
> Ball, you're a fool. Your hobby is treating people you meet on usenet
> like dirt. *That* is arrogance. I express myself in a reasonable and
> polite way. You calling me arrogant is utterly absurd.
>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:35:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote
>
>>> A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign
>>> to
>>> convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>>> products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.
>>> By
>>> that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>
>> YOU are worse than Goo!
>>
>> I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
>> for "livestock".
>
>It may not be the reason, but it would be the inevitable result.
>
>> I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
>> planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
>> animals.
>
>Yup, yer a Goo. Welcome to the club, Goos come in all ages and sizes, from
>ARAs to staunch anti-ARAs, all have one thing in common, we

You are a goo because you like to lick the Goober's ass, and
everybody is aware of that. Calling anyone a goo who does not
lick the Goober's ass is the lowest form of insult. Try to get that
straight! You and your brother Derek are gooboys and that
makes you proud, because you are amusingly proud of and
admire the Goober. Since most people are more sickened by
him than anything else, you are insulting them terribly to lump
them into the same toilet as you gooboys are happy to be in.

>realize that
>there is no moral significance in the idea that livestock would not get to
>be born and experience the wonder of life if we stopped using animal
>products.

That has nothing at all to do with it, and I don't believe
even you are too stupid to understand that fact.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:04:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>[..]
>
>>>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>>>
>>>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
>>>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
>>>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>>>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.
>>
>> Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.
>
>Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to say
>unless he says otherwise.

No we don't, especially since it doesn't even apply to the Goobal situation.

.. . .
>what makes us all Goos.

What makes a VERY FEW of you goos, is your lipstick all over the Goober's
ass. People who don't kiss up to Goo are NOT gooboys like you. DUH! It's
another one of those things that even you--as challenged as you are--should
be able to comprehend.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>>
>>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>>> much consideration.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>>lives".
>>
>> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
>> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
>> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
>
>Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
>lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.

So you selfishly continue to insist, without being able to explain
why. Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
the animals gain?

On 31 May 2007 13:04:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
>> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>> >>the livestock exist.
>>
>> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
>> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
>> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
>> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
>> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>>
>> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
>> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.
>
>Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
>their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>
>****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
>to exist, for moral reasons

That's a fantasy of yours, and it's something else you can't
explain Goober. I challenge you to try to explain exactly
WHICH particular potential future livestock you are stupidly
attempting to insist I think "ought" to exist. You can't do it
Goob, because the concept itself is so stupid that even you
can't clarify it enough to attempt to support your own
stupid, dishonest accusation. You have proven yourself
a liar once again by your own ineptitued, Goo.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>Goo wrote in message
oups.com...
>> On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
>>> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>> >>the livestock exist.
>>>
>>> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
>>> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
>>> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
>>> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
>>> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>>>
>>> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
>>> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
>>> Zero.
>>
>> Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
>> their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>>
>> ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
>> to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
>> eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
>> worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
>> has. No one ever will.
>>
>>
>>> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
>>> who
>>> say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
>>
>> Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
>> acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...
>
>He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
>argument back on them.

I recognise a significant aspect of human influence on animals that
you don't want people to consider, ONLY because it suggests that
there are alternatives that could be considered ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination objective.

>He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
>liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
>of the very species of animals you are liberating.

You are trying to defend ELIMINATION as always, this time
by contemptibly referring to ELIMINATION as liberation. LOL...
it's just another lie that you "aras" want people to believe.

>He can't understand that
>it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
>utility, nobody cares.

That's another lie.

>You're right, by imparting this false importance to
>their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position.

That's another lie, and that's more evidence that you're an
"ara". No one in favor of decent AW would have reason to lie
about what I point out, but someone in favor of "ar" would have,
and you do it constantly. In fact, here's one of the biggest lies
you have told:

"I will NOT quote a position as yours once you reject it" - Dutch

and it follows your familiar pattern of trying to grab credit
for something you don't deserve. Trying to gab browny
points by lying about yourself like that is undoubtedly on the
bottom...but it explains why you like being a gooboy too...

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
>> > think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
>> > pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
>> > you like?
>>
>> I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
>> serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you
>> little
>> shit, not pitiful whinging.
>>
>
> When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure what
> situation you're describing, exactly.

Of course you don't, but when I stated clearly that I encountered health
*and* satisfaction problems with my vegetarian diet in my original message
and you chose to dismiss those concerns as "pitiful whinging". That was
rude and uncalled for.

> Is it that some of your other
> family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
> buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they were
> experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
> important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably have
> consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
> (supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all stages
> of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
> solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
> eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what a
> qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made your
> own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the situation
> right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too expensive
> and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that went.
> Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to start
> eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
> trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about which
> I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
> about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat by
> making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say that
> vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
> argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.

I was a vegetarian for 18 years, as was my wife. We worked hard to keep our
diet balanced and well-rounded, and we took supplements. Despite our best
efforts we increasingly experienced health issues, hers were even more
pronounced than mine. We consulted a dietician and doctors. The final
recommendation was to add some meat to our diets. Following this advice in
our experience was clearly the right choice. I am not saying that vegan
diets are " likely to undermine health", I am reporting that we had a very
good experience with vegetarian diets for a long time, but eventually
experienced failure to thrive. I attribute the change to our aging cells.

> Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
> think it's called for.

It was called for. You had no call to dismiss my experience as pitiful
whinging.

> There was an occasion a while back where I was
> arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
> to reducing suffering,

You're trying to have it both ways. In one argument you say we should go
vegan because according to you it's an easy step that we can all take to
reduce suffering and now you refer to it as a significant level of
commitment. Which is it, an easy step or a significant commitment?

> and you replied that in your experience going
> vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
> Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
> problems for you.

Both are true, it was easy and pleasant as long as it served us well, but
our circumstance changed as years passed and ultimately it became a problem.

> If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
> being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
> apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
> thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet could
> have been overcome with a little imagination.

You overlooked the part about it effecting my health, but even if I had made
the change only for taste reasons, so what? As you have admitted, none of us
operates on a strict efficiency model, and certainly there is no clear
imperative to live by the vegan model..

> As I say, I know quite a
> few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.

There is an issue of denial to deal with. If a person has himself convinced
that morally he cannot justify consuming animal products, then by what means
can he rationalize complaining about his vegan diet? He is trapped by his
choice to see morality through this particular lens.

> Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
> wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.

I accept your apology.

>
> I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at least
> to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way. I
> mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not trying
> to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
> offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
> maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be possible
> for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address the
> rest of your post.

Maybe you could think twice before using phrases like "pitiful whingeing" if
you are trying to have a polite conversation. Or better yet, stop worrying
about it. This is usenet, insults are used like punctuation, just ignore
them. You are not going to change the culture of usenet.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
[..]

>> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
>> > > >> > nutritious
>> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>
>> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on
>> > > it?
>>
>> > Poor you.
>>
>> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>>
>> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
>> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>>
>
> The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.

"Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.

>> > that seems very unlikely to me
>>
>> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>
> I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
> nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
> being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.

You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
our particular medical circumstances. You are neither qualified nor aware of
the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
ideology.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:35:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote
>>
>>>> A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign
>>>> to
>>>> convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>>>> products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock
>>>> animals.
>>>> By
>>>> that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted
>>>> text -
>>>
>>>
>>> YOU are worse than Goo!
>>>
>>> I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
>>> for "livestock".
>>
>>It may not be the reason, but it would be the inevitable result.
>>
>>> I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
>>> planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
>>> animals.
>>
>>Yup, yer a Goo. Welcome to the club, Goos come in all ages and sizes, from
>>ARAs to staunch anti-ARAs, all have one thing in common, we
>
> You are a goo because you like to lick the Goober's ass, and
> everybody is aware of that. Calling anyone a goo who does not
> lick the Goober's ass is the lowest form of insult. Try to get that
> straight! You and your brother Derek are gooboys and that
> makes you proud, because you are amusingly proud of and
> admire the Goober. Since most people are more sickened by
> him than anything else, you are insulting them terribly to lump
> them into the same toilet as you gooboys are happy to be in.
>
>>realize that
>>there is no moral significance in the idea that livestock would not get to
>>be born and experience the wonder of life if we stopped using animal
>>products.
>
> That has nothing at all to do with it, and I don't believe
> even you are too stupid to understand that fact.

That is it exactly ****wit. Deal with it.