d2dc299e   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.   
   port.football.college   
   XPost: rec.food.cooking   
      
   On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Oct 24, 12:53 am, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better.   
   >>   
   >> >> You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you   
   should   
   >> >> either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate   
   intent, of   
   >> >> finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing   
   nothing.   
   >>   
   >> >I've told you what my goals are. You've given me no reason to think   
   >> >that my strategy for pursuing these goals is irrational.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> There are things you could do   
   >> >> >> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of   
   money but   
   >> >> >> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If   
   you buy cage   
   >> >> >> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then   
   you'll be   
   >> >> >> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade   
   some people   
   >> >> >> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much   
   more than   
   >> >> >> nothing.   
   >>   
   >> >> >Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to   
   >> >> >persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on   
   >> >> >them.   
   >>   
   >> >> That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do   
   >> >> something you are still doing nothing.   
   >>   
   >> >It reduces suffering.   
   >>   
   >>    Nope.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Why do you think that?   
   >   
   >> >> Doing the thing with cage free eggs I   
   >> >> suggested WOULD BE doing something,   
   >>   
   >> >By donating to Vegan Outreach I am almost certainly helping to   
   >> >persuade some people to switch to cage free eggs.   
   >>   
   >>     How do you think that could possibly be the case?   
   >>   
   >   
   >It's obvious. Not everyone who read the leaflets will give up eggs   
   >completely. Of those who don't give up eggs completey, some will at   
   >least take the step of switching to cage free eggs.   
      
       Do vegan leaflets encourage people to buy cage free eggs?   
      
   >> >> but for years you have done nothing. You   
   >> >> should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something   
   as I've   
   >> >> been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but   
   still you do   
   >> >> nothing.   
   >>   
   >> >It is not true that I am doing nothing.   
   >>   
   >>     Your GOAL is to do nothing. Were you unaware of that?   
   >   
   >It's nonsense.   
      
       It's another fact that you don't like, but it's obviously true. But! If you   
   want to pretend you're doing something to help some livestock with your   
   lifestyle, then what livestock do you think it's helping and how do you think   
   it   
   helps? And btw encouraging other people to go vegan and do nothing is NOT an   
   example of you doing something, even when the people you encourage don't do as   
   you suggest. Now if you suggested that people who buy cage raised eggs buy cage   
   free THEN you would be doing something, but NOT when you encourage vaganism.   
      
   >> If not, you should   
   >> become aware of it. Here's a clue for you: People who want to help livestock   
   >> with their lifestyle become conscientious consumers of animal products.   
   People   
   >> who want to do nothing for livestock with their lifestyles avoid animals   
   >> products instead. That's a basic you should really learn to comprehend, and   
   if   
   >> you don't like your position then you should move on to a more AW approach   
   as   
   >> I've been encourageing you to do for years.   
   >   
   >Taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by   
   >livestock is not "doing nothing" for livestock.   
      
       Vegans do no more than dead people, so maybe we should try to persuade   
   ourselves to believe dead people help livestock? Maybe you should since they   
   "help" them as much as you do, but I won't be fooled into it. They don't, just   
   as vegans don't.   
      
   >> >> >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from   
   >> >> >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.   
   >>   
   >> >> LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging   
   >> >> veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're   
   stupid   
   >> >> enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being   
   deliberately   
   >> >> dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY   
   kind of   
   >> >> egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely?   
   >>   
   >> >Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages   
   >> >people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism.   
   >>   
   >>     I'm in favor of that INSTEAD OF full veganism, not as a lame step in   
   that   
   >> direction. Why go from contributing to decent conditions for livestock to   
   doing   
   >> nothing, and do it deliberately???   
   >>   
   >   
   >The rationale for going completely vegan is that it is the best way to   
   >reduce suffering.   
      
       That's a matter of opinion. There's nothing wrong with the opinion that   
   contributing to decent lives for livestock might be as good or better an   
   approach than doing nothing.   
      
   >> >> >> >> And from the   
   >> >> >> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're   
   talking about   
   >> >> >> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from   
   their position   
   >> >> >> >> the cost could never enter into it.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the   
   >> >> >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision   
   >> >> >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how   
   >> >> >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the   
   >> >> >> >most economically efficient way possible.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to   
   decent   
   >> >> >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What   
   you do in   
   >> >> >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really   
   a form of   
   >> >> >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.   
   >>   
   >> >> >And why would that be, exactly?   
   >>   
   >> >> Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at   
   >> >> all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does.   
   That   
   >> >> one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out.   
   >>   
   >> >You're a fool.   
   >>   
   >>     You're the fool for being unable to appreciate it even after it has been   
   >> pointed out for you. It's your cognitive dissonance again IF you really   
   can't   
   >> comprehend, trying to protect you from facts you don't want to believe even   
   >> though from my position they are so absurd as to be unbelievable.   
   >>   
   >   
   >If I decided that I wanted to "contribute to decent lives for   
   >livestock", I would have to weigh up any opportunity costs of doing   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)