|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
 |
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
wellington womble
Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 15051
Location: East Midlands
|
 Posted: Sat May 21, 05 1:11 pm Post subject: |
 
|
Thanks for responding to my points Milo, I'm a lot clearer now.
I do agree that we should minimise avoidably and unecessarily killing animals. But I also think that as a meat eating animal we have evolved to do just that. It means we should eliminate (not minimise, eliminate) stress, pain and discomfort to the animal involved, because I think we owe them that. I don't eat any meat that hasn't been raised and slaughtered to the highest possible (with the EU laws  ) standard. I also eat, in comparison to many meat eaters, very little meat, so although I have made the decision that its right for me to eat meat, I have reduced the amount of animals kept for my consumption.
I'm assuming that your belief is that killing animals for consumption is avoidable. Yes it is, but I don't think its practical on a global scale. I also think that the western world isn't going change overnight, even if veganism is the way to go. What I think is the real crime is the amount of meat that's wasted. either thrown away (at any level in the supply chain) or never used. I think its wrong to kill for sport, but not for use.
I'm not suggesting that anyone eat more meat, least of all hindus etc etc, the very opposite for most of the western world. But are you suggesting that everyone should live on soya? Incidentally, the late, great John seymour states in his book of self suffciency that five acres of good land will support a large family (lets assume 6, for safety) of which your ten acre example will support 2 - that's at least 12 people - more than maize alone, by mixed farming, and it will provide them with more than just food (wool, firewood, soap, leather etc etc) and considerably more than just beef.
Stubborn - maybe, but people here will have thought about all this (as I have) and probably made their choices, so you may not be converting carnivores into vegans overnight, but you might make people think, and make changes. For example, as a result of Treacodactyls posts, both here and elsewhere, I have decided that we should eat more game, as this is frequently killed wastefully. This will result in us eating less farmed meat, and reduce the number kept and killed for our consumption.
we do agree that present farming practice is out of balance (with pretty much everything!) so we've found some common ground. Maybe thats what debate is about? |
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 05 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
#Thanks for responding to my points Milo, I'm a lot clearer now.
*Good-oh, but my brain hurts now!
#I do agree that we should minimise avoidably and unecessarily killing animals.
*Except that I'd aim for "stop", rather than "minimise".
#But I also think that as a meat eating animal we have evolved to do just that.
*Mentally, but not physically. We can digest meat, but our digestive systems are different from those of carnivorous animals. Our guts are longer (so we can digest lots of plant materials) and our teeth aren�t designed to slice and tear flesh. Our teeth and mouths are the wrong shape to be able to kill and hold captive, struggling prey. Compare our jaw shape and teeth to a lion � or your cat or dog!
Humans cook meat before eating it and we�re no good at crunching and munching uncooked bones. As for our sharp teeth, gorillas are entirely vegetarian � as are almost all primates � and yet have far longer and sharper canine teeth than human beings.
The diet of the ancestors of human beings was vegan until they began hunting (about one-and-a-half million years ago?), but even then meat formed just a tiny part of their diet. That�s why people live long and healthy lives on vegetarian and vegan diets, but would very probably quickly become unwell (and die) if they ate nothing but meat.
Only when we started farming (hardly natural!) did meat become even a regular part of most human beings� diets and eating meat on a daily basis is very recent - since the advent of factory farming after the Second World War. This brought the cost of rearing animals down and the meat eating explosion was the result. In 1946 the number of poultry eaten in Britain was 31.9 million and in 2001 it was over 800 million.
Cut.
#I'm assuming that your belief is that killing animals for consumption is avoidable. Yes it is, but I don't think its practical on a global scale. I also think that the western world isn't going change overnight, even if veganism is the way to go.
*Never suggested it would, WW, not even within my three score and ten. Mind you, come the revolution, eh?
Cut
#I'm not suggesting that anyone eat more meat, least of all hindus etc etc, the very opposite for most of the western world. But are you suggesting that everyone should live on soya?
* No, beetroot, broccoli, haricots and hazelnuts, �soya and drugs and rock �n� roll�, would be fine!
Back to Asia, there is undeniably a political angle within this topic, (as there is to some degree within almost any topic of any sort), and I am unable to see any good reason why you and I, or anyone else, should have any more of anything than anyone else does. I am fairly determined however that I will not curl up and die of guilt while I ponder upon such issues.
And can anyone tell me within what latitudes soy(a) can currently be grown?
#Incidentally, the late, great John seymour states in his book of self suffciency that five acres of good land will support a large family (lets assume 6, for safety) of which your ten acre example will support 2 - that's at least 12 people - more than maize alone, by mixed farming, and it will provide them with more than just food (wool, firewood, soap, leather etc etc) and considerably more than just beef.
*In 1974 when it was new I had a copy of Self Sufficiency by John & Sally Seymour, but lost it years ago.
Cut
#we do agree that present farming practice is out of balance (with pretty much everything!) so we've found some common ground. Maybe thats what debate is about?
*At the very least 10 acres of common ground! |
|
|
|
|
wellington womble
Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 15051
Location: East Midlands
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 05 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
But we've established its simply not possible to live on this planet and stop impacting on other life. No species does that.
I think we have evolved to eat meat. Not exclusively, and not as much as we do even, but we can digest it just fine (as well as a lot of other things) and we have teeth equipped to eat it. Not kill it - we learned to do that by teamwork and tools, but definitely eat it, even raw. Chimps eat hunt and eat meat.
Farming and natural is another topic, but there are other species that influence their environment to their gain - elephants push down acacia trees, and the result is more grass, which they prefer. I agree that we we eat far too much meat as a whole.
There isn't going to be a vegan revolution, not even if its the right thing to do, but there is already an organic/animal welfare revolution going on, which is a step in the right direction in that it makes meat, better, less available (ie more expensive) and happier. Many people here support that (including me) and deserve credit for their principles too.
May I suggest you have a look at a copy of 'meat', by Hugh fearnly whittingstall, if you are interested the topic. It doesn't really deal with politics, but is very informative. If you don't want to read it because of your principles, then I respect that, but I do genuinely think you'll find it interesting. it must have got into libraries by now! |
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 05 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
#Apology accepted. I'll accept it more wholeheartedly if you go back and answer the points sensibly instead.
*Are you, or were you ever a schoolteacher?
*Well, let�s kill loads more then? It doesn�t matter how many we kill? What type we kill? Why we kill them? (I trust you can readily identify a rhetorical question?).
#I see no reason to treat this as a rhetorical question.
*You won�t like this, but I�d meant them to be rhetorical because I wasn�t expecting you to provide me with an interesting or a helpful answer.
#We kill animals. Fact of life. Intentionally and otherwise.
*Some people kill animals intentionally � the hunter, fisherman, slaughterman. Some kill them incidentally � slicing a sickle through a mouse nest perhaps. Some kill them both incidentally and unavoidably � biting on an apple and finding half a grub, halving a worm whilst digging a hole in which to plant a tree, or driving a car into which a bird flies. etc.
#That we kill them doesn't mean we're bad.
*It might mean that we�re not as good as we could be, depending on the circumstances.
#It doesn't mean we're immoral.
*But in certain circumstances we might be.
#I'm waiting for a good argument to the contrary.
*That�s it � the circumstances.
#(tardigrades, rotifers) They're multicellular animals with identifiable nervous systems; they're as 'animal' as sheep in the fields or birds in the trees. Do they not count then?
*Pedantry is the word, Cab, literalism, laboriousness and / or lack of imagination. In so far as it relates to your repeated reference to creatures of about 0.35mm in length, (or in the case of the tiny weeny rotifer, 210-240 �m) with total confidence I accuse you of the first two. And perhaps the third as well.
It�s quite possible that I have never, ever discussed anything with anyone as pedantic as you are being at present. The only mitigation acceptable to me might be that you are finding amusement or even humour within your own reasoning, basic though it is on this much laboured point. I�d very much like to believe that you�re �avin� a larf, but I somehow doubt it.
Of course ruddy tardigrades count. They are valuable.
But how do we value them?
How many insects are there on the planet? The ratio of people to insects? How can a person avoid killing some insects? Sometimes insect deaths can be reduced, but very, very, very obviously they cannot always be avoided.
How many tardigrades in a rural acre of central England?
Unavoidably kill one and what happens?
Nothing else. It almost certainly feels no initial distress, its mother knows nothing of the death and, unless it�s under a microscope, no person is aware of the death either.
How long might it have lived, had it not been killed?
Not very.
Deliberately and unnecessarily kill a bull calf and what happens?
You very probably cause it distress initially, you distress its mother and probably any similar beasts in the vicinity and you might well distress some people too.
Had it not been killed, how long might it have lived?
Thirty years.
How do I value a calf against a tardigrade?
Very much more highly. And so do you.
And so does everybody else on the planet.
*I suggest that we�re now back at, or close to, the 10acres and how many people can be fed on what.
#You mean, you can't justify that omnivory is wrong on the grounds that it kills more animals than veganism,
*Are you telling me what I can, or cannot, justify? Or are you asking me? Or is the relative numbers of deaths simply a conclusion at which you�ve arrived and which, quite possibly by no small coincidence, matches your opinions on this matter?
As I recall, these �grounds� relate to arable v. mixed / non-arable farming and were put forward by you. Something isn�t necessarily a fact just because we happen to state it as if it were one.
#you're going to go back to the claim I've already responded to that you can feed more people with entirely vegan agriculture?
* Well, I might have been going back, yes, (hell, I might even have been reiterating), and this might quite simply be a question of interpretation, but am I to infer that because you�ve made a response, what you stated in your response is a fact? Isn�t there�s something almost biblical about that, as in �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God�? For �God� read �cab�? Surely not.
*�Live with it�, put like that does seem to me to fall somewhere between totally dismissive and moderately aggressive, and it definitely seems to me to be ill-mannered, but perhaps I�m just a sensitive little flower!
#It's telling things like they are.
*Possibly. And being blunt in the process.
#Your existence causes other animals to die. All of the time, unavoidably. You've got the option of living with it or curling up with guilt at the prospect. Which do you choose?
*I wasn�t going to mention this but, to be quite honest, I stick a pair of panties on my head, ram pencils up my nose, and go "wibble".
#But don't try to define any moral structure based on not killing animals,
*Well, I don't think I've made any reference to morals, have I, but now that you mention it, I might just give it a try! Your comment is comparable with actually telling someone what to think � pretty damn pointless, I suggest.
#If I had meely said that, you'd have a point. Every part of my argument has been backed up with reasoning.
*Does that make it flawless?
#The number of animals we actually eat is vanishingly small compared with the number that die that we may eat.
* Well, let�s do what we can to keep the number to a minimum? And aren�t you clinging rather desperately to your tardigrades?
#What's wrong with tardigrades? Are they not as important as sheep or rabbits or bumblees?
*No. Not on a one to one basis, of that I�m certain. And so are you.
#And, more to the point, what do you do to reduce your real impact on the sheer numer of animals you kill?
*I doubt that it is �more to the point� at all, but I maintain a near vegan diet and see above re values, because it seems to me that your interpretation of �sheer numbers� may be relevant only to you.
#Do you really believe that measurably fewer animals die to keep you alive than die to keep me alive?
*I don�t know. Nor do you, but I know that I value a goat more highly than a rotifer.
Rotifer
Tardigrade
 |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 05 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
| Milo wrote: |
Some people kill animals intentionally � the hunter, fisherman, slaughterman. Some kill them incidentally � slicing a sickle through a mouse nest perhaps. Some kill them both incidentally and unavoidably � biting on an apple and finding half a grub, halving a worm whilst digging a hole in which to plant a tree, or driving a car into which a bird flies. etc.
|
You kill animals by your very existence. Your home has a roof, that roof is a highly artificial environment. Animals live there; tardigrades live up there, as do rotifers, as do a whole load of other animals (as well as the microbes, plants and fungi that are up there too). When it rains they grow and reproduce, when it's sunny they die. Many thousands and thousands die. If you didn't have a home, if that land was soil and plants, a lot more of them would survive.
You grow a field of carrots, you're producing a less diverse habitat; frankly, in the best, most organic farm, animals die by the million. You're responsible for their deaths in the same way as you're responsible for the death of a rabbit you skin yorself. Intent has nothing to do with it; you know it's happening, it's a constant, real process, you cann't wash your hands of it.
| Quote: |
| It might mean that we�re not as good as we could be, depending on the circumstances. |
How do you figure that? The number of animals that die that you may live is not measurably different to the number of animals that die that I may live. From your moral standpoint, that it is not right that animals die for us, you are no more moral than I am.
| Quote: |
| But in certain circumstances we might be. |
Only if you put different values on animals lives.
| Quote: |
| That�s it � the circumstances. |
Utterly irrelevent. An animal dies because I carelessly trample on it is as dead as an animal I've consciously killed. The difference is that I'm comfortable with that.
| Quote: |
| Pedantry is the word, Cab, literalism, laboriousness and / or lack of imagination. In so far as it relates to your repeated reference to creatures of about 0.35mm in length, (or in the case of the tiny weeny rotifer, 210-240 �m) with total confidence I accuse you of the first two. And perhaps the third as well. |
I see. Some animals count. Some don't. You're not interested in the welfare of animals unless they're cute.
| Quote: |
| It�s quite possible that I have never, ever discussed anything with anyone as pedantic as you are being at present. The only mitigation acceptable to me might be that you are finding amusement or even humour within your own reasoning, basic though it is on this much laboured point. I�d very much like to believe that you�re �avin� a larf, but I somehow doubt it. |
Classic sign that someone has lost an argument, you know, when they resort to abuse.
More to the point, it's a classic sign of a lack of any understanding of basic biology when they start saying that some animals count and some do not. Where's the entirely humanocentric, biologically and morally indefensible line you're drawing then?
| Quote: |
Of course ruddy tardigrades count. They are valuable.
But how do we value them?
How many insects are there on the planet? The ratio of people to insects? How can a person avoid killing some insects? Sometimes insect deaths can be reduced, but very, very, very obviously they cannot always be avoided.
How many tardigrades in a rural acre of central England?
Unavoidably kill one and what happens?
Nothing else. It almost certainly feels no initial distress, its mother knows nothing of the death and, unless it�s under a microscope, no person is aware of the death either. |
I can't believe I'm reading this.
Take it from me, I've watched a tardigrade under a microscope. And rotifers, many times. Great little animals. Something bad happens in their environment and they respond. They're more 'interractive' than barnacles, se anemones and the like, for example. That you can't see it makes it no less an animal, and it makes the death of it morally no different. Why should it?
| Quote: |
How long might it have lived, had it not been killed?
Not very. |
A tardigrade might live for decades, actually. As might, say, a brine shrimp, a triops, a rotifer, or any other organism capable of anhydrobiosis. And besides, what on earth has the natural lifespan of an animal got to do with the morality of killing it? Can I kill and eat a rabbit that's about to die of old age? Of myxie? Why is that OK?
| Quote: |
Deliberately and unnecessarily kill a bull calf and what happens?
You very probably cause it distress initially, you distress its mother and probably any similar beasts in the vicinity and you might well distress some people too.
Had it not been killed, how long might it have lived?
Thirty years. |
So you're not familiar with good farming practice, you've no concept of the relative lifespans of the different animals you're discussing, you've never been to a good abbatoir where well raised animals die in an instant with no real concept of what's happening to them, and you've no idea about how animal behaviour among different phyla relates?
Sorry, but you want me to take your arguments more seriously than this, then you'll have to be a lot better informed before you can be so condescending.
| Quote: |
How do I value a calf against a tardigrade?
Very much more highly. And so do you.
And so does everybody else on the planet. |
You can't justify your stance rationally, so you are falling back on a personal moral absolute. Fine. I reject that absolute and maintain that killing animals for food in a sustainable fashion is ethical, moral, and inherently appropriate as part of mixed agriculture and/or harvesting wild animals. You're talking morals, so am I; the difference is that mine are internally consistent, externally defended and totally coherent. Yours aren't.
| Quote: |
*Are you telling me what I can, or cannot, justify? |
I'm telling you what you have failed to justify, hence I'm concluding that you're not in a position to do so. Your point has fallen.
| Quote: |
| Or are you asking me? Or is the relative numbers of deaths simply a conclusion at which you�ve arrived and which, quite possibly by no small coincidence, matches your opinions on this matter? |
The relative number of deaths demonstrates that the moral case you put forward isnot defensible. It's that simple, really.
| Quote: |
As I recall, these �grounds� relate to arable v. mixed / non-arable farming and were put forward by you. Something isn�t necessarily a fact just because we happen to state it as if it were one.
|
It's a fact because it's unavoidable, well characterised, old fashioned biology. You can't escape it. You can't deny it. And you certainly can't refute it.
| Quote: |
| * Well, I might have been going back, yes, (hell, I might even have been reiterating), and this might quite simply be a question of interpretation, but am I to infer that because you�ve made a response, what you stated in your response is a fact? |
You may infer that repeating a stance without first assimilating a counter argument that has since been put to you, you're being both rude and irrational. You say (x), I say (y), you repeating (x) does not refure (y). If (y) consisted of reasoned points then you look petty.
| Quote: |
Isn�t there�s something almost biblical about that, as in �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God�? For �God� read �cab�? Surely not.
|
Strike two.
| Quote: |
| I wasn�t going to mention this but, to be quite honest, I stick a pair of panties on my head, ram pencils up my nose, and go "wibble". |
Great. You are responsible forkilling as many animals as an omnivore. And you live with the morality of that by denial; what moral authority do you have to argue that this flimsy stance is right?
| Quote: |
| Does that make it flawless? |
If you see a flaw in my argument then make your point; till then, don't be so small as to maintain that you're right even though the argument put to you is one you can find no error in.
| Quote: |
#What's wrong with tardigrades? Are they not as important as sheep or rabbits or bumblees?
*No. Not on a one to one basis, of that I�m certain. And so are you.
|
I absolutely, totally dispute that point. One animal is not worth less than any other one animal, issues of scarcity and biodiversity aside. You're making a massive assertion there; back it up.
| Quote: |
| I doubt that it is �more to the point� at all, but I maintain a near vegan diet and see above re values, because it seems to me that your interpretation of �sheer numbers� may be relevant only to you. |
I see. It's wrong to kill animals to eat but it isn't wrong to kill animals.
Make the case that your position is rational.
| Quote: |
I don�t know. Nor do you, but I know that I value a goat more highly than a rotifer.
|
Errm, I do know. Measurably, no more animals die to keep me alive than you. I'd go so far as to say that control of invertebrates on pasture land is less robust, so probably far LESS animals die for me than for you. Your argument that some animals matterless is, biologically, meaningless.
I don't know how you can live with yourself, really. You can only defend your moral position by sticking your headin the sand and insisting that some animals don't matter, that there are some animals that matter to you and some that don't. Your position seems morally bankrupt to me. |
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 05 12:56 am Post subject: Land Use in General. |
|
| Quote: |
| I don't know how you can live with yourself, really. You can only defend your moral position by sticking your headin the sand and insisting that some animals don't matter, that there are some animals that matter to you and some that don't. Your position seems morally bankrupt to me. |
If you don't understand how I can live with myself then clearly you understand not very much. My head is not in the sand, but had it been below ground level for long periods then I might have been nearly as clued up as you are on those creatures which tend to live in such a setting. You take my point, I trust.
You have a gift, though not a useful one, for misquoting me, or else to varying degrees twisting what I have said and you'll find an example above: I have not at any stage insisted, or even expressed as an opinion, that some animals don't matter. Go back if you like, check, you won't find that I have said that.
Such inaccuracies on your part ensure that this discussion, in which other folks were interested, is, as predicted, not developing at all.
If I thought that we were likely to cover any new ground then I might feel inclined to respond in full pedantic style to a few small selections from your most recent reply, but I can't see any advantage for anyone in my doing that.
Your contribution has for quite some time been utterly tedious. You might consider that my saying so amounts to abuse - you can also consider it to be a fact as well as an opinion. You know where you stand (presumably). I know with utter certainty where I stand and it seems to me that everyone else will have long ago made up their minds on the goat-rotifer exchange rate issue.
Should you feel a pressing need to grant yourself any sort of victory on the single and very much less that fascinating point on which you have laboured for so very long, help yourself - a weak and wobbly ego might find some use for it.
I note that you've chosen to make no comment on the below which relates to "Land Use In General", which you may recall was the title of this thread.
Might your silence be due to the fact that you agree with it entirely?
| Quote: |
Surely the starting point should be the real world, i.e. initially at least a UK countywide analysis of agricultural, (arboricultural?) and horticultural land usage as is at present, followed by mammal counts whenever any relevant changes take place and to include an understanding that it was necessary to factor in proximity to woodland, extent of hegerows, like-for-like as far as possible.
And then, hey, what if you were right. Or even right by a long way?
I don't think that it would prove very much without superimposing a realistic UK-based interpretation of that global view, [soya, etc : cattle, (60, etc : 2) ratio], upon the results.
Wouldn't we surely find, allowing for variations in the plant species grown, intensity of farming, mixed v. mono, climate generally, rainfall and irrigation, organic / chemical techniques, etc. that the 60 : 2, call it 30 : 1 ratio, was reduced?
What if it were reduced pretty drastically to 10 : 1? Or even 5 : 1? Couldn't we then safely infer that there had been 10 times, or 5 times too much land being used for agriculture?
And what would we do with the 90%, or even 50% left over?
Well, the indigenous mammal population would be quite pleased to see it, wouldn't they? Large nature reserves could be set up for the once traditional (now rare) breeds and there would be land available for forests and woods and other habitats where genuinely wild British species of animal and plants could flourish.
In other countries we could encourage the breeding in the wild of our farm animal's wild ancestors - the wild pig, turkeys and jungle fowl (the forerunner of the battery hen) by stopping / reducing the destruction of their natural environments. |
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 05 1:13 am Post subject: Re: Land Use in General. |
|
| Milo wrote: |
If you don't understand how I can live with myself then clearly you understand not very much. My head is not in the sand, but had it been below ground level for long periods then I might have been nearly as clued up as you are on those creatures which tend to live in such a setting. You take my point, I trust.
|
Gosh. You mean that by not saying that some animals can reasonably be killed but others can't I am in some way being less consistent than you? Or somehow less moral than you?
Spell it out. What do you mean?
| Quote: |
You have a gift, though not a useful one, for misquoting me, or else to varying degrees twisting what I have said and you'll find an example above: I have not at any stage insisted, or even expressed as an opinion, that some animals don't matter. Go back if you like, check, you won't find that I have said that.
Such inaccuracies on your part ensure that this discussion, in which other folks were interested, is, as predicted, not developing at all.
If I thought that we were likely to cover any new ground then I might feel inclined to respond in full pedantic style to a few small selections from your most recent reply, but I can't see any advantage for anyone in my doing that.
Your contribution has for quite some time been utterly tedious. You might consider that that amounts to abuse - you can also consider it to be a fact as well as an opinion. You know where you stand (presumably). I know with utter certainty where I stand and it seems to me that everyone else will have long ago made up their minds on the goat-rotifer exchange rate issue.
Should you feel a pressing need to grant yourself any sort of victory on the single and very much less that fascinating point on which you have laboured for so very long, help yourself - a weak and wobbly ego might find some use for it. |
This isn't about 'victory', it's about a really, really important point.
Either it is not immoral that animals die that we may exist or it is. I maintain that is not. You have boldly asserted that it is, sort of, except when you personally don't think that it is. I'm searching for some kind of consistency in your stance, some vindication in what you say. Help me out here.
| Quote: |
I note that you've chosen to make no comment on the below which relates to Land use In General, which you may recall was the title of this thread.
|
I've followed the justification you used in this discussion and refured it, point by point, post by post.
| Quote: |
| Might your silence be due to the fact that you agree with it entirely? |
My subsequent silence is due to the fact that those points have already been refuted.
| Quote: |
| Surely the starting point should be the real world, i.e. initially at least a UK countywide analysis of agricultural, (arboricultural?) and horticultural land usage as is at present, followed by mammal counts whenever any relevant changes take place and to include an understanding that it was necessary to factor in proximity to woodland, extent of hegerows, like-for-like as far as possible. |
Mammal counts? You mean, exclude the real animal biodiversity by not counting insects, arachnids, other assorted arthropods, molluscs, crustacea, agatha, fish, birds, reptiles and ampbibia? How the heck do you justify that? That's meaningless.
| Quote: |
And then, hey, what if you were right. Or even right by a long way?
I don't think that it would prove very much without superimposing a realistic UK-based interpretation of that global view, [soya, etc : cattle, (60, etc : 2) ratio], upon the results.
Wouldn't we surely find, allowing for variations in the plant species grown, intensity of farming, mixed v. mono, climate generally, rainfall and irrigation, organic / chemical techniques, etc. that the 60 : 2, call it 30 : 1 ratio, was reduced?
What if it were reduced pretty drastically to 10 : 1? Or even 5 : 1? Couldn't we then safely infer that there had been 10 times, or 5 times too much land being used for agriculture?
And what would we do with the 90%, or even 50% left over?
|
You're arguing for the kind of change that, were meat farmed extensively in the way that most of us here would argue for, would not be necessary. You're also ignoring every point put to you in response to your initial claim; you're just repeating that claim at greater length without assimilating any of the points put to you.
| Quote: |
| Well, the indigenous mammal population would be quite pleased to see it, wouldn't they? Large nature reserves could be set up for the once traditional (now rare) breeds and there would be land available for forests and woods and other habitats where genuinely wild British species of animal and plants could flourish. |
Errm, no. There wouldn't. But as you've ignored the other arguments put to you on practically every other point, I see no reason to spend time detailing the counter points on this one. I'll do a deal with you; go back and genuinely deal with the points put to you thus far and I'll deal with this one.
(further points cut) |
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 05 12:34 am Post subject: Re: Land Use in General. |
|
| cab wrote: |
| Milo wrote: |
If you don't understand how I can live with myself then clearly you understand not very much. My head is not in the sand, but had it been below ground level for long periods then I might have been nearly as clued up as you are on those creatures which tend to live in such a setting. You take my point, I trust.
|
Gosh. You mean that by not saying that some animals can reasonably be killed but others can't I am in some way being less consistent than you?
Milo: Certainly very much less realistic than I. You know full well that from the outset the issue, or an important side issue, has been over avoidably killing animals.
Or somehow less moral than you? Spell it out. What do you mean?
Milo: Well, what do you think?
Quite clearly I believe that avoidably killing animals is not right.
Which would you avoidably kill?
And why?
| Quote: |
You have a gift, though not a useful one, for misquoting me, or else to varying degrees twisting what I have said and you'll find an example above: I have not at any stage insisted, or even expressed as an opinion, that some animals don't matter. Go back if you like, check, you won't find that I have said that.
Such inaccuracies on your part ensure that this discussion, in which other folks were interested, is, as predicted, not developing at all.
If I thought that we were likely to cover any new ground then I might feel inclined to respond in full pedantic style to a few small selections from your most recent reply, but I can't see any advantage for anyone in my doing that.
Your contribution has for quite some time been utterly tedious. You might consider that that amounts to abuse - you can also consider it to be a fact as well as an opinion. You know where you stand (presumably). I know with utter certainty where I stand and it seems to me that everyone else will have long ago made up their minds on the goat-rotifer exchange rate issue.
Should you feel a pressing need to grant yourself any sort of victory on the single and very much less that fascinating point on which you have laboured for so very long, help yourself - a weak and wobbly ego might find some use for it. |
This isn't about 'victory', it's about a really, really important point. Either it is not immoral that animals die that we may exist or it is. I maintain that is not. You have boldly asserted that it is, sort of, except when you personally don't think that it is. I'm searching for some kind of consistency in your stance, some vindication in what you say. Help me out here.
Milo: "Either it is not immoral that animals die that we may exist or it is." I believe that it is wrong that we cause the avoidable deaths of any animals. You state "that we may exist" and I give you credit for choosing this slightly quaint terminology because thereby you have cunningly avoided saying either "so that we can exist" or "as a result of our existence". Help me out here.
| Quote: |
I note that you've chosen to make no comment on the below which relates to Land use In General, which you may recall was the title of this thread.
|
I've followed the justification you used in this discussion and refured it, point by point, post by post.
Milo: No, all you have done is denied that it might be accurate. What do you mean by refute? Disprove? To your satisfaction?
| Quote: |
| Might your silence be due to the fact that you agree with it entirely? |
My subsequent silence is due to the fact that those points have already been refuted.
In cab's opinion.
| Quote: |
| Surely the starting point should be the real world, i.e. initially at least a UK countywide analysis of agricultural, (arboricultural?) and horticultural land usage as is at present, followed by mammal counts whenever any relevant changes take place and to include an understanding that it was necessary to factor in proximity to woodland, extent of hegerows, like-for-like as far as possible. |
Mammal counts? You mean, exclude the real animal biodiversity by not counting insects, arachnids, other assorted arthropods, molluscs, crustacea, agatha, fish, birds, reptiles and ampbibia? How the heck do you justify that? That's meaningless.
Milo: It's far from meaningless, but while we're at it, lets count every animal, because they are all relevant.
| Quote: |
And then, hey, what if you were right. Or even right by a long way?
I don't think that it would prove very much without superimposing a realistic UK-based interpretation of that global view, [soya, etc : cattle, (60, etc : 2) ratio], upon the results.
Wouldn't we surely find, allowing for variations in the plant species grown, intensity of farming, mixed v. mono, climate generally, rainfall and irrigation, organic / chemical techniques, etc. that the 60 : 2, call it 30 : 1 ratio, was reduced?
What if it were reduced pretty drastically to 10 : 1? Or even 5 : 1? Couldn't we then safely infer that there had been 10 times, or 5 times too much land being used for agriculture?
And what would we do with the 90%, or even 50% left over?
|
You're arguing for the kind of change that, were meat farmed extensively in the way that most of us here would argue for, would not be necessary.
In cab's opinion.
You're also ignoring every point put to you in response to your initial claim; you're just repeating that claim at greater length without assimilating any of the points put to you.
Milo: That's a big assumption, to assume how much I've assimilated. Or did you mean incorporated?
| Quote: |
| Well, the indigenous mammal population would be quite pleased to see it, wouldn't they? Large nature reserves could be set up for the once traditional (now rare) breeds and there would be land available for forests and woods and other habitats where genuinely wild British species of animal and plants could flourish. |
Errm, no. There wouldn't.
In cab's opinion.
But as you've ignored the other arguments put to you on practically every other point, I see no reason to spend time detailing the counter points on this one. I'll do a deal with you; go back and genuinely deal with the points put to you thus far and I'll deal with this one.
Milo: Cab, should you choose to answer any of my above replies, please do so maximum honesty and minimum pedantry and in the process try to ignore that you are perceived to be cab, the invincible who has a reputation to uphold on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts