The Observer. 22 June 2008.
Is meat off the menu?
Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential

America is the most overweight country on earth. Only three out of
10 Americans have a normal body weight. I should have guessed
that one of the side effects of moving to the US would be bloating.

Since leaving London for America a decade ago, I've put on a
couple of stone. It's easy enough to blame the food environment
here. This is, after all, the land where Reagan pronounced tomato
ketchup a fruit and, more recently, where French fries and chocolate-
covered cherries were legally dubbed 'fresh produce' under a US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation known as the batter-
coating rule.

I can't just censure America for my condition, of course. Getting
older and stopping smoking have accelerated my middle-age spread.
I'm more active now than I used to be, but that hasn't kept the
podge at bay. And I'm convinced that part of the problem is that
I eat meat. I came to America a vegetarian and I've lapsed into
occasional chicken and fish (though, because of a residual
Hinduism, no beef).

I'm not the only person to be blaming flesh for bad outcomes.
In America, meat has been getting some bad press recently. The
Humane Society of the United States earlier this year posted a
widely circulated video, filmed undercover at an abattoir in
California. It shows workers ramming cows with fork-lift trucks in
order to persuade them to walk. There was a financial incentive for
them to do it - 'downer cows', cows that are too sick to walk, are
prohibited from entering the food system. By the time the story
broke and the USDA announced a recall, most of the beef had
already been distributed and fed to children through the school-meal
programme.

Even Oprah has announced that she's going vegan, if only for a three-
week 'cleanse'. Oprah has had run-ins with the meat industry before.
In 1998, on hearing that American cows were being fed to other
American cows in very British BSE-generating practices, she
'stopped cold' her beef consumption. A group of Texas cattlemen
were aggrieved. They used one of the handful of legal restrictions to
free speech rights in the US: you're not allowed to disparage
agricultural products here. They claimed that Oprah had done just that.
They lost in court. Twice. Yet the implication, not too far from the
surface in Oprah's vegan detox diet, is that there's something fairly
toxic about meat.

Meat consumption has come under attack on grounds of ethics,
environment and health and has even been blamed for the global food
crisis. A couple of weeks back, George Bush said: 'Worldwide, there
is increasing demand. There turns out to be prosperity in the
developing world, which is good... So, for example, just as an
interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who
are classified as middle class... Their middle class is larger than our
entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start
demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high,
and that causes the price to go up.'

More people demanding more meat means that more land is dedicated
not to growing food for people, but food for animals - up to 9kg of
grain for every kilo of beef.

Ratcheting up meat consumption will drive up the price of feed grains,
other things being equal.

Except that other things aren't equal. Evidence suggests that it's hard
to impeach either India or China's meat-eating habits. According to
Daryll Ray at the University of Tennessee, the US government's own
figures show that China has been a net exporter of meats since 2001,
subsidised to some extent by the running down of local grain stores,
and an increased import of soybeans. Moreover, it has produced more
grain than it has consumed for every year since 2005, and continues
to export heavily. When it comes to India, Ray says the story is much
the same as China's. In fact India has been a net exporter of grains and
meat over nearly all of the past two decades even though it has the
world's largest number of hungry people. So the problem is a little
deeper than more Indians demanding things, as George Bush claims.

Blaming the world's two most populous countries, India and China,
is a bit of misdirection, particularly when the facts point the other
way. Although India's chicken consumption has gone from 0.2 million
tonnes to 2.3 million today, beef consumption is more or less the
same as it was in 1990 and, because of the cultural tilt against it, not
forecast to change.

China is certainly the world's largest consumer of meat in aggregate,
and that is because it is the world's most populous country. Meat
consumption has increased from 24kg per person in 1980 to 54kg
last year, and the chief of China operations for Tyson Foods, the
world's largest meat packer, predicts that this is the last year that
China will be self-sufficient in protein. Against this, soaring prices
for meat in China are certainly taking the edge off demand. But until
China's meat demand extends its footprint beyond its borders,
country number three in terms of global population, the United
States, remains a little more obviously culpable. Meat consumption
here is rather less sustainable than in China or India. Americans eat an
awful lot of meat - around 90kg of meat and fish per person per year.

Within the US, meat manufacturing is tremendously resource-
intensive. Partly, this is because there's just so much meat around
- nine billion animals per year according to one estimate. They
require water, land and environmental services, all of which
they're using unsustainably. More than half of American pastures
are being over-grazed, and are losing soil at six times their
sustainable rate. Water resources are also stretched to breaking
point - it takes 100 times more water to produce a kilo of animal
than vegetable.

And you've also got the problem of shit. Much of America's
cheaper meat is produced on Concentrated Animal-Feeding
Operations (CAFO), huge lots on which animals are confined, fed
and slaughtered within the same vast facility. These operations
produce the equivalent of five tonnes of waste for every US citizen.
But the waste isn't regulated in the same way. As researchers in a
2005 Johns Hopkins University study noted, a typical CAFO has
about 5,000 animals on it. That number of pigs produces as much
waste as a city of 20,000 people, but without any of the plumbing.

At one of the largest lots in the US, at the Harris Cattle Ranch in
Coalinga, California, 100,000 cattle are housed on a ranch roughly
twice the size of Hyde Park. The waste from these animals is
stored in a lagoon of shit bigger than Wembley Stadium. Although
such lagoons are meant to be insulated from the rest of the
environment, there are reports of effluent leaching into local water
supplies. In 1999, Hurricane Floyd caused 50 lagoons to flood in
North Carolina, and one lagoon burst its banks, releasing 2 million
gallons of soupy red liquid.

For CAFO workers, who are some of the poorest in the country,
respiratory disease rates are high. And when the waste makes it to
the sea, the results are even worse. The run-off is rich in fertilisers.
As a result of the run-off in the Mississippi, CAFOs cause an
annual 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey.
And yet CAFOs remain largely untouched by government.

The effects of meat consumption reach beyond America's borders.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations, nearly a fifth of all greenhouse-gas emissions come from
livestock - more than from all forms of transport. Global livestock
production is set to double between now and 2050, setting another
hurdle on the road to sustainable emissions levels.

A University of Chicago study argued that the average meat eater in
the US produces about 1.5 tonnes of CO[squared] more than a
vegetarian per year. That's because animals are hungry and the grain
they eat takes energy, usually fossil fuels, to produce. It takes 2.2
calories of fossil fuel energy to produce a single calorie of plant
protein, according to researchers at Cornell University. And lots of
that plant protein is required to make animal protein. For chicken, the
ratio of energy in to protein out is 4:1. For pork it's 17:1. For lamb,
50:1. For beef, 54:1.

This is a lot of energy, and a lot of grain that gets diverted. The
amount of grains fed to US livestock would be enough to feed 840
million people on a plant-based diet. The number of food-insecure
people in the world in 2006 was, incidentally, 854 million. Of course,
this isn't simply anAmerican phenomenon - in aggregate, rich
countries feed about 60 per cent of their grain to livestock.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, nearly 70 per cent
of antibiotics used in the US are destined to be used on livestock.
The meat industry is, understandably, feeling a little defensive. 'It
seems the public is getting a terminal case of nutrition whiplash. A
study one week contradicts the findings of a study released the
previous week and has led to consumers either being downright
confused and sceptical, or altogether tuned out from that kind of
news reporting,' says Dave Ray from the American Meat Institute.
Yet the US diet, high in meat and low in fresh fruits and vegetables,
is being increasingly indicted. The Johns Hopkins study argues that
it leads to higher rates of heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes.
The cost associated with poor diet in just these diseases has been
estimated at $33 billion per year.

Yet there is enough food to feed the world now and in the future.
But not if larger and larger slices of it go to feed animals - a fact
that the governments of India, China, and the United States seem
unprepared to address.

At the moment, only about two per cent of Americans are vegans.
So the question remains: why is it so hard to go cold tofu? John
Cunningham, consumer research manager at the Vegetarian Research
Group, has commissioned a series of surveys on meat consumption
since the early 1990s, and he has noticed some trends. The number
of vegetarians has been going up. Between 2.5 per cent and 10 per
cent of Americans are now vegetarian, almost double from a decade
before, with numbers of young people higher than the general
population. 'There's been a deep change', says Cunningham. 'If you
talked about being vegetarian in the 1980s, people were incredulous.
Today, people say, "Wow, that's great, I wish I could do that".'

More people are finding a way to get there, but me, I'm still stuck.
Why do I find it so hard to nudge out the meat from my diet? Well,
there's a persistent trend in the data.

Vegetarian women outnumber men by two to one. Cunningham notes
that there's a connection between meat and masculinity, particularly
around beef. 'No one had their manhood questioned for not eating a
chicken sandwich,' he says, 'but if you don't eat a hamburger, well...'

Bob Torres, author of Making a Killing, a study of the philosophy
and political economy of veganism, has seen this too. In his job as
a professor, he has worked with young men from sports teams.
'Many don't get very far giving up meat - they get all kinds of shit
from their team mates, who say things like their athletic performance
is going to decline, they're pussies, they're not man enough. And
when they find out I'm vegan, some people ask me whether I did it
because my wife made me.'

There are other reasons why it's so hard to give up meat.
It's certainly harder for working-class Americans to eat sustainably
when they are working and living in 'food deserts', those parts of
the country where fresh fruit and vegetables are hard to come by,
and where processed meats are readily found on convenience-store
shelves. But I don't have these excuses. It's entirely possible for
me to make the right decision.

And the evidence for me rather tilts against meat consumption.
I care about climate change, animal suffering and the condition
of people in developing countries. Addressing meat's problems
will require a range of policies, from ending the subsidy to meat
prices from workers' low wages, to pricing the full cost of meat's
pollution into its price, to addressing unsustainable practices in
agriculture.

But in caring about all this, eating meat is a big strike against my
conscience. For this, I can't blame America, China or India.
I can only blame myself. It's becoming increasingly clear to
me that I'll need to become more human, even if, in America, it
means I'm less of a man.

· Raj Patel is the author of Stuffed and Starved (Portobello
Books), www.stuffedandstarved.org

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2286172,00.html

NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM

Love P-I Focus:
While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER


History has shown that human societies often misjudge risk,
and that is the case today. With world attention focused almost
exclusively on terrorism and Iraq, another, even more serious
security threat deepens -- the global environmental/humanitarian
crisis.

While we remain virtually hypnotized by terrorism, humanity is
quietly destroying the biosphere in which we live, ourselves and
our future along with it. Just since 9/11, 25 million children died
from preventable causes, the world's population grew by 200
million people and thousands of species went extinct. Also,
250,000 square miles of forest were lost, 50,000 square miles of
arable land turned to desert, 8 billion tons of carbon were added to
the atmosphere and air pollution claimed more than 4 million lives.

Our boat is sinking, we know the causes and consequences, and
we know how to solve the problem. Yet policy-makers keep
rearranging the deck chairs. Left unattended, this broad
environmental/humanitarian crisis will foreclose any hope for
security in the world. Certainly we must address terrorism, but
just as certainly we must ensure our planet's sustainability.

Some of the key indicators of our current condition help put
these relative risks in perspective.

Population

World population stands at 6.4 billion, more than four times its
number at the start of the 20th century. Although some nations
have reached population stability, many of the poorest, developing
nations are far from it. The population -- growing by 74 million a
year -- is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, the additional
billions coming almost exclusively in the poorest countries.

The largest generation of young people ever, some 1.7 billion ages
10 to 24, is just now reaching reproductive age. Where fertility
remains high there is widespread poverty, discrimination against
women, high infant mortality and lack of access to family planning,
health care and education. More than 350 million women lack any
access to family planning. Some religions oppose contraception,
and female infanticide has become epidemic. Programs to stabilize
population need about $20 billion a year (about one week's worth of
world military expenditures) but now receive about $3 billion a year.

Consumption

Conspicuous consumption has become a homogenizing force
across the developed world. Just since 1950, we have consumed
more goods and services than all previous generations combined.
The consumption of energy, steel and timber more than doubled;
fossil fuel use and car ownership increased four-fold; meat
production and fish catch increased five-fold; paper use increased
six-fold, and air travel increased 100-fold.

In the United States, where malls are more prevalent than high
schools, shopping has become the primary cultural activity.
Although world economic output continues to increase, when
real costs are calculated, sustainable economic welfare has been
in decline since the '70s. One measure of resource consumption
of humanity -- our "ecological footprint" -- surpassed sustainable
levels in the late '70s, and for an average American is now 20 times
that of a person in some developing countries.

Studies estimate that, if the developing world were to consume at
our rate, another five or six planets would be needed to sustain
this level of consumption. The United Nations says that a 10-fold
reduction in resource consumption (or a 10-fold increase in energy/
material efficiency) in industrialized countries will be needed for
adequate resources to be available for developing countries.

Rich-poor divide

The unequal distribution of consumption adds to environmental,
social and economic damage as well. The gap in per-capita income
between rich and poor nations has doubled in the past 40 years.
The upper 20 percent in economic class -- Europe, Japan, North
America -- account for more than 80 percent of the material and
energy consumed globally while the poorest 20 percent account
for just 1 percent of consumption. The world's 350 billionaires
have a combined net worth exceeding that of the poorest 2.5 billion
people. Those poor live on less than $2 a day and lack basic
sanitation, health care, clean water and adequate food.

Despite unprecedented economic expansion of the '90s, today
some 900 million adults are illiterate and 30,000 kids die every day
from preventable causes. Poor countries pay more than $350
billion a year just to service the interest on their debt to developed
countries (a total of $2.4 trillion) and often try to raise this money
through environmentally destructive activities. Some countries
spend more to service their foreign debt than on education and
health care combined.

Biodiversity

Ecologists fear we are losing between 50 and 150 species each day,
a rate thousands of times higher than the evolutionary background
extinction rate of about one species a year. Some estimate that we
have lost perhaps 600,000 species since the "biotic holocaust"
began around 1950; if present trends continue, half of all species
on Earth would be extinct in the next 50 years. Overhunting,
invasive species, pollution and climate change are factors in this
sixth mass extinction event, but by far the greatest cause is habitat
loss. The lost ecological services could be devastating. It may take
5 million to 10 million years for biological diversity to recover.

Forests

Half of Earth's original forest cover is gone, and an additional
30 percent is degraded or fragmented. Only 20 percent of the
original forest on Earth remains today as large, relatively
undisturbed "frontier forests." And half of this frontier forest is
threatened by human activity, mostly by logging. Another 100,000
square miles of forest is lost each year, mostly in the tropics, and
only a very small amount of this forest loss is offset by regrowth.

Since 1960, about 30 percent of the Earth's tropical forests have
disappeared and with them, thousands of species. Between 50
percent and 90 percent of the terrestrial species inhabit and
depend upon the forests, and more than half of the threatened
vertebrate species on Earth are forest animals. The link is clear:
lose forests -- lose species.

Food

Today about 1 billion people are undernourished and 600 million
are overnourished. The United Nations lists 86 countries that can't
grow or buy enough food and predicts that by 2010 global food
supply will begin to fall short of demand.

More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a
quarter of the planet's land surface.

More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the
world rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result
in the loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.

Water

Fresh water may well be the most precious substance on Earth.
People use about half of all available fresh water, causing aquifers
to shrink around the world.

Some 70 percent of all water used by humans goes to irrigation;
most simply leaks and evaporates from inefficient irrigation
systems. Some water tables, such as the north China plain, drop
by more than a meter a year. Two billion people have no choice
but to drink water contaminated with human and animal waste and
chemical pollution.

The World Health Organization estimates there are 1.5 billion cases
of diarrhea a year in children from contaminated water, causing
3 million deaths.

Today, water supplies in 36 nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle
East are not sufficient to meet grain production needs. In China,
400 cities suffer from acute water shortage and half of the nation's
rivers are polluted. The world lost half of its wetlands in the past
century, and more than 22,000 square miles of arable land turns
into desert each year. It's projected that in 20 years, the demand
for water will increase by 50 percent and two-thirds of the world
population will be water-stressed.

Atmosphere

Air pollution exceeds health limits daily in many cities in the
world. Some 5,000 people a day die from air pollution, and kids
in some cities inhale the equivalent of two packs of cigarettes
every day just by breathing the air.

Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel now stand at 6.5 billion
tons a year (four times 1950 levels), resulting in atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations 33 percent greater than pre-industrial
levels.

Global warming is no longer seriously doubted, and nine of the
hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. The warming
has accelerated the melting of polar ice caps and mountain glaciers;
a rising sea level has inundated some Pacific islands, and more
frequent and severe droughts, storms and floods cost more than
$50 billion and 20,000 lives a year. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change concluded most of the warming over past
50 years was human-induced.

Oceans

Once thought to be inexhaustible, the Earth's oceans are more
polluted and overexploited than at any other time in history.
Seventy percent of world fish populations are either overfished or
nearly so. Marine pollution has increased dramatically, and warming
ocean temperatures have killed more than a fourth of the world's
coral reefs. The 1998 coral "bleaching" event killed almost half of
all Indian Ocean corals in just a few months, and Australia's Great
Barrier Reef is threatened with complete collapse by the end of the
century if warming continues.

If we connect these dots, the picture is clear: We are approaching
a breaking point on the home planet.

The fate of the Earth may well be decided in our lifetime, and we
all should begin behaving as though we are living together on one
small, precious, life-sustaining spaceship, which indeed we are.

The solution is straightforward -- stabilize population, reduce
consumption and share wealth. We know exactly how to do this;
we just need to pay for it.

The United Nations says $40 billion a year -- about what consumers
spend on cosmetics -- would provide everyone on Earth with clean
water, sanitation, health care, adequate nutrition and education.

The secretary general of the 1992 Earth Summit cautioned, "no
place on the planet can remain an island of affluence in a sea of
misery ... we're either going to save the whole world or no one
will be saved."

Without urgent attention, the global ecosystem will continue to
unravel and we'll consign future generations to a nightmare of
deprivation, insecurity and conflict.

It's time to broaden our understanding of security beyond just
that of terrorism to securing a sustainable future for spaceship Earth.


Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/175309_focus30.html

Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
By STEVENSON JACOBS (AP Business Writer)
From Associated Press
June 22, 2008 3:05 PM EDT

NEW YORK - Raging Midwest floodwaters that swallowed crops
and sent corn and soybean prices soaring are about to give
consumers more grief at the grocery store.

In the latest bout of food inflation, beef, pork, poultry and even
eggs, cheese and milk are expected to get more expensive as
livestock owners go out of business or are forced to slaughter
more cattle, hogs, turkeys and chickens to cope with rocketing
costs for corn-based animal feed.

The floods engulfed an estimated 2 million or more acres of
corn and soybean fields in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois and other key
growing states, sending world grain prices skyward on fears of a
substantially smaller corn crop. The government will give a partial
idea of how many corn acres were lost before the end of the
month, but experts say the trickle-down effect could be more
dramatic later this year, affecting everything from Thanksgiving
turkeys to Christmas hams.

Rod Brenneman, president and chief executive of Seaboard Foods,
a pork supplier in Sawnee Mission, Kan. that produces 4 million
hogs a year, said high corn costs were already forcing producers
in his industry to cut back on the number of animals they raise.

"There's definitely liquidation of livestock happening," and that will
cause meat prices to rise later this year and into 2009, said
Brenneman, who is also the vice chairman of the American Meat
Institute.

Brenneman's cost for feeding a single hog has shot up $30 in the
past year because of record-high prices for corn and soybeans,
the main ingredients in animal feed. Passing that increase on to
consumers would tack an extra 15 cents per pound onto a pork
chop.

It's a similar story for U.S. beef producers, who now spend a
whopping 60-70 percent of their production costs on animal feed
and are seeing that number rise daily as corn prices hover near an
unprecedented $8 a bushel, up from about $4 a year ago.

"This is not sustainable. The cattle industry is going to have to get
smaller," said James Herring, president and CEO of Amarillo, Tex.-
based Friona Industries, which buys 20 million bushels of corn
each year to feed 550,000 cattle.

Corn's prices were already rising before the floods, driven up
80 percent over the past year as developing countries like China
and India scramble for grains to feed people and livestock. U.S.
production of ethanol, an alternative fuel that can be made with
corn, has also pushed prices higher, prompting livestock owners
to lobby Washington to roll back ethanol mandates.

Before the floods, corn farmers were enjoying record profits
selling the grain to feed animals and for use in cereals and as a
sweetener in soda and candy. But a sharply smaller corn crop
could wipe out those gains.

In Iowa, the No. 1 U.S. corn grower, floods inundated about
9 percent of corn crops, representing about 1.2 million acres -
almost 1.5 percent of the country's anticipated harvest.

In Indiana, another 9 percent of corn and soybean crops were
flooded, potentially costing farmers up to $840 million in lost
earnings, Indiana Agriculture Director Andy Miller said.

Floodwaters also tossed farm equipment, sprayed cornfields
with debris and silt and sucked away large chunks of topsoil.
For livestock owners and meat producers, the damage may be
felt long after the corn grows back.

Even before the floods, Tyson Foods was complaining that high
grain prices would drive up its costs by $600 million this year.
The world's largest poultry company has already raised its prices
over the past year, and expects to keep raising them, CEO Dick
Bond told analysts at a conference in May.

Higher feed prices will eventually filter through to the cost of milk,
cheese and yogurt, too, since 65 to 75 percent of a dairy farmers'
production costs are for feed, said Chris Galen, a spokesman for
the National Milk Producers Federation.

With the cost of animal feed only going higher, many poultry and
dairy farmers are starting to look for cheaper alternatives.

Nebraska dairy farmer Dan Rice, who has 1,500 cows, said one
alternative is to buy some of the byproducts of cereal or flour
production, but they're not nearly as productive compared to corn.

"If we all feed less corn and get less production, then the price at
the grocery stores are going to go up," said Rice, who supplies
milk to grocery stores in Omaha and around Kansas City.

Without easy ways to cut costs, many livestock producers will
have little choice but to slaughter more animals and send them to
market.

"We're in survival mode now," said Paul Hill, chairman of West
Liberty Foods, a turkey processor based in West Liberty, Iowa.
He estimated U.S. turkey producers will reduce their flocks by
10 to 15 percent nationwide, a cutback that will send consumer
prices dramatically higher.

"The cost of Thanksgiving and Christmas turkeys will go up this
year, and maybe even more next year," said Hill, who is also the
chairman of the National Turkey Federation.

If corn were to rise to $10 a bushel, Richard Lobb, spokesman for
the National Chicken Council, said recouping costs through higher
retail prices may not be possible.

"Can you possibly charge enough for the chicken to recoup that
investment?" he said. "That's a question no one can answer yet
because it's never been done."

---
Associated Press writers David Mercer in Champaign, Ill., and
Lauren Shepherd in New York contributed to this report.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20080622/485dce40_3ca6_1552620080622-740139181

pearl wrote:
> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> Is meat off the menu?
> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential

The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted 
"vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.  They are saying that 
more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be 
produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume 
meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".  It's wrong 
because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want 
particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.

It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms 
of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is 
economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of 
resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource. 
So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to 
produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of 
15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44 
tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some 
50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus 
only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the 
land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of 
what I produce - I care about the economic value.

The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly 
than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is 
produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and 
Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade. 
People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses 
where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions 
between producers and consumers.

If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best, 
violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.

pearl wrote:
> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy

Then people will cut back on them.

Markets work.

pearl wrote:
> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> 
> Love P-I Focus:
> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER

This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
"Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:

    Richard Steiner
    Professor

and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
normally do:

    Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
    University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
agriculture as a problem:

    More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
    malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
    damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
    cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
    of the planet's land surface.

    More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
    rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
    loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.

The implication is clear:  if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.  That claim is 
complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live 
in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want* 
people to die of starvation.  They die because their economies don't 
function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.

In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of 
*all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced 
should be done in such a way that the total cost, including 
environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities 
sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental 
degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in 
between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are 
paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage. 
  But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People 
want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is 
fascist in design and effect.

On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>
> > Love P-I Focus:
> > While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> > By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>
> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  

It's very brave of you to talk about stupidity in the context of
recent conversations.

> For
> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>
>     Richard Steiner
>     Professor
>
> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> normally do:
>
>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>

What are you babbling about, you weirdo?

> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> agriculture as a problem:
>

Oh, my goodness, how stupid.

>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>     of the planet's land surface.
>
>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>

Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball, I
wonder?

> The implication is clear:  

Er, no. What you have quoted are some factual statements. Any
"implication" will have to be drawn from the context. You are not
quoting the context so the "implication" you are about to talk about
is something you made up.

> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.  

Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition. This
doesn't go without saying, more research would be needed to know
whether this effect would actually happen, and there might be other
effects. But it's not out of the question. But, in any case, in the
part of the article Ball quoted the author made no such speculations,
he merely made some factual statements, so Ball calling the article
"stupid" on the grounds that it makes some factual statements which
Ball does not contest is just Ball being a goofy clown as usual.
Please feel free to continue to provide us with entertainment, Ball.

> That claim is
> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> people to die of starvation.  

Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.

> They die because their economies don't
> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>
> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.

Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production. So maybe Ball
should call for a tax on meat to help offset the contribution of meat
production to global warming. We could tax plant-based food as well to
the extent that it could be shown that its production contributes
significantly to global warming.

>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
> fascist in design and effect.

You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist". We
know you think we're morally entitled to do everything that we do to
nonhuman animals just because we like the taste of their flesh, Ball,
but that is a point which neither you nor anyone else has ever done a
remotely adequate job of arguing, so it's time to stop asserting
without argument that objecting to the way food is currently produced
is "fascist".

In a recent conversation, you stupidly lied about something that was a
matter of recent memory and public record and made a total nincompoop
of yourself. Putting a brave face on it, you spent the entire
conversation babbling about how I needed to speak with my doctor. Now
you assert that this is a "typically stupid post from a typicall
stupid ARA" and all you have to say in support of this contention is
some babbling about calling someone "Professor Richard Steiner" when
they are a professor and a quotation from the article containing some
factual statements that you agree with.

Keep up the good work, Ball. You are as much of a clown when you are
attempting serious intellectual discussion as when you are playing
with Ronny Hamilton and David Harrison.

On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> > Is meat off the menu?
> > Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> > resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> > with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>
> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.  

The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
the claim. Crop production in the US alone is more than adequate to
feed the world. There is certainly no problem based on the crop-
producing capacity of the world alone.

> They are saying that
> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".  

Actually, Ball, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
anyone is saying that.

You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
amount of environmental damage their production causes. Fantastic. Now
I have been patiently explaining to you the argument based on global
distribution of food. The idea is that an individual might decide, as
a matter of personal conscience, that they shouldn't consume more than
their fair share of the world's food resources, given that there is a
chance that if a large number of people in the developed world
consumed less resource-intensive food then fewer people would starve.
I grant you it would take more investigation to ensure that that
effect would happen, but it is still reasonable to make a personal
conscientious decision, possibly to be revised at a later date, if you
think that there is a significant probability that it would happen.

It is not going to be possible to feed 8 billion people on the current
Western diet. As you say, that means that eventually market forces
will correct the current Western diet. But some people might feel they
want to change their diet now in order to reduce their contribution to
environmental degradation, or to avoid consuming more than their fair
share of the world's resources if there is a chance that reducing
their consumption will help fewer people to starve (this latter effect
being more dubious).

Your caricature of the "efficiency" argument has always been a straw
person, as any sensible person can see.

There are also these arguments to do with nonhuman animals.

> It's wrong
> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>
> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>

Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.

> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> between producers and consumers.
>

I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
decisions. You've already endorsed taxation of meat productions as a
way of forcing consumers and producers to interalise the externalities
they cause. Beyond that, you wouldn't use the "efficiency" argument as
a basis for coercing other people into not eating meat, not if you
were a good libertarian anyway. To justify that you would have to
argue that meat production violates moral rights.

If you can actually find some evidence that someone is trying to use
the "efficiency" argument alone (as opposed to an animal rights
argument) to justify coercively interfering in the marketplace beyond
just requiring consumers and producers to internalise their
externalities, then you are fully entitled to rant and rave at that
person and call them a "totalitarian" and "statist" all you want.
(You, too, of course, are a totalitarian and statist because you think
you have a right to use your vote in elections to support parties who
will prevent poor foreigners from accepting offers of employment from
American companies who want to employ them, being under the delusion
that that will help you hold on to your extremely and undeservedly
generous share of the world's pie. But never mind that). You've never
produced any actual *evidence* that anyone uses the "efficiency"
argument (as opposed to an animal rights argument) in this way.

I hope this has helped to clear away the mists of confusion.

> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.

It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
deaths argument. Either that or we should all start growing our own
food, that too is a possibility. Still, it is not unreasonable to hold
that a lot of the meat production that goes on at the moment is
morally unjustified and it is not unreasonable to hope for the day
when food production of that sort doesn't happen. Or, at least, no-one
has shown that such a stance is any less reasonable than any stance
any of the antis here take. It must have looked like a pretty daunting
task trying to stop the slave trade. Rome wasn't built in a day. We
can hope that food production will become more humane and less
environmentally destructive and work towards that goal, and we can
modify our own consumption habits to reduce our own contribution to
the problem.

Ball, of course, chooses not to do this, preferring to make himself
look like a clown on usenet instead.

On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>
> Then people will cut back on them.
>
> Markets work.

A rare occasion indeed: a post from Ball containing only sensible
statements.

Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
>>> Is meat off the menu?
>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.  
> 
> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> the claim.

My claim is substantiated.


> 
>> They are saying that
>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".  
> 
> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> anyone is saying that.

No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are 
saying it.


> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> amount of environmental damage their production causes.

The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat 
production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation 
of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the 
misapplication of it, and they are wrong.


>> It's wrong
>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>>
>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>>
> 
> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant.


>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
>> between producers and consumers.
>>
> 
> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> decisions.

You have been talking empty symbolism.


>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
> 
> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
> deaths argument.

It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do 
with people being free to consume what they want, without interference 
from incompetent moral nags like you.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>> Then people will cut back on them.
>>
>> Markets work.
> 
> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
> statements.

No, that's the norm.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>
>>     Richard Steiner
>>     Professor
>>
>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>> normally do:
>>
>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>
>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>> agriculture as a problem:
>>
> 
> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.

His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of 
malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is 
indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.


>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>
>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>
> 
> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball, I
> wonder?
> 
>> The implication is clear:  
> 
> Er, no.

Yes, it is clear.


>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.  
> 
> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition. 

No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural 
capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The 
problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us, 
because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want 
many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat 
being produced in the developed countries.


>> That claim is
>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>> people to die of starvation.  
> 
> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.

It is far and away the biggest part.


>> They die because their economies don't
>> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>>
>> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
>> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
>> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
>> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
>> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
>> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
>> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
>> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
> 
> Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
> nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.

It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.


>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
>> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
>> fascist in design and effect.
> 
> You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".

No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.

On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
> >> Then people will cut back on them.
>
> >> Markets work.
>
> > A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
> > statements.
>
> No, that's the norm.

Sane posts from you are as rare as hen's teeth.

On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>
> >>     Richard Steiner
> >>     Professor
>
> >> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >> normally do:
>
> >>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>
> >> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> >> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >> agriculture as a problem:
>
> > Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>
> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>

Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Ball. Still talking
about telemarketing, eh? You don't think that's getting a little
desperate? Would you care to post your entire work history? Or even
just what you're doing at the moment?

Some might suggest that that little episode where you confidently
proclaimed that I was destined to become a career telemarketer is more
something to be embarrassed about than something to endlessly return
to. In any event there is no shame in telemarketing, it is a perfectly
honest job.

I look forward to seeing scanned images of your academic
qualifications and hearing all about the extraordinarily valuable
contribution you make to society.

Anyway, to return to the topic. It is reasonable to be concerned about
people dying of malnutrition, and it is reasonable to bring up the
topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
context of discussing the current global system of food production.
All you have done so far to support your contention that the article
is stupid is to quote a set of factual statements from it which you
agree with. This is basically like putting on a clown suit and hitting
yourself in the face with a custard pie in public, which is pretty
much all you ever do.


>
>
> >>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>     of the planet's land surface.
>
> >>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>
> > Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> > stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball, I
> > wonder?
>
> >> The implication is clear:
>
> > Er, no.
>
> Yes, it is clear.
>

Ball, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person. God
help me, I can't believe what a joke you are.

> >> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> >> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>
> > Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> > developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> > inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> > people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> > and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>
> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,

Yes, thank you, Ball, I'm well aware that that's the problem. Even I
can figure that one out despite not having an alleged C. Phil. in
economics which I refuse to actually scan in and post online.

Now, one way to address this problem that these people don't have
enough money is to take action which will have an effect on the prices
of food products. If you read what I said carefully you will find that
that is what I was suggesting.


> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
> being produced in the developed countries.
>

No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
is the primary cause of starvation in the third world. I certainly
have never suggested any such thing, and as far as what Richard
Steiner has said, all you've managed to quote from him so far is a set
of facts which you agree with.

There are lots of ways to help people suffering from malnutrition in
developing countries. One might lobby for political change, one might
lobby for the US to get rid of its farm subsidies and tariffs, or at
least its immigration restrictions (Mr Libertarian). One might donate
money to charities which are making effective life-saving
interventions. Or one might change one's diet in the hope that if
sufficiently many people do that then certain food products will
become more affordable to those who need them most. I make no comment
about what is the best way. It is reasonable to talk about the
distribution of global food resources in the context of a discussion
of our global system of food production. All you have quoted from
Richard Steiner so far is a set of facts which you agree with and are
not in dispute. The position you are attacking is something you made
up. You cannot produce any evidence that anyone actually holds it.

> >> That claim is
> >> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> >> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> >> people to die of starvation.
>
> > Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>
> It is far and away the biggest part.
>

Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
causes of world poverty are quite complex and cannot be put down
entirely to governmental corruption. You might want to do a
comparative study of various states in India, for example.

> >> They die because their economies don't
> >> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>
> >> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
> >> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
> >> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
> >> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
> >> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
> >> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
> >> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
> >> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
>
> > Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
> > nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.
>
> It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>
>

No, actually, my statement was the correct one.

>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
> >> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
> >> fascist in design and effect.
>
> > You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".
>
> No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.

Ipse dixit. As I explained already in my last post, this point must be
argued, not asserted. Sorry that is so hard for you to grasp. You
performed poorly last time you attempted to argue this point, your
efforts are up there on my webpage.

We are not talking about the animal rights arguments in this thread.
We are talking about arguments based on the environmental effects of
meat production and on the global distribution of food resources, and
no-one is suggesting banning meat production on the basis of those
arguments alone except in your fevered brain. Once again, your
ambition was to demonstrate that pearl was stupid for posting the
article, and all you have managed to do so far by way of supporting
that contention is to quote a set of facts from the article which you
agree with and which are not in dispute. You yourself agree that a tax
to correct environmental externalities would be reasonable. I really
don't know why you bother to argue. So far there is no reason to think
that you have any point of disagreement with Richard Steiner. It is
just a blind, reflexive, knee-jerk reaction. Pearl posted something so
I will say it is stupid. On this occasion you are making a complete
clown of yourself in attempting to argue your case. But that is
nothing new.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>>>> Then people will cut back on them.
>>>> Markets work.
>>> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
>>> statements.
>> No, that's the norm.
> 
> Sane posts from you are 

the norm.

On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Jonathan Ball the ridiculous clown desperately
vomited all over his keyboard:

> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> >>> Is meat off the menu?
> >>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> >>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> >>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
> >> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> >> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
>
> > The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> > the claim.
>
> My claim is substantiated.
>

It is about as well-substantiated as your claim that "axiomatisable"
is not a real word. Do you feel like retracting that one, by the way?

>
>
> >> They are saying that
> >> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> >> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> >> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
>
> > Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> > anyone is saying that.
>
> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
> saying it.
>

No, it is a straw person that you made up. The only actual quotation
you have provided so far contains a set of facts which are not in
dispute. From this you say "The implication is clear". It is like a
paranoid schizophrenic looking at ads on the sides of buses and saying
"The implication is clear, people are sending messages to me". Make
some effort to argue for your interpretation or shut up.

Making some effort to produce the same amount of calories with less
land is a reasonable goal, amongst others, given various
considerations, such as the environmental devastation caused by meat
production and the fact that it will not be possible to feed 8 billion
people on the current Western diet. That is all anyone is saying, and
it is just basic common sense. It is all very well to say "Oh yes, but
I am a very intellectually sophisticated person with an alleged C.
Phil. in economics which for some reason I choose not to scan in and
post online, and as a result of my extensive postgraduate training I
have managed to grasp an elementary point about the concept of
efficiency". The point is that point about efficiency is totally
irrelevant here. Global food production would become less
environmentally harmful if more people ate more plant-based food, and
if 8 billion people are going to get enough to eat then we will have
to eat more plant-based food. That's what's being said. It's not
rocket science.

> > You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> > understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> > endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> > amount of environmental damage their production causes.
>
> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>

Sorry, Ball, but no sane person would think that for a second, unless
they were desperate to find an excuse to show that they once studied
economics at some level or other. There simply isn't the slightest
rational ground for thinking it, any more than there's any rational
grounds for thinking that immigration restrictions are consistent with
libertarian principles, or that no nonhuman animal ever anticipates,
or that "axiomatisable" is not a real word, or that I'm queer, or that
I'm a telemarketer. It's another classic Ball-ism which gives us all a
good laugh when we get up in the morning.

>
>
> >> It's wrong
> >> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> >> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>
> >> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> >> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> >> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> >> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> >> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> >> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> >> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> >> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> >> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> >> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> >> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> >> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>
> > Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
>
> It's perfectly relevant.
>

You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
desperate bid to make it seem relevant, so that you have a chance to
demonstrate that you once learnt some basic economics. It's completely
irrelevant. No sensible person with minimal common sense would think
for a moment that this had the slightest bearing on the argument.

> >> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> >> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> >> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> >> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
> >> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> >> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> >> between producers and consumers.
>
> > I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> > decisions.
>
> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>

It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
when you're doing absolutely nothing. Do some research into the
reduction in carbon emissions caused by going vegan, the reduction in
the number of animals who have to spend their lives in factory farms
and ultimately be slaughtered, *and* the reduction in collateral
deaths caused by crop production, then get back to me.

> >> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
> >> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
>
> > It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
> > perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
> > some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
> > deaths argument.
>
> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
> from incompetent moral nags like you.

Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?

Get serious, Ball. No-one thinks there is an unconditional right to
consume whatever you want. You have to settle the question of what our
moral obligations are to nonhuman animals are before you can determine
what sort of state intervention is justified in food markets. You've
certainly done nothing by way of moving that debate forward, all you
do is say "No nonhuman animals have any rights whatsoever, species in
itself is morally relevant, it's your job to prove me wrong". You're
going to assert that without argument again under the delusion that
it's some sort of reply.

You have to sort out what we are and are not morally entitled to do to
nonhuman animals before you can decide what sort of processes of food
production the government should allow to go on. No-one thinks that no
regulation at all would be appropriate, not even Tibor Machan. The
question is not whether we should give any measure of protection at
all to nonhuman animals, but how much. The collateral deaths argument
has some bearing on that if you want to criticise the vegan position,
and that was my point. I don't know why you aren't thanking me for
acknowledging that you have on one occasion in your life made a
serious point.

Since you want to talk about incompetence, what do you suggest I say
to my doctor next time I see her? Shall we discuss the question of
whether you've ever claimed that "axiomatisable" is not a real word?

On Jun 25, 6:52 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
> >>>> Then people will cut back on them.
> >>>> Markets work.
> >>> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
> >>> statements.
> >> No, that's the norm.
>
> > Sane posts from you are
>
> the norm.

Yes, thanks, Ball. You're a very sane person. That's why you talk
about "HIV-spreading whores" and "assfelching queers" and
telemarketing all the time.

So, I'm touched by your concern for my mental health. I pointed out
that you once said that "axiomatisable" is not a real word, and you
became very concerned and suggested that I should speak with my
doctor. What do you think I should say to her next time I see her?
Maybe we could discuss the correct way to interpret arguments about
the "efficiency" of meat production.

(Watch this, folks. He's going to snip everything except "Yes").

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>>>     Richard Steiner
>>>>     Professor
>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>>>> normally do:
>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>>>> agriculture as a problem:
>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>>
> 
> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.

Any time, ham hock.

> Anyway, to return to the topic.

After 150 words of wheeze.



> It is reasonable to be concerned about
> people dying of malnutrition,

Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.



> and it is reasonable to bring up the
> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> context of discussing the current global system of food production.

There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European 
- and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers 
in poorer places because they're better at it, and because their 
governments don't handcuff them.

In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44 
tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?


>>
>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Rudy Canoza, I
>>> wonder?

You'd continue as a tele-marketer.


>>>> The implication is clear:
>>> Er, no.
>> Yes, it is clear.
>>
> 
> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,

Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.


> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.

What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.


>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
> 
> Yes, thank you, Rudy, I'm well aware that that's the problem.

And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the 
problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a 
sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along 
with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a 
scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he 
writes.


>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
>> being produced in the developed countries.
>>
> 
> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.

Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that, 
you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather 
than point out their dishonesty.


>>>> That claim is
>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>>>> people to die of starvation.
>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>> It is far and away the biggest part.
>>
> 
> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
> causes of world poverty are quite complex and 

You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.


>>>> They die because their economies don't
>>>> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>>>> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
>>>> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
>>>> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
>>>> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
>>>> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
>>>> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
>>>> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
>>>> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
>>> Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
>>> nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.
>> It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>>
>>
> 
> No, actually, 

Actually, I am correct:  It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.


>>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
>>>> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
>>>> fascist in design and effect.
>>> You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".
>> No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.
> 
> Ipse dixit. 

No.

Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 
>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
>>> the claim.
>> My claim is substantiated.
>>
> 
> It is about as well-substantiated as 

It is substantiated.


>>
>>>> They are saying that
>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
>>> anyone is saying that.
>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
>> saying it.
>>
> 
> No, it is a straw person that you made up.

No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total 
caloric outputs.  It is stupid on their part, and stupid of you to 
defend it and try to salvage it.  It cannot be salvaged.  They don't 
know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you 
can't save them.

They are not talking about environmental degradation.  That's a separate 
issue.


> 
>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>>
> 
> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second, 

All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a 
fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of 
economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  Only lying 
polemicists like you try to deny it.


> 
>>
>>>> It's wrong
>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
>> It's perfectly relevant.
>>
> 
> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
> desperate bid to make it seem relevant

It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.


>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
>>>> between producers and consumers.
>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
>>> decisions.
>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>>
> 
> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"

It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk 
nothing but empty symbolism.  You are a narcissistic ego-polisher who is 
trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  I shot you 
down years ago.


>>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
>>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
>>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
>>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
>>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
>>> deaths argument.
>> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
>> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
>> from incompetent moral nags like you.
> 
> Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?

Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 25, 6:52 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>>>>>> Then people will cut back on them.
>>>>>> Markets work.
>>>>> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
>>>>> statements.
>>>> No, that's the norm.
>>> Sane posts from you are
>> the norm.
> 
> Yes, thanks, Rudy. 

You're welcome, ham hock.

On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> >>>>> Is meat off the menu?
> >>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> >>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> >>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
> >>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> >>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
> >>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> >>> the claim.
> >> My claim is substantiated.
>
> > It is about as well-substantiated as
>
> It is substantiated.
>

By what? Your repeated unargued assertions that it is?

>
>
> >>>> They are saying that
> >>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> >>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> >>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
> >>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> >>> anyone is saying that.
> >> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
> >> saying it.
>
> > No, it is a straw person that you made up.
>
> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
> caloric outputs.  

Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense doesn't make it any more
plausible.

> It is stupid on their part,

No, it is stupid on your part to constantly babble obvious nonsense,
such as "I never said 'axiomatisable' wasn't a real word", and what
you said just above, and continue to believe that you have an ounce of
credibility on this newsgroup.

> and stupid of you to
> defend it and try to salvage it.  

I'm not defending it, quarter-wit, it's a straw person. The argument I
am actually defending is the one that is actually being made, which
you have actually already agreed with. Time to go back to talking
about assfelching and posting looping through Norway now, that's your
level.

> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
> can't save them.
>

Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it. When are we going to
see your academic credentials in economics, by the way?

> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  

Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
world's population grows, is precisely the whole point, as anyone with
a single functioning brain cell can see.

> That's a separate
> issue.
>

Your skills at interpreting arguments which any moron can comprehend
are just as amusing as your attempts to critique mathematical papers
by consulting online dictionaries.

>
>
> >>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> >>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> >>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> >>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
> >> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
> >> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
> >> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
> >> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>
> > Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
>
> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  

It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery, and you are only
arguing it because you are so desperate to say "Look at me, I've
mastered the concept of economic efficiency, aren't I clever".

> Only lying
> polemicists like you try to deny it.
>

Unfortunately you are still a fool.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> It's wrong
> >>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> >>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
> >>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> >>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> >>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> >>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> >>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> >>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> >>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> >>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> >>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> >>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> >>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> >>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
> >>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
> >> It's perfectly relevant.
>
> > You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
> > desperate bid to make it seem relevant
>
> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
>

Classical Ball. :)

When there are 10 billion people in the world and not enough food, or
when Pacific islands such as Kiribati become submerged due to rising
sea levels, creating large numbers of environmental refugees, be sure
to give us a lecture about what the only relevant meaning of
efficiency is. After you've posted a scanned copy of your C. Phil.,
that is.

Will you ever get tired of wasting your life making a clown out of
yourself in public?


> >>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> >>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> >>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> >>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
> >>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> >>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> >>>> between producers and consumers.
> >>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> >>> decisions.
> >> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>
> > It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
>
> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
> nothing but empty symbolism.  

How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Ball?
How much research have you done about the effectiveness of various
interventions in saving lives? Exactly what have you ever done to try
to make the world a better place?

It's very easy for any reasonably well-informed person to see that the
more people who go vegan (or make some other change in their diets
which is comparably effective at reducing environmental degradation
and harm to nonhuman animals), the better the world will be. You
choose to do absolutely nothing, and sit around in your underwear all
day posting to newsgroups about assfelching and posts looping through
Norway, and telling people they are morally bankrupt. Much good may it
do you.

> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher

As opposed to you, who is the smartest person David Harrison has ever
encountered by far, and is therefore the smartest person on this
newsgroup by far.

> who is
> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  

I have never made any such claim. You are free to form your own
judgement about that. I do contend that your judgement that I am
"morally bankrupt" is pretty funny. However, I am more interested in
what I can do to help humans and nonhuman animals. You should take an
interest in what you can do about that, just once, instead of wasting
your time making a fool out of yourself on usenet.

> I shot you
> down years ago.
>

You never did any such thing, I'm afraid, Ball. My stance has remained
unchanged and unrefuted throughout my entire posting history on this
newsgroup. Never once have you succeeded in substantiating your
charges of hypocrisy.

What do you suppose I have been doing to you in recent conversations,
by the way?



> >>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
> >>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
> >>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
> >>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
> >>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
> >>> deaths argument.
> >> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
> >> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
> >> from incompetent moral nags like you.
>
> > Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?
>
> Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.

Which, as I patiently explained to you, is precisely the point that
needs to be argued, and until it has been argued then you haven't done
anything to defend your position. Perhaps after repeating it for the
fiftieth time this point will gradually penetrate your thick skull.
Glad to be of help.

On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>>>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
> >>>>     Richard Steiner
> >>>>     Professor
> >>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >>>> normally do:
> >>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
> >>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article> >>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >>>> agriculture as a problem:
> >>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
> >> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> >> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> >> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>
> > Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
>
> Any time, ham hock.
>

It's very generous of you. :)

> > Anyway, to return to the topic.
>
> After 150 words of wheeze.
>
> > It is reasonable to be concerned about
> > people dying of malnutrition,
>
> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>

You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it. Which is
perhaps a reasonable point to make if "wringing your hands" implies
not actually doing anything constructive, but what he's actually doing
is drawing attention to the fact that there's an impending food crisis
about to be caused by the soil degradation caused by animal
agriculture, which will make it very difficult to feed the world's
population once it gets past a certain point. Quite a lot of well-
respected agricultural scientists with no particular animal rights
agenda are concerned about this one, you know. Pearl thought this
point might be of some interest. But of course she's just being
stupid.

> > and it is reasonable to bring up the
> > topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> > context of discussing the current global system of food production.
>
> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
> in poorer places because they're better at it,

Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
ethic. Thanks for clearing things up, Mr. C. Phil. in economics. :)

> and because their
> governments don't handcuff them.
>

It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
overseas. Done any activism about that issue lately, Mr. Libertarian?

This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
food resources and an impending food crisis. If you're not interested
in doing anything about it, then at least stop wasting your life
making a clown out of yourself in public.

> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
>
>
>
> >>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> >>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> >>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
> >>> his real name, I
> >>> wonder?
>
> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
>

Is that what I'm doing today, Ball? Promoting technology exhibitions
over the phone? :)

> >>>> The implication is clear:
> >>> Er, no.
> >> Yes, it is clear.
>
> > Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>
> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>

If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it. You've
quoted a set of factual statements which are not in dispute, and used
this as your ground for saying the article is "stupid". Which is kind
of ironic really, isn't it? :)

What does he say ought to be done? You tell me. I haven't read the
article. Be sure to back up your interpretation with textual evidence.

> > and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
>
> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
>

Then why did you quote a part of the article which only gave factual
information?

If you want to quarrel with someone about what ought to be done, make
it clear who you are quarrelling with, and demonstrate that they do
indeed hold the position which you attribute to them. Do that *before*
you call anyone "stupid". Oh, I forgot, you like looking like a clown.
Oh well, in that case, just keep doing what you're doing.

> >>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> >>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
> >>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> >>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> >>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> >>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> >>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
> >> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
> >> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
> >> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
>
> > Yes, thank you, Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide his real name, I'm well aware that that's the > > problem.
>
> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
> writes.
>

I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
Those are your grounds for saying the article is stupid. On that
basis, I say you are a clown.

I'm not "going along" with anything either. Again, I haven't read the
article so I can't "go along" with it. I'm simply pointing out that
you're being a clown. You set yourself the goal of demonstrating that
the article is stupid and so far all you've done is quote from the
article a set of facts which are not in dispute. You're a clown.

I never suggested that meat production was a cause of world poverty.
And you're well aware of that, so if you were a decent person you'd
apologise for calling me a "sleazy and dishonest shit-bag", but we
know better than to expect decent behaviour from you. I don't believe
that anyone has ever suggested that meat production is a cause of
world poverty, and if you want to convince me otherwise, you're going
to have to produce some decent evidence. But I'm not holding my
breath, what I anticipate is further clowning.


> >> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
> >> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
> >> being produced in the developed countries.
>
> > No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
> > is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
>
> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
> than point out their dishonesty.
>

If this is the case, it should be possible to provide just one iota of
evidence for it, instead of using the transparently silly tactic of
pretending I already agree with you.

> >>>> That claim is
> >>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> >>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> >>>> people to die of starvation.
> >>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
> >> It is far and away the biggest part.
>
> > Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
> > causes of world poverty are quite complex and
>
> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
>

You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces. You think I'm psychotic,
queer, and still a telemarketer. I don't think we can give too much
weight to an assertion from you, obviously based on no factual
information whatsoever, about how much I know about the causes of
world poverty.

Most likely I know more about world poverty and its causes than you.
If not, it doesn't matter. You wouldn't have the slightest clue about
what I know and what I don't know.


>
>
>
>
> >>>> They die because their economies don't
> >>>> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
> >>>> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
> >>>> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
> >>>> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
> >>>> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
> >>>> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
> >>>> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
> >>>> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
> >>>> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
> >>> Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
> >>> nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.
> >> It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>
> > No, actually,
>
> Actually, I am correct:  It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>

It is a reasonable stance to take and I actually expressed agreement
with you, but there is a further issue about how much consideration we
should give to the well-being of nonhuman animals which also needs to
be explored, and that was my point, as any sensible person can see.

> >>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
> >>>> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
> >>>> fascist in design and effect.
> >>> You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".
> >> No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.
>
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> No.

You're such a dribbling imbecile. Can you translate "ipse dixit" for
us, Ball?

On Jun 24, 4:58 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 6:52 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
> >>>>>> Then people will cut back on them.
> >>>>>> Markets work.
> >>>>> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
> >>>>> statements.
> >>>> No, that's the norm.
> >>> Sane posts from you are
> >> the norm.
>
> > Yes, thanks, Rudy.
>
> You're welcome, ham hock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I do sincerely appreciate it. It's very nice of you to start providing
me with entertainment again. :)

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
>>>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
>>>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
>>>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>>>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
>>>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
>>>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
>>>>> the claim.
>>>> My claim is substantiated.
>>> It is about as well-substantiated as
>> It is substantiated.
>>
> 
> By what?

The evidence.


>>>>>> They are saying that
>>>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
>>>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
>>>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
>>>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
>>>>> anyone is saying that.
>>>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
>>>> saying it.
>>> No, it is a straw person that you made up.
>> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
>> caloric outputs.  
> 
> Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense

Not nonsense.  It's what they say, and you know it.


>> It is stupid on their part,
> 
> No, 

Yes, it's stupid on their part to misuse the concept of efficiency, when 
they clearly do not understand it.


>> and stupid of you to
>> defend it and try to salvage it.  
> 
> I'm not defending it,

Yes, you are.


>> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
>> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
>> can't save them.
>>
> 
> Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it.

It has *everything* to do with it, which is why the fuckwits get it all 
wrong.


>> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  
> 
> Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
> world's population grows, is precisely the whole point

Possibly to you, but that's not the point these fuckwitted "vegans" - 
lesley and this Patel rectum-sweat - are trying to make.  They are 
trying to make an efficiency argument, entirely aside from environmental 
considerations, and they fail miserably because they don't know their 
asses from their faces.


>> That's a separate issue.
>>
> 
> Your skills at interpreting arguments 

There is no special skill required to perceive their shitty argument. 
They are trying to make an efficiency argument, and they fail because 
they don't understand efficiency.


>>>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
>>>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
>>>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
>>>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
>>>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
>>>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
>>>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
>>>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>>> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
>> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
>> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
>> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  
> 
> It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery

You sure are.


>>>>>> It's wrong
>>>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
>>>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>>>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
>>>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
>>>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
>>>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
>>>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
>>>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
>>>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
>>>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
>>>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
>>>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
>>>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
>>>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>>>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
>>>> It's perfectly relevant.
>>> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
>>> desperate bid to make it seem relevant
>> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
>>
> 
> Classical

Accurate.


>>>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
>>>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
>>>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
>>>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
>>>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
>>>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
>>>>>> between producers and consumers.
>>>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
>>>>> decisions.
>>>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>>> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
>> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
>> nothing but empty symbolism.  
> 
> How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Rudy?

More than your entire income over that interval.


>> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher
> 
> As opposed to you,

Right.  I have substance; you have empty, ego-polishing symbolism.


>> who is
>> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  
> 
> I have never made any such claim. 

Implicit.



>> I shot you
>> down years ago.
>>
> 
> You never did any such thing

I most certainly did.


>>>>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
>>>>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
>>>>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
>>>>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
>>>>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
>>>>> deaths argument.
>>>> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
>>>> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
>>>> from incompetent moral nags like you.
>>> Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?
>> Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.
> 
> Which, as I patiently explained to you, is precisely the point that
> needs to be argued

You can't do it.  As I have patiently explained to you over and over, 
you assume the very thing you need to prove.  You can't get any traction.

You will never get anywhere with this, ham hock.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
>>>>>>     Professor
>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>>>>>> normally do:
>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
>> Any time, ham hock.
>>
> 
> It's very generous of you.

I'm a very generous man.


>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
>> After 150 words of wheeze.
>>
>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
>>> people dying of malnutrition,
>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>>
> 
> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.

He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat 
production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.


>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
> 
> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
> ethic.

For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what 
good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh, 
wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you 
don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation. 
Sorry (not really).


>> and because their
>> governments don't handcuff them.
>>
> 
> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
> overseas.

Doesn't happen.


> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
> food resources 

False.  Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather 
than facts.


>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?

Can't answer, can you, squirt?


>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
>>>>> his real name, I
>>>>> wonder?
>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
>>
> 
> Is that what I'm doing today

Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record 
hip hop albums?


>>>>>> The implication is clear:
>>>>> Er, no.
>>>> Yes, it is clear.
>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>>
> 
> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.

The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively 
redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.


>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
>>
>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
>>> Yes, thank you, Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide his real name, I'm well aware that that's the > > problem.
>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
>> writes.
>>
> 
> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.

The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an 
implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to 
implement.


> 
>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
>> than point out their dishonesty.
>>
> 
> If this is the case,

It is the case, beyond dispute.


>>>>>> That claim is
>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
>>
> 
> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.

I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.  You can 
barely put on a pair of slip-ons.


>>>>>> They die because their economies don't
>>>>>> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>>>>>> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
>>>>>> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
>>>>>> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
>>>>>> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
>>>>>> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
>>>>>> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
>>>>>> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
>>>>>> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
>>>>> Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
>>>>> nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.
>>>> It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>>> No, actually,
>> Actually, I am correct:  It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>>
> 
> It is a reasonable stance to take

Full stop.


>>>>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
>>>>>> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
>>>>>> fascist in design and effect.
>>>>> You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".
>>>> No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.
>>> Ipse dixit.
>> No.
> 
> You're such a dribbling imbecile.

No.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:58 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 6:52 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
>>>>>>>> Then people will cut back on them.
>>>>>>>> Markets work.
>>>>>>> A rare occasion indeed: a post from Rudy containing only sensible
>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>> No, that's the norm.
>>>>> Sane posts from you are
>>>> the norm.
>>> Yes, thanks, Rudy.
>> You're welcome, ham hock.
> 
> I do sincerely appreciate it.

That's nice.

On Jun 24, 6:36 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> >>>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
> >>>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> >>>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> >>>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
> >>>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> >>>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
> >>>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> >>>>> the claim.
> >>>> My claim is substantiated.
> >>> It is about as well-substantiated as
> >> It is substantiated.
>
> > By what?
>
> The evidence.
>

Do you ever get tired of being so pitiful? This is a not an answer.

> >>>>>> They are saying that
> >>>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> >>>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> >>>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
> >>>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> >>>>> anyone is saying that.
> >>>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
> >>>> saying it.
> >>> No, it is a straw person that you made up.
> >> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
> >> caloric outputs.  
>
> > Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense
>
> Not nonsense.  It's what they say, and you know it.
>

If it's what they say, it should be possible for you just once to
point out where someone has said it. I've never seen anyone say it so
I don't know that it's what they say, and I don't feel inclined to
take your word for it. Voicing delusions that I already agree with you
and I'm just lying is not going to enhance your credibility or help
you to escape from your obligation to argue your case.

> >> It is stupid on their part,
>
> > No,
>
> Yes, it's stupid on their part to misuse the concept of efficiency, when
> they clearly do not understand it.
>
> >> and stupid of you to
> >> defend it and try to salvage it.  
>
> > I'm not defending it,
>
> Yes, you are.
>

As I explained, Ball, (who will comically edit this to "Rudy"), what I
am defending is what you have already agreed with.

> >> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
> >> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
> >> can't save them.
>
> > Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it.
>
> It has *everything* to do with it, which is why the fuckwits get it all
> wrong.
>
> >> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  
>
> > Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
> > world's population grows, is precisely the whole point
>
> Possibly to you, but that's not the point these fuckwitted "vegans" -
> lesley and this Patel rectum-sweat - are trying to make.  

Substantiate your interpretation of their position. I'll be more
inclined to listen to what Lesley says about what she thinks than what
you say about it. You're not a very reliable source of information
about what people do for a living and I see no reason to think you
would be any more reliable when it comes to saying what people think.

> They are
> trying to make an efficiency argument, entirely aside from environmental
> considerations, and they fail miserably because they don't know their
> asses from their faces.
>

Where's the evidence that that's what they're trying to do? And what
does it matter? The environmental argument is where the action is.
It's an important argument which we all need to be aware of.

> >> That's a separate issue.
>
> > Your skills at interpreting arguments
>
> There is no special skill required to perceive their shitty argument.

There is no special skill required to understand their *actual*
argument. It takes the special talent of a Jonathan Ball to
misunderstand it as badly as you do.

> They are trying to make an efficiency argument, and they fail because
> they don't understand efficiency.
>
> >>>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> >>>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> >>>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> >>>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
> >>>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
> >>>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
> >>>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
> >>>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
> >>> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
> >> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
> >> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
> >> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  
>
> > It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery
>
> You sure are.
>

Oh, clap clap, a hit, a very palpable hit.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> It's wrong
> >>>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> >>>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
> >>>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> >>>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> >>>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> >>>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> >>>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> >>>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> >>>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> >>>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> >>>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> >>>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> >>>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> >>>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
> >>>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
> >>>> It's perfectly relevant.
> >>> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
> >>> desperate bid to make it seem relevant
> >> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
>
> > Classical
>
> Accurate.
>

Nothing matches Ball's confidence in his position when he hasn't made
the slightest attempt to argue it.

> >>>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> >>>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> >>>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> >>>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade> >>>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> >>>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> >>>>>> between producers and consumers.
> >>>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> >>>>> decisions.
> >>>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
> >>> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism> >> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
> >> nothing but empty symbolism.  
>
> > How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Rudy?
>
> More than your entire income over that interval.
>

That's interesting. That's quite a lot of money. Given that you only
claim to make "four times as much money" as Ronny it must be quite a
high percentage of the total. You must be an unusually charitable
person, indeed. Which charities?

Anyway, that's great, keep up the good work. To return to the original
topic of discussion, the claim that I "talk nothing but empty
symbolism" is ludicrous.

> >> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher
>
> > As opposed to you,
>
> Right.  I have substance; you have empty, ego-polishing symbolism.
>
> >> who is
> >> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  
>
> > I have never made any such claim.
>
> Implicit.
>

You very often form completely unsubstantiated beliefs about where I
work, what my sexual orientation is, what my state of mental health
is, and so forth. Any hallucinations you may have about an "implicit"
claim to virtue or about what Richard Steiner is "implying" when he
states some facts which you agree with do not mean very much. Whether
or not I think I am virtuous is of no interest to any sensible person.
The point of interest is how much I am doing to make the world a
better place. You have given no reason to think that what I do is
nothing more than "empty symbolism". You wouldn't have very much
insight into what I do in any case. You have also given no reason to
think that going vegan by itself would just be "empty symbolism". You
made that claim so it's your job to argue it. You've presented no
facts which have any bearing on the matter.


> >> I shot you
> >> down years ago.
>
> > You never did any such thing
>
> I most certainly did.
>

How did you do it, Ball? What did you prove? What was your point? :)

> >>>>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
> >>>>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
> >>>>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
> >>>>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
> >>>>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
> >>>>> deaths argument.
> >>>> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
> >>>> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
> >>>> from incompetent moral nags like you.
> >>> Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?
> >> Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.
>
> > Which, as I patiently explained to you, is precisely the point that
> > needs to be argued
>
> You can't do it.  As I have patiently explained to you over and over,
> you assume the very thing you need to prove.  You can't get any traction.
>
> You will never get anywhere with this, ham hock.

No, I don't assume what I need to prove, Ball. Your performance in the
debate on my webpage was pitiful. I'm quite happy to let it speak for
itself as it currently stands. Feel free to respond to my latest
contribution any time you like. Your last response consisted of
snipping the whole thing.

On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
> >>>>>>     Richard Steiner
> >>>>>>     Professor
> >>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >>>>>> normally do:
> >>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
> >>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> >>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
> >>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
> >>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> >>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> >>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
> >>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
> >> Any time, ham hock.
>
> > It's very generous of you.
>
> I'm a very generous man.
>

You are indeed. You gave more than $90,000 to charity in the last
three years. Very admirable of you. I revise my moral assessment of
you, you do have some redeeming features.

I apologising for unjustly entertaining the idea that you are an
uncharitable person and for asking irrelevant questions about your
private affairs.

> >>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
> >> After 150 words of wheeze.
>
> >>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
> >>> people dying of malnutrition,
> >> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>
> > You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
>
> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
>

You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it, and you have
produced no evidence that he blames it on meat production.

> >>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
> >>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> >>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
> >> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
> >> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
> >> in poorer places because they're better at it,
>
> > Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
> > ethic.
>
> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
> Sorry (not really).
>

I have studied a bit of economics, actually, and I've also learnt a
bit about quantitative finance and plan to learn more in the near
future. But nevertheless I wouldn't attempt to critique one of your
papers by consulting an online dictionary, and tell you that you
weren't using real words. You are completely ignorant of advanced
mathematics and there is no shame in that any more than there is any
shame in being (relatively) ignorant of economics.

Understanding the effect of infrastructure and capital accumulation is
not exactly rocket science; any reasonably well-informed person
understands that those are important factors. This isn't really what I
understand by farmers having "superior abilities". I don't think
"superior abilities" means "superior access to infrastructure and
capital". I thought you were speaking of some kind of natural talent
for farming, which I found quite amusing.

I eagerly await proof of your academic credentials in economics.

> >> and because their
> >> governments don't handcuff them.
>
> > It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
> > and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
> > overseas.
>
> Doesn't happen.
>

Er, yes, tell us all about that, Ball. Tell us about agricultural
subsidies and tariffs in the US. :)

> > This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
> > food resources
>
> False.  

You're a lunatic.

> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
> than facts.
>

You're just a lunatic, Ball. It's absurd to pretend that such a person
is amenable to reason.

I take it you never said "axiomatisable" wasn't a real word, either?

> >> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
> >> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
>
> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
>

Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> >>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> >>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
> >>>>> his real name, I
> >>>>> wonder?
> >> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
>
> > Is that what I'm doing today
>
> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
> hip hop albums?
>

Thanks for the laugh. :)

I'm marking the Further Maths exams.

> >>>>>> The implication is clear:
> >>>>> Er, no.
> >>>> Yes, it is clear.
> >>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with> >> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>
> > If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> > done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
>
> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
>

Stop making up stuff about implications. Give us an actual quotation
to support your interpretation. A quotation consisting of agreed-upon
facts won't cut it.

>
>
>
>
> >>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
> >> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
>
> >>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> >>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
> >>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> >>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> >>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> >>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> >>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
> >>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
> >>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
> >>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
> >>> Yes, thank you, Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide his real name, I'm well aware that that's the > > problem.
> >> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
> >> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
> >> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
> >> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
> >> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
> >> writes.
>
> > I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
> > what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
>
> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
> implement.
>

Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention, not a
quotation consisting of facts which everyone agrees with.

Argue your case, man, for God's sake.

>
>
> >>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
> >>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
> >>>> being produced in the developed countries.
> >>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
> >>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
> >> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
> >> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
> >> than point out their dishonesty.
>
> > If this is the case,
>
> It is the case, beyond dispute.
>

Oh, it's beyond dispute before you've made the slightest attempt to
argue the point. That must be convenient for you. I suppose it's
beyond dispute that you never said "axiomatisable" wasn't a real word,
too.

> >>>>>> That claim is
> >>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> >>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want> >>>>>> people to die of starvation.
> >>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
> >>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
> >>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
> >>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
> >> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
>
> > You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
>
> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.  

Well, that's a very impressive intellectual achievement.

> You can
> barely put on a pair of slip-ons.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> They die because their economies don't
> >>>>>> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
> >>>>>> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
> >>>>>> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
> >>>>>> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
> >>>>>> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
> >>>>>> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
> >>>>>> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
> >>>>>> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
> >>>>>> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
> >>>>> Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
> >>>>> nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.
> >>>> It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
> >>> No, actually,
> >> Actually, I am correct:  It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>
> > It is a reasonable stance to take
>
> Full stop.
>
> >>>>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
> >>>>>> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
> >>>>>> fascist in design and effect.
> >>>>> You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".
> >>>> No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.
> >>> Ipse dixit.
> >> No.
>
> > You're such a dribbling imbecile.
>
> No

Answer the question, Ball. What's the translation of "ipse dixit"?

Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> On Jun 24, 6:36 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>> On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
>>>>>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
>>>>>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>>>>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
>>>>>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>>>>>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
>>>>>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
>>>>>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
>>>>>>> the claim.
>>>>>> My claim is substantiated.
>>>>> It is about as well-substantiated as
>>>> It is substantiated.
>>> By what?
>> The evidence.
>>
> 
> Do you ever get tired 

No.


>>>>>>>> They are saying that
>>>>>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
>>>>>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
>>>>>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
>>>>>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
>>>>>>> anyone is saying that.
>>>>>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
>>>>>> saying it.
>>>>> No, it is a straw person that you made up.
>>>> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
>>>> caloric outputs.  
>>> Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense
>> Not nonsense.  It's what they say, and you know it.
>>
> 
> If it's what they say, 

It's what they say.  It's what both of the pathetic "vegan" fucks the 
cunt lesley cited have said; Patel and the other fuck.  They both have 
said that meat production is "inefficient" as a way of feeding people. 
They aren't talking about environmental concerns when they say that, and 
you know it.


>>>> It is stupid on their part,
>>> No,
>> Yes, it's stupid on their part to misuse the concept of efficiency, when
>> they clearly do not understand it.
>>
>>>> and stupid of you to
>>>> defend it and try to salvage it.  
>>> I'm not defending it,
>> Yes, you are.
>>
> 
> As I explained,

You lied.  You're defending it.


>>>> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
>>>> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
>>>> can't save them.
>>> Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it.
>> It has *everything* to do with it, which is why the fuckwits get it all
>> wrong.
>>
>>>> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  
>>> Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
>>> world's population grows, is precisely the whole point
>> Possibly to you, but that's not the point these fuckwitted "vegans" -
>> lesley and this Patel rectum-sweat - are trying to make.  
> 
> Substantiate your interpretation of their position.

THEY have substantiated it.  I'm not "interpreting" their position, you 
stupid fuck.


>> They are
>> trying to make an efficiency argument, entirely aside from environmental
>> considerations, and they fail miserably because they don't know their
>> asses from their faces.
>>
> 
> Where's the evidence that that's what they're trying to do? 

"Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
resources in an overcrowded world."

It's right fucking there in front of your fucking eyes, you fucking cunt.


>>>> That's a separate issue.
>>> Your skills at interpreting arguments
>> There is no special skill required to perceive their shitty argument.
> 
> There is no special skill required to understand their *actual*
> argument.

I understood it:  they believe it is "inefficient" - a waste of 
resources - to produce meat.  They have explicitly said it.


>> They are trying to make an efficiency argument, and they fail because
>> they don't understand efficiency.
>>
>>>>>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
>>>>>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
>>>>>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
>>>>>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
>>>>>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
>>>>>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
>>>>>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
>>>>>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>>>>> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
>>>> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
>>>> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
>>>> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  
>>> It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery
>> You sure are.
>>
> 
> Oh, clap clap, a hit

Right between your dopey eyes.


>>>>>>>> It's wrong
>>>>>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
>>>>>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>>>>>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
>>>>>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
>>>>>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
>>>>>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
>>>>>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
>>>>>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
>>>>>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
>>>>>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
>>>>>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
>>>>>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
>>>>>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
>>>>>> It's perfectly relevant.
>>>>> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
>>>>> desperate bid to make it seem relevant
>>>> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
>>> Classical
>> Accurate.
>>
> 
> Nothing matches Rudy's confidence in 

Accurate, troll.  My statement of what is relevant in efficiency 
considerations is accurate.  Move along - you lost another.


>>>>>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
>>>>>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
>>>>>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
>>>>>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
>>>>>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
>>>>>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
>>>>>>>> between producers and consumers.
>>>>>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
>>>>>>> decisions.
>>>>>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>>>>> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
>>>> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
>>>> nothing but empty symbolism.  
>>> How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Rudy?
>> More than your entire income over that interval.
>>
> 
> That's interesting.

Okay.


>>>> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher
>>> As opposed to you,
>> Right.  I have substance; you have empty, ego-polishing symbolism.
>>
>>>> who is
>>>> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  
>>> I have never made any such claim.
>> Implicit.
>>
> 
> You very often form completely unsubstantiated beliefs

No.


>>>> I shot you
>>>> down years ago.
>>> You never did any such thing
>> I most certainly did.
>>
> 
> How did you do it

With aplomb, gusto and relish.


>>>>>>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
>>>>>>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
>>>>>>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
>>>>>>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
>>>>>>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
>>>>>>> deaths argument.
>>>>>> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
>>>>>> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
>>>>>> from incompetent moral nags like you.
>>>>> Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?
>>>> Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.
>>> Which, as I patiently explained to you, is precisely the point that
>>> needs to be argued
>> You can't do it.  As I have patiently explained to you over and over,
>> you assume the very thing you need to prove.  You can't get any traction.
>>
>> You will never get anywhere with this, ham hock.
> 
> No, I don't assume what I need to prove

You do.  All "aras" do.  You assume equal moral consideration is due, 
but that's what you need to prove.

There's nothing to argue on this.  You do it; you make the unwarranted 
assumption of the very thing you are tasked to prove.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
>>>>>>>>     Professor
>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>>>>>>>> normally do:
>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
>>>> Any time, ham hock.
>>> It's very generous of you.
>> I'm a very generous man.
>>
> 
> You are indeed.

Yes.

You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.


>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
>>
> 
> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it

He's doing nothing, just as you do nothing.  Running your mouth isn't 
doing "something".


>>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
>>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
>>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
>>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
>>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
>>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
>>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
>>> ethic.
>> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
>> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
>> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
>> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
>> Sorry (not really).
>>
> 
> I have studied a bit of economics

No.


>>>> and because their
>>>> governments don't handcuff them.
>>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
>>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
>>> overseas.
>> Doesn't happen.
>>
> 
> Er, yes, 

Doesn't happen.


>>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
>>> food resources
>> False.  
> 
> You're a lunatic.

False.


>> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
>> than facts.
>>
> 
> You're just a lunatic

False.


>>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
>>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
>> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
>>
> 
> Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.

You most certainly did.  You blabbered about the "inequitable" 
distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of 
course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in 
market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way 
is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive? 
And you couldn't answer.


>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
>>>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
>>>>>>> his real name, I
>>>>>>> wonder?
>>>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
>>> Is that what I'm doing today
>> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
>> hip hop albums?
>>
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.

You're a fuckstain.


>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:
>>>>>>> Er, no.
>>>>>> Yes, it is clear.
>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
>>
> 
> Stop making up stuff about implications. 

The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.


>>>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
>>>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
>>>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>>>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>>>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
>>>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
>>>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
>>>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
>>>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>>>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
>>>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
>>>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
>>>>> Yes, thank you, Rudy Canoza 
>>>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
>>>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
>>>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
>>>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
>>>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
>>>> writes.
>>> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
>>> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
>> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
>> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
>> implement.
>>
> 
> Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention

It's the clear implication of his whining about meat production.  He 
wants it stopped; that's clear.  Stopping it requires totalitarianism; 
that's also clear.


>>>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
>>>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
>>>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
>>>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
>>>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
>>>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
>>>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
>>>> than point out their dishonesty.
>>> If this is the case,
>> It is the case, beyond dispute.
>>
> 
> Oh, it's beyond dispute 

Yes.  It is beyond dispute that fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics believe meat 
production in the developed world causes starvation in the shitholes, 
and it is beyond dispute that you cynically keep quiet about their false 
beliefs, even though you claim to realize they're false.


>>>>>>>> That claim is
>>>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>>>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>>>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
>>>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>>>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
>>>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
>>>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
>>>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
>>> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
>> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.  
> 
> Well, 

You didn't know what you were talking about - again.


> 
>> You can barely put on a pair of slip-ons.

You're an idiot.


>>>>>>>> They die because their economies don't
>>>>>>>> function, because of the incompetence and sheer evil of their regimes.
>>>>>>>> In terms of the environmental cost of agriculture, that is a problem of
>>>>>>>> *all* of agriculture, not just meat production.  Everything produced
>>>>>>>> should be done in such a way that the total cost, including
>>>>>>>> environmental remediation, is captured in the price of the commodities
>>>>>>>> sold.  If the production of meat causes a lot of environmental
>>>>>>>> degradation, then by all means tax it, or the intermediate steps in
>>>>>>>> between, in such a way that when consumers buy the stuff, they are
>>>>>>>> paying for the cost of mitigating and reducing the environmental damage.
>>>>>>> Yes, this is a very reasonable stance to take if you ignore the
>>>>>>> nonhuman animals that are involved in meat production.
>>>>>> It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>>>>> No, actually,
>>>> Actually, I am correct:  It's a very reasonable stance to take, period.
>>> It is a reasonable stance to take
>> Full stop.
>>
>>>>>>>   But the answer is not to forbid the production of the stuff.  People
>>>>>>>> want to eat meat, and forbidding its production and consumption is
>>>>>>>> fascist in design and effect.
>>>>>>> You might as well say that forbidding the slave trade is "fascist".
>>>>>> No, they're not equivalent.  Animals don't have rights; people do.
>>>>> Ipse dixit.
>>>> No.
>>> You're such a dribbling imbecile.
>> No.

Full stop.

On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
> >>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
> >>>>>>>>     Professor
> >>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >>>>>>>> normally do:
> >>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
> >>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> >>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
> >>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
> >>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> >>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> >>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
> >>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
> >>>> Any time, ham hock.
> >>> It's very generous of you.
> >> I'm a very generous man.
>
> > You are indeed.
>
> Yes.
>
> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
>

Yes, I do. I am performing the public service of waxing eloquent in a
humorous fashion about what a fool you are.

> >>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
> >>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
> >>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
> >>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
> >>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
> >>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
> >> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
> >> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
>
> > You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
>
> He's doing nothing,

My original statement was correct.

> just as you do nothing.  

I don't do nothing, you stupid fool.

So, you gave more than $90,000 to charity in the last three years, did
you, Ball? I had no idea you were such a philanthropist. Which
charities?

How did you earn the money, by the way? What do you do for a living?

> Running your mouth isn't
> doing "something".
>
> >>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
> >>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> >>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
> >>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
> >>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
> >>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
> >>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
> >>> ethic.
> >> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
> >> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
> >> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
> >> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
> >> Sorry (not really).
>
> > I have studied a bit of economics
>
> No.
>

Stupid clown.

I suppose I haven't studied any maths either. You might as well say
that, it would be no more absurd than all the rest of your drivel.

When are we going to see the proof of your academic credentials?

> >>>> and because their
> >>>> governments don't handcuff them.
> >>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
> >>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
> >>> overseas.
> >> Doesn't happen.
>
> > Er, yes,
>
> Doesn't happen.
>

You're a very funny man, Ball. :)

> >>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
> >>> food resources
> >> False.  
>
> > You're a lunatic.
>
> False.
>

"You stupidly told someone a math term he used wasn't a real word." -
Ronny
"No" - Jonathan Ball

"There is an unequal global distribution of food resources." - Rupert
"False." - Jonathan Ball

"You're a lunatic" - Rupert
"False" - Jonathan Ball

How can I add anything to that?

Maybe you think I should talk it over with my doctor?

> >> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
> >> than facts.
>
> > You're just a lunatic
>
> False.
>
> >>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
> >>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
> >> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
>
> > Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.
>
> You most certainly did.  

No, sorry, Ball. It really is a mystery how you managed to earn a C.
Phil. in economics with such poor reading comprehension skills.

> You blabbered about the "inequitable"
> distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of
> course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in
> market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way
> is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive?
> And you couldn't answer.
>

First of all, the simple fact of superior productivity is not a "food
resource" in my language. You really should learn to use language more
precisely. "Inequitable" was perhaps an unhappy choice of word, I did
not mean to imply that there is anything fair or unfair about it, any
more than there is anything fair or unfair about the fact that I am so
much more intelligent than you in every conceivable way. I modified
this word to "unequal", here referring to the distribution of the
consumption of the inputs required for food production, those being
land, crops, capital, labour, all the rest of it. I get to buy more of
that stuff when I go to the supermarket than your average Third World
peasant because, as you so rightly pointed out, I have more money. In
fact quite a lot of people have so little money that they are on the
verge of dying from starvation. And my point was simply that this is a
reasonable thing to bring up in the context of a discussion of the
global system of food production. Are you tired of playing stupid
semantic games now?

> >>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> >>>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> >>>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
> >>>>>>> his real name, I
> >>>>>>> wonder?
> >>>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
> >>> Is that what I'm doing today
> >> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
> >> hip hop albums?
>
> > Thanks for the laugh.
>
> You're a fuckstain.
>

You could benefit from a visit to a psychiatrist.

> >>>>>>>> The implication is clear:
> >>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>> Yes, it is clear.
> >>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
> >>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
> >>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> >>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
> >> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
> >> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
>
> > Stop making up stuff about implications.
>
> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
>

The implications from what? From that passage you quoted which stated
a set of facts which no-one disputes? Does the simple statement of
that set of facts commit you to saying we should stop producing meat
and massively redistribute food to poorer countries? You explain it
all to me, Ball. I'm not am smart as you.

> >>>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
> >>>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
> >>>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> >>>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
> >>>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> >>>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> >>>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> >>>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> >>>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
> >>>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
> >>>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
> >>>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
> >>>>> Yes, thank you, Rudy Canoza
> >>>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
> >>>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
> >>>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
> >>>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
> >>>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
> >>>> writes.
> >>> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
> >>> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
> >> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
> >> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
> >> implement.
>
> > Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention
>
> It's the clear implication of his whining about meat production.

*What* whining? Give a fucking *quotation*.

Are we *still* talking about the paragraph which states a set of facts
which is not in dispute?

How can the simple statement of a set of facts which every well-
informed person agrees with commit you to anything controversial? Do
you have any grasp of basic logic?

>  He
> wants it stopped; that's clear.  Stopping it requires totalitarianism;
> that's also clear.
>

The first statement is as yet unsupported, the second statement is
lunacy. I'll tell you what requires totalitarianism, Ball. Preventing
poor foreigners from working in the United States. You know, that
thing you're in favour of?

> >>>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
> >>>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
> >>>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
> >>>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
> >>>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
> >>>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that> >>>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
> >>>> than point out their dishonesty.
> >>> If this is the case,
> >> It is the case, beyond dispute.
>
> > Oh, it's beyond dispute
>
> Yes.  It is beyond dispute that fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics believe meat
> production in the developed world causes starvation in the shitholes,
> and it is beyond dispute that you cynically keep quiet about their false
> beliefs, even though you claim to realize they're false.
>

Then why is it so hard for you to come up with just one iota of
evidence of rational argument for either contention?

Tell us more about what's beyond dispute, Ball. Is it beyond dispute
that I'm queer? That I need mental health care? That I'm working as a
telemarketer? That you never claimed "axiomatisable" is not a real
word? Is everything the voices in your head tell you beyond dispute?

> >>>>>>>> That claim is
> >>>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> >>>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> >>>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
> >>>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
> >>>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
> >>>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
> >>>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
> >>>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
> >>> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
> >> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.  
>
> > Well,
>
> You didn't know what you were talking about - again.
>

No, I did know what I was talking about. Let me explain it to you very
carefully. I was giving an eloquent and humourous summing-up of your
remarkable and across-the-board incompetence and buffoonery.

Can I see scanned images of your degrees, please?

Also please let me know how you earned that $90,000 which you donated
to charity over the last three years. We're eager to hear more about
Ball's valuable contribution to society.

On Jun 24, 10:58 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 6:36 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> >>> On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> >>>>>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
> >>>>>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> >>>>>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> >>>>>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
> >>>>>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> >>>>>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
> >>>>>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> >>>>>>> the claim.
> >>>>>> My claim is substantiated.
> >>>>> It is about as well-substantiated as
> >>>> It is substantiated.
> >>> By what?
> >> The evidence.
>
> > Do you ever get tired
>
> No.
>

That's interesting. Quite a remarkable phenomenon, in fact. Am I to
take it you don't sleep at night?

You really are a weirdo. You spout nonsense constantly, but now you
have switched to spouting bizarre nonsense that has absolutely no
bearing on the conversation.


>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> They are saying that
> >>>>>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> >>>>>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> >>>>>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
> >>>>>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> >>>>>>> anyone is saying that.
> >>>>>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
> >>>>>> saying it.
> >>>>> No, it is a straw person that you made up.
> >>>> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
> >>>> caloric outputs.  
> >>> Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense
> >> Not nonsense.  It's what they say, and you know it.
>
> > If it's what they say,
>
> It's what they say.

Then it ought to be possible for you, just once, to provide one iota
of evidence for this contention.

I wonder why you haven't done that yet.

Hmmm. Have to think hard about that one.

I wonder if it's the same reason you haven't scanned in your degrees
and posted them yet.

>  It's what both of the pathetic "vegan" fucks the
> cunt lesley cited have said; Patel and the other fuck.  They both have
> said that meat production is "inefficient" as a way of feeding people.
> They aren't talking about environmental concerns when they say that, and
> you know it.
>

That is *obviously* what they are talking about, you pathetic loon.
That and the difficulty of feeding 8 billion people on the standard
Western diet (which, as you say, will eventually start reflecting
itself in the market prices of foodstuffs, but it might be prudent to
start planning now for what we will do as the world's population
continues to grow, in particular to do something about the problem of
soil erosion. There's also this thing called global warming).

No-one has a fetish for consuming less land just for the sake of it
except in your fevered little brain.

> >>>> It is stupid on their part,
> >>> No,
> >> Yes, it's stupid on their part to misuse the concept of efficiency, when
> >> they clearly do not understand it.
>
> >>>> and stupid of you to
> >>>> defend it and try to salvage it.  
> >>> I'm not defending it,
> >> Yes, you are.
>
> > As I explained,
>
> You lied.  You're defending it.
>

No, sorry, Ball, I didn't lie, it is just that you are so incapable of
understanding simple English that you really are beyond hope.

Which makes us wonder how you managed to earn those degrees. I wonder
when we will finally get to see images of them.

> >>>> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
> >>>> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
> >>>> can't save them.
> >>> Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it.
> >> It has *everything* to do with it, which is why the fuckwits get it all
> >> wrong.
>
> >>>> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  
> >>> Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
> >>> world's population grows, is precisely the whole point
> >> Possibly to you, but that's not the point these fuckwitted "vegans" -
> >> lesley and this Patel rectum-sweat - are trying to make.  
>
> > Substantiate your interpretation of their position.
>
> THEY have substantiated it.  

Where? You've provided no quotations from them.

> I'm not "interpreting" their position, you
> stupid fuck.
>

Then cite the text they've written that speaks for itself.

> >> They are
> >> trying to make an efficiency argument, entirely aside from environmental
> >> considerations, and they fail miserably because they don't know their
> >> asses from their faces.
>
> > Where's the evidence that that's what they're trying to do?
>
> "Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> resources in an overcrowded world."
>
> It's right fucking there in front of your fucking eyes, you fucking cunt.
>

Hmmmm. So this is an "efficiency argument" in Ball's sense, "entirely
aside from environmental considerations". Over-consumption of scarce
resources in a world with a rapidly increasing population - no, of
course that wouldn't be anything to do with environmental
considerations. There's not a hint in that article Lesley posted of
any concern about environmental considerations.

Tell me something, Ball.

Does your extraordinary stupidity mean that someone has to help you
turn on your PC?

> >>>> That's a separate issue.
> >>> Your skills at interpreting arguments
> >> There is no special skill required to perceive their shitty argument.
>
> > There is no special skill required to understand their *actual*
> > argument.
>
> I understood it:  they believe it is "inefficient" - a waste of
> resources - to produce meat.  They have explicitly said it.
>

Give up.

I'd be surprised if you understood how to add two and two.

>
>
>
>
> >> They are trying to make an efficiency argument, and they fail because
> >> they don't understand efficiency.
>
> >>>>>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> >>>>>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> >>>>>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> >>>>>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
> >>>>>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
> >>>>>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
> >>>>>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
> >>>>>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
> >>>>> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
> >>>> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
> >>>> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
> >>>> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  
> >>> It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery
> >> You sure are.
>
> > Oh, clap clap, a hit
>
> Right between your dopey eyes.
>

Cherish that delusion, Ball.

How's your day at work been going, by the way?

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> It's wrong
> >>>>>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> >>>>>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
> >>>>>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> >>>>>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> >>>>>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> >>>>>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> >>>>>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> >>>>>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> >>>>>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> >>>>>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> >>>>>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> >>>>>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> >>>>>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> >>>>>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
> >>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
> >>>>>> It's perfectly relevant.
> >>>>> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
> >>>>> desperate bid to make it seem relevant
> >>>> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
> >>> Classical
> >> Accurate.
>
> > Nothing matches Rudy's confidence in
>
> Accurate, troll.  My statement of what is relevant in efficiency
> considerations is accurate.  Move along - you lost another.
>

Utter absurdities and pronounce them "beyond rational dispute" often
enough and with sufficient bravado... and *still* everyone thinks
you're a lunatic.

How does it feel to be winning, Ball?

Does winning feel good?

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> >>>>>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> >>>>>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> >>>>>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
> >>>>>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> >>>>>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> >>>>>>>> between producers and consumers.
> >>>>>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> >>>>>>> decisions.
> >>>>>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
> >>>>> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
> >>>> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
> >>>> nothing but empty symbolism.  
> >>> How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Rudy?
> >> More than your entire income over that interval.
>
> > That's interesting.
>
> Okay.
>

Well, in all seriousness, you claim

(1) you make four times as much money as Ronny Hamilton
(2) you donated more to charity over the last three years than my
entire income during that interval

Perhaps I won't hurt Ronny's feelings if I conjecture that his income
is only five figures. Even then, people who are that charitable are
rare indeed. It's most admirable.

There is a good side to Ball after all. How nice to hear about it.

> >>>> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher
> >>> As opposed to you,
> >> Right.  I have substance; you have empty, ego-polishing symbolism.
>
> >>>> who is
> >>>> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  
> >>> I have never made any such claim.
> >> Implicit.
>
> > You very often form completely unsubstantiated beliefs
>
> No.
>

La la la... la la la...

> >>>> I shot you
> >>>> down years ago.
> >>> You never did any such thing
> >> I most certainly did.
>
> > How did you do it
>
> With aplomb, gusto and relish.
>

Well done. What did you manage to prove? Are you going to snip and
evade that question with "aplomb, gusto and relish"?

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
> >>>>>>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
> >>>>>>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
> >>>>>>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
> >>>>>>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
> >>>>>>> deaths argument.
> >>>>>> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
> >>>>>> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
> >>>>>> from incompetent moral nags like you.
> >>>>> Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?
> >>>> Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.
> >>> Which, as I patiently explained to you, is precisely the point that
> >>> needs to be argued
> >> You can't do it.  As I have patiently explained to you over and over> >> you assume the very thing you need to prove.  You can't get any traction.
>
> >> You will never get anywhere with this, ham hock.
>
> > No, I don't assume what I need to prove
>
> You do.  All "aras" do.  You assume equal moral consideration is due,
> but that's what you need to prove.
>
> There's nothing to argue on this.  You do it; you make the unwarranted
> assumption of the very thing you are tasked to prove.

Nope.

The debate is up there on my webpage, I am more than happy to let it
speak for itself. I thoroughly wipe the floor with you. If you can't
see that, no skin off my nose. But you probably are aware of it.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>>>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>>>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>>>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
>>>>>>>>>>     Professor
>>>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>>>>>>>>>> normally do:
>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>>>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>>>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
>>>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>>>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
>>>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
>>>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>>>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
>>>>>> Any time, ham hock.
>>>>> It's very generous of you.
>>>> I'm a very generous man.
>>> You are indeed.
>> Yes.
>>
>> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
>>
> 
> Yes, I do. 

No, you don't.  Move along.


>>>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
>>>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
>>>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
>>>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
>>>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>>>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
>>>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
>>>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
>>> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
>> He's doing nothing,
> 
> My original statement was correct.

Your statement was bullshit.  As usual.


>> just as you do nothing.  
> 
> I don't do nothing, 

You do nothing.


>> Running your mouth isn't
>> doing "something".

Running your mouth is all you do, and it amounts to nothing.


>>>>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
>>>>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
>>>>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
>>>>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
>>>>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
>>>>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
>>>>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
>>>>> ethic.
>>>> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
>>>> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
>>>> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
>>>> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
>>>> Sorry (not really).
>>> I have studied a bit of economics
>> No.
>>
> 
> Stupid clown.

No.

You do not know economics, period.


>>>>>> and because their
>>>>>> governments don't handcuff them.
>>>>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
>>>>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
>>>>> overseas.
>>>> Doesn't happen.
>>> Er, yes,
>> Doesn't happen.
>>
> 
> You're

Doesn't happen.

>>>>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
>>>>> food resources
>>>> False.  
>>> You're a lunatic.
>> False.
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
> Maybe you think I should talk it over with my doctor?

Yes.  Wait until the meds wear off first.


>>>> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
>>>> than facts.
>>> You're just a lunatic
>> False.
>>
>>>>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
>>>>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
>>>> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
>>> Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.
>> You most certainly did.  
> 
> No, sorry, 

You said something nonsensical.


>> You blabbered about the "inequitable"
>> distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of
>> course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in
>> market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way
>> is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive?
>> And you couldn't answer.
>>
> 
> First of all, the simple fact of superior productivity is not a "food
> resource" in my language.

But is is the overwhelming factor, and you know it.  As for the rest, 
it's not as if we're "stealing" anything.  If the growing regions of 
North America have more rainfall than the farming regions of sub-Sahara 
Africa, there is no "inequity" in that.

You cannot substantiate your claim that there is an "inequitable" 
distribution of agricultural resources.  That is nothing but partisan 
bullshit.

The simple fact is, we farm better than they do.


>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>>>>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
>>>>>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
>>>>>>>>> his real name, I
>>>>>>>>> wonder?
>>>>>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
>>>>> Is that what I'm doing today
>>>> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
>>>> hip hop albums?
>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>> You're a fuckstain.
>>
> 
> You could

You're a fuckstain.


>>>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:
>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
>>>>>>>> Yes, it is clear.
>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
>>
> 
> The implications from what?

The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about 
eeeeeeevil meat.


>>>>>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
>>>>>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
>>>>>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>>>>>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>>>>>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
>>>>>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
>>>>>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
>>>>>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
>>>>>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>>>>>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
>>>>>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
>>>>>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
>>>>>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
>>>>>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
>>>>>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
>>>>>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
>>>>>> writes.
>>>>> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
>>>>> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
>>>> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
>>>> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
>>>> implement.
>>> Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention
>> It's the clear implication of his whining about meat production.
> 
> *What* whining?

You've read it for yourself already.  All the pissing and moaning about 
meat is whining.


>>  He
>> wants it stopped; that's clear.  Stopping it requires totalitarianism;
>> that's also clear.
>>
> 
> The first statement is as yet unsupported,

No, it isn't.  It's clearly implied by the whining about meat.  Meat 
production is eeeeeeeeevil, in his view, and he wants it stopped.


>>>>>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
>>>>>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
>>>>>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
>>>>>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
>>>>>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
>>>>>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
>>>>>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
>>>>>> than point out their dishonesty.
>>>>> If this is the case,
>>>> It is the case, beyond dispute.
>>> Oh, it's beyond dispute
>> Yes.  It is beyond dispute that fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics believe meat
>> production in the developed world causes starvation in the shitholes,
>> and it is beyond dispute that you cynically keep quiet about their false
>> beliefs, even though you claim to realize they're false.
>>
> 
> Then why is it so hard for you to come up with just one iota of
> evidence 

Have done.  READ the whiny screeds, cocksucker.


>>>>>>>>>> That claim is
>>>>>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>>>>>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>>>>>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
>>>>>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>>>>>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
>>>>>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
>>>>>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
>>>>>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
>>>>> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
>>>> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.  
>>> Well,
>> You didn't know what you were talking about - again.
>>
> 
> No, I did know what I was talking about.

You did not and you do not.

Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> On Jun 24, 10:58 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 6:36 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
>>>>>>>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>>>>>>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
>>>>>>>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>>>>>>>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
>>>>>>>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
>>>>>>>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
>>>>>>>>> the claim.
>>>>>>>> My claim is substantiated.
>>>>>>> It is about as well-substantiated as
>>>>>> It is substantiated.
>>>>> By what?
>>>> The evidence.
>>> Do you ever get tired
>> No.
>>
> 
> That's interesting.

Okay.


>>>>>>>>>> They are saying that
>>>>>>>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
>>>>>>>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
>>>>>>>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
>>>>>>>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
>>>>>>>>> anyone is saying that.
>>>>>>>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
>>>>>>>> saying it.
>>>>>>> No, it is a straw person that you made up.
>>>>>> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
>>>>>> caloric outputs.  
>>>>> Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense
>>>> Not nonsense.  It's what they say, and you know it.
>>> If it's what they say,
>> It's what they say.
> 
> Then it ought to be possible for you,

Read what they say.  It's right there in front of you.


>>  It's what both of the pathetic "vegan" fucks the
>> cunt lesley cited have said; Patel and the other fuck.  They both have
>> said that meat production is "inefficient" as a way of feeding people.
>> They aren't talking about environmental concerns when they say that, and
>> you know it.
>>
> 
> That is *obviously* what they are talking about

No, it is perfectly obvious they are *NOT* talking about environmental 
degradation, you fucking liar.  They are talking about food output, and 
how so much of the caloric output is "wasted" by feeding it to animals. 
  That's what they're talking about, and you know it.  Stop lying, you 
fucking cocksucker.

>>>>>> It is stupid on their part,
>>>>> No,
>>>> Yes, it's stupid on their part to misuse the concept of efficiency, when
>>>> they clearly do not understand it.
>>>>>> and stupid of you to
>>>>>> defend it and try to salvage it.  
>>>>> I'm not defending it,
>>>> Yes, you are.
>>> As I explained,
>> You lied.  You're defending it.
>>
> 
> No, sorry, 

You lied.  You're defending the *WRONG* interpretation of efficiency 
used by the two shitstains lesley cited, and by all other "vegans". 
Stop lying.


>>>>>> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
>>>>>> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
>>>>>> can't save them.
>>>>> Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it.
>>>> It has *everything* to do with it, which is why the fuckwits get it all
>>>> wrong.
>>>>>> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  
>>>>> Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
>>>>> world's population grows, is precisely the whole point
>>>> Possibly to you, but that's not the point these fuckwitted "vegans" -
>>>> lesley and this Patel rectum-sweat - are trying to make.  
>>> Substantiate your interpretation of their position.
>> THEY have substantiated it.  
> 
> Where? 

Right in their text.


>> I'm not "interpreting" their position, you
>> stupid fuck.
>>
> 
> Then cite the text

Go read the cunt lesley's posts.  It's right in them.  Because she's a 
stupid copy-pasta cunt, she posted the entire contents of what the two 
raving fucknozzles wrote right into her posts.  You don't even have to 
go to the links.  Just read what they say.  They say that meat 
production is "inefficient" because it wastes calories.  It is perfectly 
clear that's what they're saying.

Does your mother know such a slimy lying shitbag slid out her diseased 
cunt 30+ years ago?


>>>> They are
>>>> trying to make an efficiency argument, entirely aside from environmental
>>>> considerations, and they fail miserably because they don't know their
>>>> asses from their faces.
>>> Where's the evidence that that's what they're trying to do?
>> "Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>> resources in an overcrowded world."
>>
>> It's right fucking there in front of your fucking eyes, you fucking cunt.
>>
> 
> Hmmmm.

Read the posts the foul cunt lesley put up, you stupid bitch.


>>>>>> That's a separate issue.
>>>>> Your skills at interpreting arguments
>>>> There is no special skill required to perceive their shitty argument.
>>> There is no special skill required to understand their *actual*
>>> argument.
>> I understood it:  they believe it is "inefficient" - a waste of
>> resources - to produce meat.  They have explicitly said it.
>>
> 
> Give up.

No.  I'm right.  They are pissing and moaning about the food output 
"inefficiency".  It's right there in front of you if you read it.


>>>> They are trying to make an efficiency argument, and they fail because
>>>> they don't understand efficiency.
>>>>>>>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
>>>>>>>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
>>>>>>>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
>>>>>>>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
>>>>>>>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
>>>>>>>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
>>>>>>>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
>>>>>>>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>>>>>>> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
>>>>>> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
>>>>>> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
>>>>>> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  
>>>>> It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery
>>>> You sure are.
>>> Oh, clap clap, a hit
>> Right between your dopey eyes.
>>
> 
> Cherish that delusion

No delusion.


>>>>>>>>>> It's wrong
>>>>>>>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
>>>>>>>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>>>>>>>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
>>>>>>>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
>>>>>>>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
>>>>>>>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
>>>>>>>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
>>>>>>>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
>>>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
>>>>>>>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
>>>>>>>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
>>>>>>>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
>>>>>>>> It's perfectly relevant.
>>>>>>> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
>>>>>>> desperate bid to make it seem relevant
>>>>>> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
>>>>> Classical
>>>> Accurate.
>>> Nothing matches Rudy's confidence in
>> Accurate, troll.  My statement of what is relevant in efficiency
>> considerations is accurate.  Move along - you lost another.
>>
> 
> Utter absurdities and pronounce them "beyond rational dispute" 

Move along - you lost, again.


>>
>>>>>>>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
>>>>>>>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
>>>>>>>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
>>>>>>>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
>>>>>>>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
>>>>>>>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
>>>>>>>>>> between producers and consumers.
>>>>>>>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
>>>>>>>>> decisions.
>>>>>>>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>>>>>>> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
>>>>>> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
>>>>>> nothing but empty symbolism.  
>>>>> How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Rudy?
>>>> More than your entire income over that interval.
>>> That's interesting.
>> Okay.
>>
> 
> Well, in all seriousness

Yes.


>>>>>> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher
>>>>> As opposed to you,
>>>> Right.  I have substance; you have empty, ego-polishing symbolism.
>>>>>> who is
>>>>>> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  
>>>>> I have never made any such claim.
>>>> Implicit.
>>> You very often form completely unsubstantiated beliefs
>> No.
>>
> 
> La la la... la la la...

Call your doctor.


>>>>>> I shot you
>>>>>> down years ago.
>>>>> You never did any such thing
>>>> I most certainly did.
>>> How did you do it
>> With aplomb, gusto and relish.
>>
> 
> Well done. 

I know.


>>>>>>>>>> If you try to interrupt this trade, you will be ignored at best,
>>>>>>>>>> violently swept aside at worst.  You are wasting your time.
>>>>>>>>> It is not feasible to ban all meat production tomorrow, no. And
>>>>>>>>> perhaps it would not be justified either; perhaps we should agree that
>>>>>>>>> some meat production is justified in the light of the collateral
>>>>>>>>> deaths argument.
>>>>>>>> It has nothing to do with the collateral deaths argument.  It has to do
>>>>>>>> with people being free to consume what they want, without interference
>>>>>>>> from incompetent moral nags like you.
>>>>>>> Such as child pornography or products of slave labour?
>>>>>> Those violate rights.  Meat production doesn't.
>>>>> Which, as I patiently explained to you, is precisely the point that
>>>>> needs to be argued
>>>> You can't do it.  As I have patiently explained to you over and over,
>>>> you assume the very thing you need to prove.  You can't get any traction.
>>>> You will never get anywhere with this, ham hock.
>>> No, I don't assume what I need to prove
>> You do.  All "aras" do.  You assume equal moral consideration is due,
>> but that's what you need to prove.
>>
>> There's nothing to argue on this.  You do it; you make the unwarranted
>> assumption of the very thing you are tasked to prove.
> 
> Nope.

Yes, absolutely you do.  All fuckwitted "aras" do.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:gMWdnXNgeeqv5__VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
<..>
> >>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
<..>
> >>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
> >>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
> >>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> >>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
> >>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
> >>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
> >>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
> >> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
> > The implications from what?
> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
> eeeeeeevil meat.

'Food Revolution: Reversing the Spread of Hunger

by John Robbins, an author widely recognized as one of the world's
leading experts on the intimate link between diet and environmental and
personal health. Amongst others, John is the author of the revolutionary
book 'Diet for a New America', a book nominated for a pulitzer prize,
as well as the updated 'Food Revolution' and 'Healthy at 100'.

Written in November 2007, listed in: Agriculture & Food, Consumerism

At the first world food conference, held in Rome in 1974, U.S. Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger promised that by 1984, no man, woman, or child
on Earth would go to bed hungry.(1)

Many things have changed since then. At that time, there were barely
4 billion people on the planet. Today there are more than 6 billion.

During the 1970s, the world grain harvest per capita was growing. However,
it peaked in 1984, the very year by which Kissinger hoped world hunger
would end, and has been falling ever since.(2) And there is every indication
this decline will accelerate in coming years as aquifers are depleted and water
http://www.celsias.com/2007/07/05/water-worries/ for irrigation becomes
increasingly scarce.

At the same time, the state of the world's farmland has degraded
http://www.celsias.com/2007/01/22/soil-our-financial-institution/. In 2000,
using satellite photos, maps, and other data, the International Food Policy
Research Institute completed the most comprehensive study ever made of
agricultural land around the world. The findings were unmistakable. Due to
problems like erosion and nutrient depletion, nearly 40 percent of the
world's agricultural land had become seriously degraded, raising doubts
about its ability to produce food in the future. Ismail Seragldin, World Bank
vice president and chairman of a consortium of international agricultural
research centers, commented, "The results raise all kinds of red flags about
the world's ability to feed itself in the future."(3)

Today, more than a billion people on this planet do not have enough to eat.
Nearly one-third of the children in the developing world are chronically
hungry, making them vulnerable to infectious disease and diarrhea, which
often lead to permanent mental and physical impairment or death.(4)
Meanwhile, McDonald's is opening five new restaurants a day - four of
them outside the United States.

Is McDonald's in Ethiopia the answer to world hunger?

Is That So?

  "[It's a] myth [that] beef cattle production uses grain that could be used
 to feed the world's hungry." - National Cattlemen's Association (5)

  "In a world where an estimated one in every six people goes hungry every
 day, the politics of meat consumption are increasingly heated, since meat
 production is an inefficient use of grain - the grain is used more efficiently
 when consumed directly by humans. Continued growth in meat output is
 dependent on feeding grains to animals, creating competition for grain
 between affluent meat eaters and the world's poor."- Worldwatch Institute (6)

In traditional livestock production systems, domestic animals turned grass
and other things people could not eat into things people could. And still, in
many parts of the world (including most of Africa), people depend on animals
to convert vegetation that does not compete with human food crops into
edible protein. To raise meat output, however, livestock producers in the
industrialized world have adopted intensive rearing techniques that rely heavily
on grains and legumes to feed their animals.

Virtually all of the pigs and poultry in industrial countries now reside in
gigantic indoor facilities where their diets include grain and soybean meal.
Most cattle spend their last months in feedlots where they gorge on grain and
soybeans. Overall, nearly 40 percent of the world's grain is fed to livestock.
And the nations that eat the most meat dedicate the largest share of their grain
to fattening livestock. In the United States, livestock now eat twice as much
grain as is consumed by the country's entire human population.

The more grain that is fed to livestock, the less is left to feed people.
Dr. M. E. Ensminger, former Chairman of the Department of Animal Science
at Washington State University, is one of the leading figures in the U.S. beef
industry. In Animal Science, he writes,

 "There can be no question that more hunger can be alleviated with a given
 quantity of grain by completely eliminating animals. . . . It's not efficient
 to feed grain to animals and then to consume the livestock products." (7)

Who Eats? And Who Doesn't?

In nation after nation today, the world's wealthy are following in the meat-
eating footsteps of the United States. Does this trend have consequences
for the food security of the world's poor? As countries increase their
consumption of animal products, ever more of their grain goes to animals
and ever less to people, and they must import ever-increasing amounts of
grain. In a world where per-capita grain production stopped rising in 1984,
and has been falling ever since, how can this be sustained?

In the most populous nation in the world, China, the share of grain fed to
livestock increased between 1978 and 1997 from 8 percent to 26 percent.(8)
In the early 1990s, China was a net exporter of grain, but today, thanks to
an increasing appetite for meat, China is the world's second largest grain
importer, trailing only Japan. (9)

  "As Chinese eat more grain-fed meat, the country's need for grain will
 continue to grow. This . . . could quickly make China the world's leading
 grain importer, overtaking even Japan . . . potentially disrupting world grain
 markets . . . meaning rising food prices for the entire world. . . .  China
 cannot import the grain it needs without driving world grain prices up,
 leaving the 1.3 billion people in the world who subsist on $1 a day at risk."
 -- Worldwatch Institute (10)

If food prices rise throughout the world, the wealthy will still eat, but the poor
will increasingly be left with nowhere to turn. In recent years, grain prices
have been kept reasonably stable only through massive overpumping of
aquifers worldwide for irrigation. But as a result, water tables are now falling
rapidly throughout the world's agriculturally productive areas
http://www.celsias.com/2007/07/26/water-tables-falling-rivers-running-dry/
- including China, India, and the United States, which together produce half
the world's food. The International Water Management Institute, the world's
premier water research group, estimates that India's grain harvest may before
long be reduced by one-fourth as a result of aquifer depletion. (11)

Thirty years ago, the U.S.S.R. was self-sufficient in grain; but in the 1990s,
the former Soviet Union became the world's third largest grain importer.
Russian livestock now eat three times as much grain as Russian people.(12)
Hardly existent in Russia 20 years ago, hunger and human starvation are
now widespread and severe.

Throughout the world, increases in grain-fed livestock have forced countries
to import more feed. Twenty years ago, only 1 percent of Thailand's grain
was fed to animals. Today the figure has risen to 30 percent.(13) At the same
time, a growing number of people in Thailand and throughout Asia live on the
perilous edge of food deprivation. Millions are dying from lack of adequate
food. Many watch their children starve.

Vandana Shiva is the director of the Research Foundation for Science,
Technology, and Natural Resource Policy, and one of the world's foremost
experts on global food issues. She says we are seeing "the McDonaldization
of the world. . . . As more grain is traded globally, more people go hungry
in the Third World." (14)

Middle Eastern countries similarly maintain high levels of meat consumption
only by depending heavily on imported grain. Twenty years ago, Egypt was
self-sufficient in grain. Then, livestock ate only 10 percent of the nation's
grain. Today, livestock consume 36 percent of Egypt's grain, and the country
must import 8 million tons every year. (15) Jordan now imports 91 percent of
its grain, Israel 87 percent, Libya 85 percent, and Saudi Arabia 50 percent. (16)

As livestock industries pour grain into producing animal products for the
wealthy, almost all Third World nations must now import grain. That more
and more countries are looking to the world market for food can only
translate into food scarcity for the world's poor.

Remarkably, the world's nations depend massively on one nation for grain.
The United States is responsible for half of the world's grain exports,
shipping grain to more than 100 countries. Yet the U.S. grain harvest is
notoriously sensitive to climate conditions, including droughts. In a time of
global warming and climate destabilization, the possibility of a weather-
induced drop in U.S. grain harvest is all too real.(17) And with the depletion
of the Ogallala aquifer, experts are predicting that before long the United
States will lose much, if not all, of its grain surplus.(18) With the world's
agricultural economy devouring rapidly increasing quantities of grain for
livestock production, the consequences to the world's less fortunate people
could be tragic.

  "Higher meat consumption among the affluent frequently creates problems
 for the poor, as the share of farmland devoted to feed cultivation expands,
 reducing production of food staples. In the economic competition for grain
 fields, the upper classes usually win." -- Worldwatch Institute (19)

Since 1960, the number of landless in Central America has multiplied fourfold.
International lending agencies such as the World Bank and the Inter-American
Development Bank have responded with billions of dollars in loans. But these
loans have not challenged the tightly concentrated distribution of economic
power, nor the use of resources to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the
poor. Often, the money has been lent to support livestock operations.

The hope has been that the resulting heightened beef production would be of
use to the impoverished masses of these poor countries. But over half of
Latin America's beef production is exported to the world's wealthier countries,
and what remains is too expensive for any but the wealthy to purchase.(20)
From 1960 to 1980, beef exports from El Salvador increased more than sixfold.
(21) During that same time, increasing numbers of small farmers lost their
livelihood and were pushed off their land. Today, 72 percent of all Salvadoran
infants are underfed.(22)

Where does the income from the sale of beef go? Not to the poor, but to the
very few who own the land. A handful of wealthy families own more than half
the agricultural land in Costa Rica, grazing 2 million cattle.(23) In Guatemala,
as is typical for Latin American countries, 3 percent of the population owns
70 percent of the agricultural land. Most of Mexico's wealth is in the hands
of about 30 families, while half of the people live on less than $1 a day.(24)

Only 35 years ago, sorghum was almost unknown in Mexico. But now it
literally covers twice the acreage of wheat. What caused sorghum's incredible
takeover of Mexican agricultural land? Sorghum is fed to livestock. Twenty-five
years ago, livestock consumed only 6 percent of Mexico's grain. Today, the
figure is over 50 percent.(25)

In Guatemala, much of the land and other resources for food production are
given over to meat, while 75 percent of the children under five years of age
are undernourished. The meat produced goes to those who can afford it.
Guatemala is a nation where babies have only a 50-50 chance of reaching
the age of four because of widespread malnutrition. Meanwhile, every year
Guatemala exports 40 million pounds of meat to the United States.(26)

We see the same trend throughout the Third World. Copying, and providing
for, the United States' meat-oriented diet, ever-larger percentages of the
resources of poor nations go into meat production. In country after country
the demand for meat among the rich is squeezing out staple production for
the poor.(27)

In Costa Rica, beef production quadrupled between 1960 and 1980. Today,
even with much of its original tropical rainforest land sacrificed to beef
production, the average family in Costa Rica eats less meat than the average
American house cat. Most Costa Rican beef is exported to the United States.
As more and more Costa Rican land is being turned over to meat production,
the population has less and less to eat.

With the help of the World Bank and other international lending institutions,
Brazil has mounted an enormous effort to increase agricultural production,
but this has been primarily meat-oriented and for export. Twenty-five years
ago, there were virtually no soybeans planted in Brazil. Today, this crop
http://www.celsias.com/2007/04/05/soy-the-amazon/ is the nation's number
one export, with almost all of it going to feed Japanese and European
livestock. Twenty-five years ago, one-third of the Brazilian population
suffered from malnutrition. Today, the number has risen to two-thirds. Now,
half of the basic grains produced in Brazil are used for livestock feed. The
country has the largest commercial cattle herd in the world, while the majority
of the rural poor suffer from malnutrition.(28)

Is That So?

  "To get more grain to the poor and hungry, taxpayers or organizations must
 buy it and distribute it." - National Cattlemen's Association (29)

  "Two thirds of the agriculturally productive land in Central America is devoted
 to livestock production, yet the poor majority cannot afford the meat, which is
 eaten by the well-to-do or exported." -- Frances Moore Lappé, author, Diet for
 a Small Planet; co-founder, Institute for Food and Development Policy

Throughout the Third World, the production of meat is monopolizing the best
local land, undermining the local food supply, and undercutting the efforts of
the people to become food self-reliant. There are today millions of human
beings in less-developed countries who are going hungry while their land, labor,
and resources are being used to feed livestock so wealthy people can eat meat.

It's painful that as a species we can put a man on the moon, but haven't come
close to ending the scourge of hunger. In a world where a child dies of hunger-
caused disease every two seconds, only our own ignorance allows us to
continue to view meat as a status symbol.

References:

1. Brown, Lester, "Facing Reality at the World Food Summit," Worldwatch
Press Release, November 1, 1996.
2. Ibid.
3. "Forty Percent of World's Farmland Degraded," World Wire, May 22, 2000;
and "Soil Loss Threatens Food Prospects," BBC News Online, May 22, 2000.
4. Gardner, Gary, and Halweil, Brian, "Underfed and Overfed: The Global
Epidemic of Malnutrition," Worldwatch Paper 150, Worldwatch Institute, 2000.
5. "12 Myths and Facts about Beef Production: A Dozen of the Most Popular
Misconceptions about America's Most Popular Meat," National Cattlemen's
Association, American Angus Association, West Salem, OH, publication date
unknown; distributed by the National Cattlemen's Association in 1993.
6. Halweil, Brian, "United States Leads World Meat Stampede," Worldwatch
Issues Paper, July 2, 1998.
7. Ensminger, M. E., Animal Science, 9th ed. (Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers,
1991), p. 20.
8. Halweil, "United States Leads World Meat Stampede."
9. Brown, "Facing Reality." 10. Brown, L., "China's Water Shortage Could
Shake World Grain Markets," Worldwatch Press Release, April 22, 1998;
"Falling Water Tables in China May Soon Raise Food Prices Everywhere,"
Worldwatch, May 2, 2000.
11. Brown, L., and Halweil, B., "Populations Outrunning Water Supply as
World Hits 6 Billion," Worldwatch News Release, September 23, 1999.
12. Durning, Alan, and Brough, Holly, "Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the
Environment," Worldwatch Paper 103, July 1991, p. 29.
13. Halweil, "United States Leads World Meat Stampede."
14. Shiva, Vandana, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply
(Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000), p. 13.
15. Durning and Brough, "Taking Stock," p. 31.
16. "Emerging Water Shortages," Worldwatch News Release, July 17, 1999.
17. Brown, L., "Food Security Deteriorating in the Nineties," Worldwatch
Press Briefing, March 6, 1997.
18. Ayres, Ed, God's Last Offer (New York/London: Four Walls Eight Windows,
1999), p. 102.
19. Durning and Brough, "Taking Stock," p. 31.
20. DeWalt, B., "The Cattle Are Eating the Forest," Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientist 39:1 (January 1983):22; and Shane, D., Hoofprints on the Forest:
Cattle Ranching and the Destruction of Latin America's Tropical Forests
(Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1986), p. 78.
21. DeWalt, B., "The Cattle Are Eating the Forest."
22. Policy Alternatives for the Caribbean and Central America, Changing
Course: Blueprint for Peace in Central America and the Caribbean (Washington,
DC: Institute for Policy Studies, 1984).
23. Caulfield, Catherine, "A Reporter at Large: The Rain Forests," New Yorker,
January 14, 1985. See also Myers, Norman, The Primary Source (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1983), p. 133.
24. Gray, Mike, Drug Crazy (New York: Random House, 1998), p. 134.
25. DeWalt, B., "Mexico's Second Green Revolution," Mexican Studies1:1
(Winter 1985):30; Barkin, D., and DeWalt, B., "Sorghum, the Internationalization
of Capital, and the Mexican Food Crisis," Paper presented at the American
Anthropological Association Meeting, Denver, CO, November 16, 1984, p. 16;
see also Halweil, "United States Leads World Meat Stampede."
26. Myers, Primary Source, p. 133.
27. Durning and Brough, "Taking Stock," p. 32. 28. Size of Brazil's commercial
cattle herd from "Virus-Free Brazil Beef Headed for US in 2000," Meat Industry
Insights, November 3, 1999. 29. "Myths and Facts about Beef Production."

http://www.celsias.com/article/food-revolution-reversing-the-spread-of-hunger-par/

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:NZSdnV6b54Bd5v_VnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@earthlink.com...

> >>>>>>>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> >>>>>>>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> >>>>>>>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat;

Now post the true figure - head per hectare and caloric value, ball.

> >>>>>>>>>> or, I could produce 44
> >>>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> >>>>>>>>>> 50,000,000 calories;

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >>>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >>>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >>>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
> >>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
> >>>>>>>>>>     Professor
> >>>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >>>>>>>>>> normally do:
> >>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
> >>>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> >>>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >>>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
> >>>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> >>>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> >>>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
> >>>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
> >>>>>> Any time, ham hock.
> >>>>> It's very generous of you.
> >>>> I'm a very generous man.
> >>> You are indeed.
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, I do.
>
> No, you don't.  Move along.
>
>
> >>>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
> >>>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
> >>>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
> >>>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
> >>>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
> >>>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
> >>>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
> >>>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
> >>> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
> >> He's doing nothing,
> >
> > My original statement was correct.
>
> Your statement was bullshit.  As usual.
>

Why don't you elaborate on this for us a bit, Ball?

You do know what Richard Steiner is and isn't doing about the problems
he's discussing?

Do you know my sexual orientation?

Do you know that I'm still working in telemarketing?

Have you ever thought about talking these ideas of yours over with a
doctor?

>
> >> just as you do nothing.
> >
> > I don't do nothing,
>
> You do nothing.
>

This is a pretty meaningless statement, Ball. Are you saying that I
don't get out of bed in the morning?

I do various things. I teach mathematics at a college in Shanghai and
I am working on a Ph.D. thesis. When I finish that I plan to obtain a
qualification in quantitative finance. I used to volunteer for UNICEF,
Animal Liberation NSW, and the Council for Civil Liberties when I was
living in Australia, I plan to do some more volunteer work for Animal
Liberation the next time I'm in Sydney, trying to raise awareness of
methods of egg production. I've also helped a guy called Toby Ord do
some research into the effectiveness of charities, for an organisation
he' setting up called "Giving What We Can". I've given lectures to
people who are about to embark on animal research projects about why
some philosophers think using animals in scientific research in
harmful ways is morally wrong. I follow a vegan diet; I believe that
this significantly reduces my contribution to global warming and harm
to nonhuman animals. I gave quite a large proportion of my income to
UNICEF and Oxfam over the last three years and I plan to give more in
the future. I'm also planning to make career choices based on my
ability to help people, rather than on the basis of my desire to do
research, which is what I would want to do most if it were all about
me.

I also go to the pub with my friends, spend time with my girlfriend,
and make to posts to a.a.e.v. which I believe mock you in an amusing
way.

Okay, so maybe I do nothing, is there anyone who doesn't do nothing?
Do you claim not to do nothing?

I'm just not following your meaning here.

Do you actually think that if large numbers of people went vegan that
wouldn't reduce global warming and harm to nonhuman animals? Would you
care to elaborate on why you think that?


>
> >> Running your mouth isn't
> >> doing "something".
>
> Running your mouth is all you do, and it amounts to nothing.
>
>
> >>>>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
> >>>>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> >>>>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
> >>>>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
> >>>>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
> >>>>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
> >>>>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
> >>>>> ethic.
> >>>> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
> >>>> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
> >>>> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
> >>>> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
> >>>> Sorry (not really).
> >>> I have studied a bit of economics
> >> No.
> >>
> >
> > Stupid clown.
>
> No.
>
> You do not know economics, period.
>

You do not know anything about what I do and do not know about
economics, period.

I have read parts of David Friedman's textbook on price theory and
some other textbook which I bought from a bookshop, I forget the
author, and also Bryan Caplan's lecture notes. My statement that "I
have studied a bit of economics" was correct, and you were a stupid
clown for thinking you knew better. I grant you that my knowledge of
the subject is not very extensive at the moment.

I've studied the Black-Scholes model, I'm not sure whether that counts
as "economics".

I'm possibly going to do an M. Sc. in quantitative finance during
which I will study some economics, and my ex-girlfriend has
recommended a book to me which contains an axiomatisation of the core
of economics using point-set topology.

Also, while I don't like to rub your nose in it here, economics is a
soft science, the mathematics used is not all that sophisticated, and
it would be very easy for me to learn everything that you know very
quickly. You, on the other hand, could never dream of understanding
one-tenth of the mathematics that I know, no matter how hard you
tried.

How much economics I know is irrelevant.

If you do indeed have a postgraduate qualification in economics, then
for some reason you decline to prove it.

If you've learnt some economics that's great. No-one can master all of
human knowledge these days, it's necessary to specialise.

This idea of yours that I don't understand the importance of
"infrastructure and access to capital markets" is ludicrous. If you
think that knowing that somehow makes you special then that casts
serious doubt on whether you do indeed have a postgraduate
qualification. Of course I understand that these things are important
in economic development, every reasonably well-educated person knows
that, just as every reasonably well-educated person understands that
you can't critique a mathematical paper by consulting online Merriam-
Webster. You may perhaps know in somewhat more detail how countries
develop and what mathematical models can be used to describe and
explain it. You could have a go at teaching me if you like. It might
be a nice experience for you to teach me something I don't know, and
it would help to restore my confidence that you do actually have the
academic qualifications you claim.

Your sense of your intellectual superiority clearly matters a great
deal to you, but you really shouldn't think that you can establish it
when I'm around just by uttering the words "infrastructure and access
to capital markets", it will only make you look foolish.

>
> >>>>>> and because their
> >>>>>> governments don't handcuff them.
> >>>>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
> >>>>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
> >>>>> overseas.
> >>>> Doesn't happen.
> >>> Er, yes,
> >> Doesn't happen.
> >>
> >
> > You're
>
> Doesn't happen.
>
> >>>>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
> >>>>> food resources
> >>>> False.
> >>> You're a lunatic.
> >> False.
> >>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Maybe you think I should talk it over with my doctor?
>
> Yes.  Wait until the meds wear off first.
>

What, exactly, should I say?

>
> >>>> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
> >>>> than facts.
> >>> You're just a lunatic
> >> False.
> >>
> >>>>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
> >>>>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
> >>>> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
> >>> Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.
> >> You most certainly did.
> >
> > No, sorry,
>
> You said something nonsensical.
>

Jonathan Ball - "'Axiomatisable' is not a real word".
Jonathan Ball - "I never told anyone a maths term they used wasn't a
real word. Go and speak with your doctor."
Jonathan Ball - "You're queer. You work in telemarketing. You've never
studied any economics."
Jonathan Ball - "Immigration restrictions are consistent with
libertarian principles."
Jonathan Ball - "Nonhuman animals never anticipate."
Jonathan Ball - "People who talk about the 'inefficiency' of meat
production are not invoking any environmental
considerations at all".

And on and on and on....

Rupert - "There is unequal global distribution of food resources".

Jonathan Ball - "You said something nonsensical".

And he's going to snip all this and *still* believe that people aren't
laughing at him.

When will it all end, Ball?

Why don't you do something useful with your life?


>
> >> You blabbered about the "inequitable"
> >> distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of
> >> course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in
> >> market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way
> >> is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive?
> >> And you couldn't answer.
> >>
> >
> > First of all, the simple fact of superior productivity is not a "food
> > resource" in my language.
>
> But is is the overwhelming factor, and you know it.

This was never in contention.

> As for the rest,
> it's not as if we're "stealing" anything.

Never made this claim either. Though, actually agricultural subsidies
and tariffs and immigration restrictions are morally equivalent to
theft.

> If the growing regions of
> North America have more rainfall than the farming regions of sub-Sahara
> Africa, there is no "inequity" in that.
>

I changed the word to "unequal" a long time ago. While perhaps I made
an error when I used the word "inequitable", this was just an
oversight, I wasn't trying to make any comment about moral issues, and
if you were listening instead of desperately trying to hear what you
want to hear you'd understand that.

> You cannot substantiate your claim that there is an "inequitable"
> distribution of agricultural resources.  That is nothing but partisan
> bullshit.
>

Yes, well done for picking up on my mistake, Ball, but I explicitly
retracted the word "inequitable" and changed it to "unequal" a long
time ago. You really should pay attention.

We can talk about the philosophy of distribution of wealth if you
want. I wasn't actually trying to bring that up, I just made a
mistake, though of course you won't believe me because you want to
believe that I am a stereotypical far-left animal rights activist.

If you're a libertarian then you shouldn't support immigration
restrictions. That unjustly interferes with voluntary exchanges
between consenting adults which are none of your business. Some of
these transactions could make a big difference to foreigners who are
just as talented and hardworking as you but are poorer than you
through no fault of their own. You don't own a share in a corporation
which owns all of the United States and you shouldn't have the right
to get a vote in who gets to come in. If you did own such a share then
you might as well have the right to get a vote in whether people
living in the United States should be allowed to smoke cannabis or be
forced to contribute to Social Security programs, so all bets would be
off.

It's all very well to say that you have a right to your wealth which
is at least partly due to unearned luck, but it works both ways. Other
people who are poorer than you through no fault of their own should
have the right to come and work in your rich country if people there
are willing to employ them.

If you use some of your wealth to help people then that's great.

> The simple fact is, we farm better than they do.
>

That phrase suggests some sort of superior skill or work ethic. What
is it, geographical facts, superior skill, or infrastructure and
access to capital markets? Anyway, never mind. This is all
misdirected. I meant to say "unequal", not "inequitable".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> >>>>>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> >>>>>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
> >>>>>>>>> his real name, I
> >>>>>>>>> wonder?
> >>>>>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
> >>>>> Is that what I'm doing today
> >>>> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
> >>>> hip hop albums?
> >>> Thanks for the laugh.
> >> You're a fuckstain.
> >>
> >
> > You could
>
> You're a fuckstain.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:
> >>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>>>> Yes, it is clear.
> >>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
> >>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
> >>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> >>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
> >>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
> >>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
> >>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
> >> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
> >>
> >
> > The implications from what?
>
> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
> eeeeeeevil meat.
>

Be more specific. Give a quotation.

>
> >>>>>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
> >>>>>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
> >>>>>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> >>>>>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
> >>>>>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> >>>>>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> >>>>>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> >>>>>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> >>>>>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
> >>>>>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
> >>>>>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
> >>>>>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
> >>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
> >>>>>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
> >>>>>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
> >>>>>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
> >>>>>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
> >>>>>> writes.
> >>>>> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
> >>>>> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
> >>>> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
> >>>> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
> >>>> implement.
> >>> Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention
> >> It's the clear implication of his whining about meat production.
> >
> > *What* whining?
>
> You've read it for yourself already.  All the pissing and moaning about
> meat is whining.
>

No, I haven't read it. I take it you're not going to discharge your
obligation to support your case with quotations and you want me to
read all of what Richard Steiner wrote. All right.

>
> >>  He
> >> wants it stopped; that's clear.  Stopping it requires totalitarianism;
> >> that's also clear.
> >>
> >
> > The first statement is as yet unsupported,
>
> No, it isn't.  It's clearly implied by the whining about meat.

It may or may not be, I wouldn't know because I haven't looked yet.
*You* have done nothing to support it. The quotation *you* have
provided states a set of facts which are not in dispute.

> Meat
> production is eeeeeeeeevil, in his view, and he wants it stopped.
>
>
> >>>>>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
> >>>>>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
> >>>>>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
> >>>>>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
> >>>>>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
> >>>>>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
> >>>>>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
> >>>>>> than point out their dishonesty.
> >>>>> If this is the case,
> >>>> It is the case, beyond dispute.
> >>> Oh, it's beyond dispute
> >> Yes.  It is beyond dispute that fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics believe meat
> >> production in the developed world causes starvation in the shitholes,
> >> and it is beyond dispute that you cynically keep quiet about their false
> >> beliefs, even though you claim to realize they're false.
> >>
> >
> > Then why is it so hard for you to come up with just one iota of
> > evidence
>
> Have done.  READ the whiny screeds, cocksucker.
>

Sure, I'll do that if you refuse to meet your obligation to support
your case with citations. *You* have not provided any evidence. If the
evidence is there it should be possible for you to produce it. But you
prefer to call me a cocksucker instead. Good old Jonathan Ball. Sure,
I'll take a look at this article and let you know what I think.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> That claim is
> >>>>>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> >>>>>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> >>>>>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
> >>>>>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
> >>>>>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
> >>>>>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
> >>>>>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
> >>>>>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
> >>>>> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
> >>>> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.
> >>> Well,
> >> You didn't know what you were talking about - again.
> >>
> >
> > No, I did know what I was talking about.
>
> You did not and you do not.

On Jun 25, 10:05 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 24, 10:58 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 24, 6:36 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> >>>>>>>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
> >>>>>>>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
> >>>>>>>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
> >>>>>>>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
> >>>>>>>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
> >>>>>>>>> the claim.
> >>>>>>>> My claim is substantiated.
> >>>>>>> It is about as well-substantiated as
> >>>>>> It is substantiated.
> >>>>> By what?
> >>>> The evidence.
> >>> Do you ever get tired
> >> No.
>
> > That's interesting.
>
> Okay.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> They are saying that
> >>>>>>>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
> >>>>>>>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
> >>>>>>>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
> >>>>>>>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
> >>>>>>>>> anyone is saying that.
> >>>>>>>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
> >>>>>>>> saying it.
> >>>>>>> No, it is a straw person that you made up.
> >>>>>> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
> >>>>>> caloric outputs.  
> >>>>> Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense
> >>>> Not nonsense.  It's what they say, and you know it.
> >>> If it's what they say,
> >> It's what they say.
>
> > Then it ought to be possible for you,
>
> Read what they say.  It's right there in front of you.
>

Sure, Ball, I'll do that, but it's a bit strange that a man with a C.
Phil. in economics is unable to provide a quotation that supports his
case. Ah, well, never mind.

> >>  It's what both of the pathetic "vegan" fucks the
> >> cunt lesley cited have said; Patel and the other fuck.  They both have
> >> said that meat production is "inefficient" as a way of feeding people.
> >> They aren't talking about environmental concerns when they say that, and
> >> you know it.
>
> > That is *obviously* what they are talking about
>
> No, it is perfectly obvious they are *NOT* talking about environmental
> degradation, you fucking liar.  They are talking about food output, and
> how so much of the caloric output is "wasted" by feeding it to animals.
>   That's what they're talking about, and you know it.  Stop lying, you
> fucking cocksucker.
>

That's really not very polite, Ball.

It is my sincere view that anyone with a single functioning brain cell
could see that it is an environmental argument. I do not accuse you of
lying when you claim to have donated $90,000 to charity in the last
three years and perhaps you could extend to me the courtesy of not
calling me a liar when you have absolutely no rational foundation for
doing so. Oh, wait, I forgot: we're dealing with Jonathan Ball.

Why don't you have a go at elaborating on *why* is it obvious that
they are talking about food output and food output alone as opposed to
considerations such as soil degradation, population growth, and global
warming. Then maybe you could also explain how it is not the case that
you stupidly told me that a maths term I used wasn't a real word.

> >>>>>> It is stupid on their part,
> >>>>> No,
> >>>> Yes, it's stupid on their part to misuse the concept of efficiency, when
> >>>> they clearly do not understand it.
> >>>>>> and stupid of you to
> >>>>>> defend it and try to salvage it.  
> >>>>> I'm not defending it,
> >>>> Yes, you are.
> >>> As I explained,
> >> You lied.  You're defending it.
>
> > No, sorry,
>
> You lied.  You're defending the *WRONG* interpretation of efficiency
> used by the two shitstains lesley cited, and by all other "vegans".
> Stop lying.
>

Why don't you stop making a clown out of yourself on usenet and
babbling indefensible nonsense? That might be a better idea.

> >>>>>> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
> >>>>>> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
> >>>>>> can't save them.
> >>>>> Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it.
> >>>> It has *everything* to do with it, which is why the fuckwits get it all
> >>>> wrong.
> >>>>>> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  
> >>>>> Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
> >>>>> world's population grows, is precisely the whole point
> >>>> Possibly to you, but that's not the point these fuckwitted "vegans" > >>>> lesley and this Patel rectum-sweat - are trying to make.  
> >>> Substantiate your interpretation of their position.
> >> THEY have substantiated it.  
>
> > Where?
>
> Right in their text.
>

Sigh. Dear oh dear. That is not an answer, Ball. You know it is not an
answer. Don't you have any self-respect at all?

> >> I'm not "interpreting" their position, you
> >> stupid fuck.
>
> > Then cite the text
>
> Go read the cunt lesley's posts.  It's right in them.  Because she's a
> stupid copy-pasta cunt, she posted the entire contents of what the two
> raving fucknozzles wrote right into her posts.  You don't even have to
> go to the links.  Just read what they say.  They say that meat
> production is "inefficient" because it wastes calories.  It is perfectly
> clear that's what they're saying.
>

First you incompetently attempted to support your case with a
quotation that does not support your case. Now you are asking me to go
and read the posts myself so that you don't have to bother supporting
your case with quotations. Whatever. If it's as clear as you say it is
it should be possible to provide just one quotation that supports your
case. Sure, I'll have a look at the post.

> Does your mother know such a slimy lying shitbag slid out her diseased
> cunt 30 years ago?
>

I wonder what your mother would think about her son's usenet
activities.

If you have such an aversion to vaginas, then why talk about them so
often? Maybe some cognitive behavioural therapy would help.

> >>>> They are
> >>>> trying to make an efficiency argument, entirely aside from environmental
> >>>> considerations, and they fail miserably because they don't know their
> >>>> asses from their faces.
> >>> Where's the evidence that that's what they're trying to do?
> >> "Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
> >> resources in an overcrowded world."
>
> >> It's right fucking there in front of your fucking eyes, you fucking cunt.
>
> > Hmmmm.
>
> Rupert, I'm incapable of providing a quotation to support my position because I'm an incompetent clown who doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

Okay.

>
> >>>>>> That's a separate issue.
> >>>>> Your skills at interpreting arguments
> >>>> There is no special skill required to perceive their shitty argument> >>> There is no special skill required to understand their *actual*
> >>> argument.
> >> I understood it:  they believe it is "inefficient" - a waste of
> >> resources - to produce meat.  They have explicitly said it.
>
> > Give up.
>
> No.  I'm right.  They are pissing and moaning about the food output
> "inefficiency".  It's right there in front of you if you read it.
>
> >>>> They are trying to make an efficiency argument, and they fail because
> >>>> they don't understand efficiency.
> >>>>>>>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
> >>>>>>>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
> >>>>>>>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
> >>>>>>>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
> >>>>>>>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
> >>>>>>>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
> >>>>>>>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
> >>>>>>>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
> >>>>>>> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
> >>>>>> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
> >>>>>> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
> >>>>>> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  
> >>>>> It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery
> >>>> You sure are.
> >>> Oh, clap clap, a hit
> >> Right between your dopey eyes.
>
> > Cherish that delusion
>
> No delusion.
>

Rupert - "It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery". (As indeed
it is).
Jonathan Ball - "You sure are".

Apparently this inane non sequitur is a hit.

You're still an idiot, Ball, after all these years. Maybe it's time to
start working on the problem.


> >>>>>>>>>> It's wrong
> >>>>>>>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
> >>>>>>>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
> >>>>>>>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
> >>>>>>>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
> >>>>>>>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
> >>>>>>>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
> >>>>>>>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
> >>>>>>>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
> >>>>>>>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
> >>>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
> >>>>>>>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
> >>>>>>>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
> >>>>>>>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
> >>>>>>>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>> It's perfectly relevant.
> >>>>>>> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
> >>>>>>> desperate bid to make it seem relevant
> >>>>>> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
> >>>>> Classical
> >>>> Accurate.
> >>> Nothing matches Rudy's confidence in
> >> Accurate, troll.  My statement of what is relevant in efficiency
> >> considerations is accurate.  Move along - you lost another.
>
> > Utter absurdities and pronounce them "beyond rational dispute"
>
> Move along - you lost, again.
>

You have a strange concept of what counts as winning.

>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
> >>>>>>>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
> >>>>>>>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
> >>>>>>>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
> >>>>>>>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
> >>>>>>>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
> >>>>>>>>>> between producers and consumers.
> >>>>>>>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
> >>>>>>>>> decisions.
> >>>>>>>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
> >>>>>>> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
> >>>>>> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
> >>>>>> nothing but empty symbolism.  
> >>>>> How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Rudy?
> >>>> More than your entire income over that interval.
> >>> That's interesting.
> >> Okay.
>
> > Well, in all seriousness
>
> Yes.
>

Yes what? What on earth are you babbling about, you weirdo?

> >>>>>> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher
> >>>>> As opposed to you,
> >>>> Right.  I have substance; you have empty, ego-polishing symbolism.
> >>>>>> who is
> >>>>>> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  
> >>>>> I have never made any such claim.
> >>>> Implicit.
> >>> You very often form completely unsubstantiated beliefs
> >> No.
>
> > La la la... la la la...
>
> Call your doctor.
>

What shall I say to her?

> >>>>>> I shot you
> >>>>>> down years ago.
> >>>>> You never did any such thing
> >>>> I most certainly did.
> >>> How did you do it
> >> With aplomb, gusto and relish.
>
> > Well done.
>
> I know.

Yes, your constantly snipping and evading a question we all know you
can't answer is very impressive indeed.

rupie, losing his grip again, histrionically blabbered:
> 
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>>>>>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>>>>>>>>>>>> normally do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>>>>>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
>>>>>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
>>>>>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
>>>>>>>> Any time, ham hock.
>>>>>>> It's very generous of you.
>>>>>> I'm a very generous man.
>>>>> You are indeed.
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
>>>>
>>> Yes, I do.
>> No, you don't.  Move along.

Good - you made at least a little bit of progress.


>>>>>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
>>>>>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
>>>>>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
>>>>>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>>>>>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
>>>>>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
>>>>>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
>>>>> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
>>>> He's doing nothing,
>>> My original statement was correct.
>> Your statement was bullshit.  As usual.
>>
> 
> Why don't you elaborate on this

It's the same as before, so nothing new to add.  You don't do anything 
but talk, and that's not doing anything substantive.


> 
>>>> just as you do nothing.
>>> I don't do nothing,
>> You do nothing.
>>
> 
> This is a pretty meaningless statement

[snip tired wheeze]

No, it isn't.  You don't do anything concrete regarding animal "rights". 
  You can't even be bothered to reduce your own death toll.  You're 
nothing but talk.


>>>> Running your mouth isn't
>>>> doing "something".
>> Running your mouth is all you do, and it amounts to nothing.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
>>>>>>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
>>>>>>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
>>>>>>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
>>>>>>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
>>>>>>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
>>>>>>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
>>>>>>> ethic.
>>>>>> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
>>>>>> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
>>>>>> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
>>>>>> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
>>>>>> Sorry (not really).
>>>>> I have studied a bit of economics
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>> Stupid clown.
>> No.
>>
>> You do not know economics, period.
>>
> 
> You do not know anything about what I do and do not know about
> economics

[snip more rambling, empty wheeze]

You do not know economics.


>>>>>>>> and because their
>>>>>>>> governments don't handcuff them.
>>>>>>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
>>>>>>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
>>>>>>> overseas.
>>>>>> Doesn't happen.
>>>>> Er, yes,
>>>> Doesn't happen.
>>>>
>>> You're
>> Doesn't happen.
>>
>>>>>>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
>>>>>>> food resources
>>>>>> False.
>>>>> You're a lunatic.
>>>> False.
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Maybe you think I should talk it over with my doctor?
>> Yes.  Wait until the meds wear off first.
>>
> 
> What, exactly, should I say?

That you're fucked up and wish to be committed to a mental hospital.


>>>>>> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
>>>>>> than facts.
>>>>> You're just a lunatic
>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
>>>>>> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
>>>>> Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.
>>>> You most certainly did.
>>> No, sorry,
>> You said something nonsensical.
>>
> 
> 

[rambling wheeze indicative of dangerous instability]


>>>> You blabbered about the "inequitable"
>>>> distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of
>>>> course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in
>>>> market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way
>>>> is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive?
>>>> And you couldn't answer.
>>>>
>>> First of all, the simple fact of superior productivity is not a "food
>>> resource" in my language.
>> But is is the overwhelming factor, and you know it.
> 
> This was never in contention.

You pretend there is some "inequity" in food productive resource 
distribution, and the only real difference is a difference in 
productivity.  You haven't identified any resource that is inequitably 
distributed.


>> As for the rest,
>> it's not as if we're "stealing" anything.
> 
> Never made this claim either.

It's implied when you talk about "inequity".


>> If the growing regions of
>> North America have more rainfall than the farming regions of sub-Sahara
>> Africa, there is no "inequity" in that.
>>
> 
> I changed the word to "unequal" a long time ago.

You clearly mean them to be synonyms.  Redistributionists like you 
always interpret "unequal" to *mean* inequitable.


>> You cannot substantiate your claim that there is an "inequitable"
>> distribution of agricultural resources.  That is nothing but partisan
>> bullshit.
>>
> 
> Yes, well done for picking up on my mistake, Ball, but I explicitly
> retracted the word "inequitable"

No, you didn't retract it.


> and changed it to "unequal" a long
> time ago. 

It certainly wasn't a "long time" ago.  It was two days and three posts 
ago, you lying fuck.  I see time measurement isn't your strong suit any 
more than economics.


> We can talk about the philosophy of distribution of wealth if you
> want. I wasn't actually trying to bring that up, I just made a
> mistake,

[snip several dozen words of wheeze]

I'm not sure it really was a mistake.  If you *do* change it to unequal, 
then it's not worth bringing up.  No one cares that it's unequal, unless 
you're going to read some negative moral meaning into it, in which case 
you actually *mean* inequitable.

You sure are a confused fuck.


>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
>>>>>>>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
>>>>>>>>>>> his real name, I
>>>>>>>>>>> wonder?
>>>>>>>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
>>>>>>> Is that what I'm doing today
>>>>>> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
>>>>>> hip hop albums?
>>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>> You're a fuckstain.
>>>>
>>> You could
>> You're a fuckstain.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:
>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is clear.
>>>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>>>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>>>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
>>>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
>>>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
>>>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
>>>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
>>>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
>>>>
>>> The implications from what?
>> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
>> eeeeeeevil meat.
>>
> 
> Be more specific.

Already been specific enough.  READ the cunt lesley's shit hemorrages, 
you jerk - she copypastaed the entire articles.


>>>>>>>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
>>>>>>>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>>>>>>>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>>>>>>>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
>>>>>>>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
>>>>>>>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
>>>>>>>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>>>>>>>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
>>>>>>>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
>>>>>>>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
>>>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
>>>>>>>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
>>>>>>>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
>>>>>>>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
>>>>>>>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
>>>>>>>> writes.
>>>>>>> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
>>>>>>> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
>>>>>> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
>>>>>> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
>>>>>> implement.
>>>>> Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention
>>>> It's the clear implication of his whining about meat production.
>>> *What* whining?
>> You've read it for yourself already.  All the pissing and moaning about
>> meat is whining.
>>
> 
> No, I haven't read it.

The shrill cunt lesley did her usual copypasta of the assholes' entire 
articles in her posts.  Read them.


>>>>  He
>>>> wants it stopped; that's clear.  Stopping it requires totalitarianism;
>>>> that's also clear.
>>>>
>>> The first statement is as yet unsupported,
>> No, it isn't.  It's clearly implied by the whining about meat.
> 
> It may or may not be,

READ the fucking posts.


>> Meat
>> production is eeeeeeeeevil, in his view, and he wants it stopped.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
>>>>>>>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
>>>>>>>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
>>>>>>>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
>>>>>>>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
>>>>>>>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
>>>>>>>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
>>>>>>>> than point out their dishonesty.
>>>>>>> If this is the case,
>>>>>> It is the case, beyond dispute.
>>>>> Oh, it's beyond dispute
>>>> Yes.  It is beyond dispute that fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics believe meat
>>>> production in the developed world causes starvation in the shitholes,
>>>> and it is beyond dispute that you cynically keep quiet about their false
>>>> beliefs, even though you claim to realize they're false.
>>>>
>>> Then why is it so hard for you to come up with just one iota of
>>> evidence
>> Have done.  READ the whiny screeds, cocksucker.
>>
> 
> Sure, I'll do that if you refuse to meet your obligation to support
> your case with citations.

Read MY posts if you don't want to read the cunt lesley's, then.  I put 
my comments in immediately after the comments of Patel and the other 
shitbag.


>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>>>>>>>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>>>>>>>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
>>>>>>>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>>>>>>>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
>>>>>>>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
>>>>>>>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
>>>>>>>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
>>>>>>> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
>>>>>> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.
>>>>> Well,
>>>> You didn't know what you were talking about - again.
>>>>
>>> No, I did know what I was talking about.
>> You did not and you do not.

Concession noted.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:gMWdnXNgeeqv5__VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> <..>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> <..>
>>>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>>>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>>>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
>>>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
>>>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
>>>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
>>>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
>>>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
>>> The implications from what?
>> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
>> eeeeeeevil meat.
> 
> 'Food Revolution: Reversing the Spread of Hunger
> 
> by John Robbins, an author widely recognized as 

an unknowledgeable fruitcake.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:05 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 10:58 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 24, 6:36 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:57 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the prissy little fuck blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Observer. 22 June 2008.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is meat off the menu?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources in an overcrowded world. No says Joanna Blythman:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with much of the world unsuitable for crops, meat is essential
>>>>>>>>>>>> The comment by Patel proves what I have said all along about fuckwitted
>>>>>>>>>>>> "vegans" and their bogus "efficiency" argument.
>>>>>>>>>>> The way to use that comment to prove anything would be to substantiate
>>>>>>>>>>> the claim.
>>>>>>>>>> My claim is substantiated.
>>>>>>>>> It is about as well-substantiated as
>>>>>>>> It is substantiated.
>>>>>>> By what?
>>>>>> The evidence.
>>>>> Do you ever get tired
>>>> No.
>>> That's interesting.
>> Okay.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are saying that
>>>>>>>>>>>> more total undifferentiated food calories for human consumption can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> produced from a given quantity of land if we don't produce and consume
>>>>>>>>>>>> meat, and that is the *WRONG* notion of "efficiency".
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Rudy, it is only in your fevered and deluded mind that
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone is saying that.
>>>>>>>>>> No, this fuckwit Patel, and the slavishly copy-pasta fuckwit lesley are
>>>>>>>>>> saying it.
>>>>>>>>> No, it is a straw person that you made up.
>>>>>>>> No.  "vegans" are making a crude, and worthless, comparison of total
>>>>>>>> caloric outputs.  
>>>>>>> Endlessly repeating this obvious nonsense
>>>>>> Not nonsense.  It's what they say, and you know it.
>>>>> If it's what they say,
>>>> It's what they say.
>>> Then it ought to be possible for you,
>> Read what they say.  It's right there in front of you.
>>
> 
> Sure, Rudy, I'll do that,

It's about time.


>>>>  It's what both of the pathetic "vegan" fucks the
>>>> cunt lesley cited have said; Patel and the other fuck.  They both have
>>>> said that meat production is "inefficient" as a way of feeding people.
>>>> They aren't talking about environmental concerns when they say that, and
>>>> you know it.
>>> That is *obviously* what they are talking about
>> No, it is perfectly obvious they are *NOT* talking about environmental
>> degradation, you fucking liar.  They are talking about food output, and
>> how so much of the caloric output is "wasted" by feeding it to animals.
>>   That's what they're talking about, and you know it.  Stop lying, you
>> fucking cocksucker.
>>
> 
> That's really not very polite, Rudy.

Fuck off.


> 
> It is my sincere view that anyone with a single functioning brain cell
> could see that it is an environmental argument.

No, everyone with a brain at all can see that it is clearly *separate* 
from any environmental argument, and in fact is an uninformed view about 
efficiency.


>>>>>>>> It is stupid on their part,
>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>> Yes, it's stupid on their part to misuse the concept of efficiency, when
>>>>>> they clearly do not understand it.
>>>>>>>> and stupid of you to
>>>>>>>> defend it and try to salvage it.  
>>>>>>> I'm not defending it,
>>>>>> Yes, you are.
>>>>> As I explained,
>>>> You lied.  You're defending it.
>>> No, sorry,
>> You lied.  You're defending the *WRONG* interpretation of efficiency
>> used by the two shitstains lesley cited, and by all other "vegans".
>> Stop lying.
>>
> 
> Why don't you stop making a clown out of yourself 

Never started.

It's not an environmental argument, you cocksucking liar.  They're 
making a bogus argument about efficiency.  It's a typically statist 
argument about resources "ought" to be allocated and used.


>>>>>>>> It cannot be salvaged.  They don't
>>>>>>>> know what the fuck they're talking about regarding "efficiency", and you
>>>>>>>> can't save them.
>>>>>>> Economic efficiency has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>> It has *everything* to do with it, which is why the fuckwits get it all
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>> They are not talking about environmental degradation.  
>>>>>>> Environmental degradation, and the impending food crisis as the
>>>>>>> world's population grows, is precisely the whole point
>>>>>> Possibly to you, but that's not the point these fuckwitted "vegans" -
>>>>>> lesley and this Patel rectum-sweat - are trying to make.  
>>>>> Substantiate your interpretation of their position.
>>>> THEY have substantiated it.  
>>> Where?
>> Right in their text.
>>
> 
> Sigh. 

READ the material, douchebag.


>>>> I'm not "interpreting" their position, you
>>>> stupid fuck.
>>> Then cite the text
>> Go read the cunt lesley's posts.  It's right in them.  Because she's a
>> stupid copy-pasta cunt, she posted the entire contents of what the two
>> raving fucknozzles wrote right into her posts.  You don't even have to
>> go to the links.  Just read what they say.  They say that meat
>> production is "inefficient" because it wastes calories.  It is perfectly
>> clear that's what they're saying.
>>
> 
> First you incompetently attempted to support your case with a
> quotation that does not support your case.

It supports the case.

BTW, why are you hounding me about citations when you now acknowledge 
that I gave one, even if you're too stupid to see that it supports my case?


>> Does your mother know such a slimy lying shitbag slid out her diseased
>> cunt 30+ years ago?
>>
> 
> I wonder what your mother would think about her son's usenet
> activities.

Wonder all you like.


>>>>>> They are
>>>>>> trying to make an efficiency argument, entirely aside from environmental
>>>>>> considerations, and they fail miserably because they don't know their
>>>>>> asses from their faces.
>>>>> Where's the evidence that that's what they're trying to do?
>>>> "Yes says Raj Patel: growing food for animals is a waste of
>>>> resources in an overcrowded world."
>>>> It's right fucking there in front of your fucking eyes, you fucking cunt.
>>> Hmmmm.
>> Rupert, I'm incapable of [snip cack-handed forgery]
> 
> Okay.

Fuck off, squirt.


>>>>>>>> That's a separate issue.
>>>>>>> Your skills at interpreting arguments
>>>>>> There is no special skill required to perceive their shitty argument.
>>>>> There is no special skill required to understand their *actual*
>>>>> argument.
>>>> I understood it:  they believe it is "inefficient" - a waste of
>>>> resources - to produce meat.  They have explicitly said it.
>>> Give up.
>> No.  I'm right.  They are pissing and moaning about the food output
>> "inefficiency".  It's right there in front of you if you read it.
>>
>>>>>> They are trying to make an efficiency argument, and they fail because
>>>>>> they don't understand efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>> You indicated in a different post in this thread that you do actually
>>>>>>>>>>> understand the environmental argument, and were even prepared to
>>>>>>>>>>> endorse it, in the sense of taxing food products according to the
>>>>>>>>>>> amount of environmental damage their production causes.
>>>>>>>>>> The environmental argument is not what is meant by people saying meat
>>>>>>>>>> production is "inefficient".  They're not talking about the degradation
>>>>>>>>>> of the resource, you fucking moron - they're talking about the
>>>>>>>>>> misapplication of it, and they are wrong.
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Rudy, but no sane person would think that for a second,
>>>>>>>> All sane and honest people can see it.  They are engaging in a
>>>>>>>> fuckwitted misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the idea of
>>>>>>>> economic efficiency.  This is not in rational dispute.  
>>>>>>> It is cross-eyed-blithering-drivel buffoonery
>>>>>> You sure are.
>>>>> Oh, clap clap, a hit
>>>> Right between your dopey eyes.
>>> Cherish that delusion
>> No delusion.


Noted.


> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> because humans don't want simply to consume calories; they want
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular foods.  Among the foods they want is meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is *INCORRECT* to think of food production efficiency simply in terms
>>>>>>>>>>>> of raw calorie production.  The only meaningful sense of efficiency is
>>>>>>>>>>>> economic efficiency:  that the economic value of the use of a unit of
>>>>>>>>>>>> resource is the highest, compared to alternate uses of the resource.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if hypothetically I could use an additional hectare of land to
>>>>>>>>>>>> produce either 100 head of cattle with a total caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>>>> 15,000,000 calories in the form of edible meat; or, I could produce 44
>>>>>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes (typical North American yield) providing some
>>>>>>>>>>>> 50,000,000 calories; but the net profit from the beef is $500,000 versus
>>>>>>>>>>>> only $250,000 from the potatoes, then the beef is the correct use of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> land.  As a farmer, I don't care at all about the total caloric value of
>>>>>>>>>>>> what I produce - I care about the economic value.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Mr C. Phil. in economics. This is all irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly relevant.
>>>>>>>>> You make a silly and totally unsubstantiated interpretive move in a
>>>>>>>>> desperate bid to make it seem relevant
>>>>>>>> It's relevant.  It is the *only* relevant meaning of efficiency.
>>>>>>> Classical
>>>>>> Accurate.
>>>>> Nothing matches Rudy's confidence in
>>>> Accurate, troll.  My statement of what is relevant in efficiency
>>>> considerations is accurate.  Move along - you lost another.
>>> Utter absurdities and pronounce them "beyond rational dispute"
>> Move along - you lost, again.
>>
> 
> You have a strange concept of what counts as winning.

I have a perfectly normal concept of it.  You lost, rupie - again.


>>>>>>>>>>>> The reason this outcome is seen is because people value beef more highly
>>>>>>>>>>>> than potatoes, and they have the ability to buy it.  Thus, beef is
>>>>>>>>>>>> produced.  Beef is produced, sold and consumed because Farmer Smith and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Consumer Jones find it mutually beneficial to engage in that trade.
>>>>>>>>>>>> People who say meat "ought" not be produced are sticking their noses
>>>>>>>>>>>> where they don't belong:  into the private, consensual transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>> between producers and consumers.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have been talking about arguments for individual conscientious
>>>>>>>>>>> decisions.
>>>>>>>>>> You have been talking empty symbolism.
>>>>>>>>> It's very easy to say that what someone else does is "empty symbolism"
>>>>>>>> It's very easy for any reasonably literate person to see that you talk
>>>>>>>> nothing but empty symbolism.  
>>>>>>> How much money did you give to charity in the last three years, Rudy?
>>>>>> More than your entire income over that interval.
>>>>> That's interesting.
>>>> Okay.
>>> Well, in all seriousness
>> Yes.
>>
> 
> Yes what?

Yes, in all seriousness.


>>>>>>>> You are a narcissistic ego-polisher
>>>>>>> As opposed to you,
>>>>>> Right.  I have substance; you have empty, ego-polishing symbolism.
>>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>>> trying to portray yourself as more virtuous than others.  
>>>>>>> I have never made any such claim.
>>>>>> Implicit.
>>>>> You very often form completely unsubstantiated beliefs
>>>> No.
>>> La la la... la la la...
>> Call your doctor.
>>
> 
> What shall I say to her?

Tell her you're about to fall off a cliff and should be hospitalized 
straight away.


>>>>>>>> I shot you
>>>>>>>> down years ago.
>>>>>>> You never did any such thing
>>>>>> I most certainly did.
>>>>> How did you do it
>>>> With aplomb, gusto and relish.
>>> Well done.
>> I know.
> 
> Yes, 

Yes.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:wd6dnU4q0_Ztef7VnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:gMWdnXNgeeqv5__VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> > <..>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> > <..>
> >>>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
> >>>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
> >>>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> >>>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
> >>>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
> >>>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
> >>>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
> >>>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
> >>> The implications from what?
> >> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
> >> eeeeeeevil meat.
> >
> > 'Food Revolution: Reversing the Spread of Hunger
> >
> > by John Robbins, an author widely recognized as
>
> an unknowledgeable fruitcake.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc
on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and
doing something about it (learning about oneself can be painful),
and to distract and divert attention away from themselves and
their inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism
and allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc
that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or
revelation about themselves.

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:wd6dnU4q0_Ztef7VnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:gMWdnXNgeeqv5__VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>> <..>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>> <..>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>>>>>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>>>>>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
>>>>>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
>>>>>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
>>>>>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
>>>>>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
>>>>> The implications from what?
>>>> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
>>>> eeeeeeevil meat.
>>> 'Food Revolution: Reversing the Spread of Hunger
>>>
>>> by John Robbins, an author widely recognized as
>> an unknowledgeable fruitcake.
> 
> 'Bullies project [blah blah blah bullshit]

You stupid cunt.

On Jun 27, 2:45 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> rupie, losing his grip again, histrionically blabbered:
>
>
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >>>>>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     Professor
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >>>>>>>>>>>> normally do:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> >>>>>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> >>>>>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
> >>>>>>>> Any time, ham hock.
> >>>>>>> It's very generous of you.
> >>>>>> I'm a very generous man.
> >>>>> You are indeed.
> >>>> Yes.
>
> >>>> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
>
> >>> Yes, I do.
> >> No, you don't.  Move along.
>
> Good - you made at least a little bit of progress.
>

How so?

> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
> >>>>>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
> >>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
> >>>>>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
> >>>>>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
> >>>>>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
> >>>>>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
> >>>>>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
> >>>>> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
> >>>> He's doing nothing,
> >>> My original statement was correct.
> >> Your statement was bullshit.  As usual.
>
> > Why don't you elaborate on this
>
> It's the same as before, so nothing new to add.  You don't do anything
> but talk, and that's not doing anything substantive.
>

My original statement was "you don't know what he is and isn't doing
about it", which is obviously correct and beyond rational dispute. As
I comically illustrated in the part which you snipped, you constantly
put on a posture of knowing things about other people which you
obviously are in no position to know.

There really isn't any room for rational discussion about it. You made
a statement about something which you're obviously not in a position
to know about. That was the topic of discussion. You had apparently
forgotten the topic of discussion, which is not surprising since you
constantly deliberately try to make the original point get lost by
firing off a series of inane non-responses. You wanted to change the
subject to the question of whether I do anything substantive.

First of all, talking to people who are about to do animal research
projects about why some philosophers think that using animals in
scientific research in harmful ways is morally wrong *is* doing
something substantive. That is a legitimate and important part of
trying to improve the situation for nonhuman animals. Talking to
morons like you on usenet is not especially productive, I grant you,
but there is no particular harm in it either.

Changing your consumption habits is also doing something substantive.

There was an occasion where Taronga Zoo was trying to buy some new
elephants and was required to provide their correspondence and
documents regarding the matter to a senator, and I helped to look
through those documents. I participated in a campaign about the
practice of "mulesing". When Australian Wool Innovation took us to
court over this campaign, claiming we'd violated the Trade Practices
Act, I wrote an article for the Sydney Morning Herald about the free-
speech aspect of the issue. Didn't get published, unfortunately. There
was recently a review of the Welfare Code for pigs in New South Wales,
I spent a lot of time passing out information about the conditions
most pigs in New South Wales are kept in and asking people to fill out
a survey about their views on the various practices which we passed on
to the government to give them some feedback on public opinion about
the Code. We also naturally asked people to consider not buying
factory-farmed pork. I wrote a letter to a councillor about animal
acts in circuses, and another one to the Minister for the Environment
about kangaroos. I frequently help with stalls for Animal Liberation
where we hand out leaflets about the various issues and talk them over
with people. There was an exhibit called the Human Battery Cage which
consisted of a human-sized battery cage in which people could sit,
illustrating the very small amount of space hens have in battery
cages. Some of my friends toured all around Australia with that,
helping to raise awareness of the battery cage production system. When
they were in Canberra they lobbied for a ban on the battery cage. I
participated in this exhibit a few times while it was in Sydney. I'm
planning to write my own brochure about the different systems of egg
production and the alternatives to eggs next time I'm in Sydney and
spend time passing it out to people who are interested, and talking
the issue over with those who want to.

This is just what I do to help nonhuman animals.

What's your conception of "doing something substantive"? What would it
take for you to grant that I've made a serious effort to help nonhuman
animals?

Why don't you just admit that you don't have any idea what I do and
don't do and that you're just talking through your hat as usual?

What do *you* do when you're not on usenet, by the way?


>
>
> >>>> just as you do nothing.
> >>> I don't do nothing,
> >> You do nothing.
>
> > This is a pretty meaningless statement
>
> [snip tired wheeze]
>
> No, it isn't.  You don't do anything concrete regarding animal "rights".

See above. I would say we're at the point where I've done something
concrete. I don't know what your idea of "doing something concrete"
is.

Do you ever get tired of confidently uttering assertions about things
you would obviously know nothing about?

>   You can't even be bothered to reduce your own death toll.

I have reduced my death toll in all sorts of ways, obviously, and I've
also put a fair amount of effort into encouraging others to think
about the issues and about whether they want to make some effort to
reduce the amount of harm required to support their lifestyle.

> You're
> nothing but talk.
>

How about you? What do you do apart from babble absurdities on usenet?

> >>>> Running your mouth isn't
> >>>> doing "something".
> >> Running your mouth is all you do, and it amounts to nothing.
>
> >>>>>>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
> >>>>>>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> >>>>>>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
> >>>>>>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
> >>>>>>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
> >>>>>>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
> >>>>>>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
> >>>>>>> ethic.
> >>>>>> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
> >>>>>> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
> >>>>>> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
> >>>>>> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
> >>>>>> Sorry (not really).
> >>>>> I have studied a bit of economics
> >>>> No.
>
> >>> Stupid clown.
> >> No.
>
> >> You do not know economics, period.
>
> > You do not know anything about what I do and do not know about
> > economics
>
> [snip more rambling, empty wheeze]
>
> You do not know economics.
>

My statement that "I have studied a bit of economics" was correct. I
do not have comprehensive knowledge of the subject. You may or may not
have a better knowledge of the subject than me, we don't know yet
because you refuse to scan in your degrees and post them online.

What is the importance of the fact that I have not yet acquired
comprehensive knowledge of economics? Where are you going with this?

It is not possible to master all of human knowledge, it is necessary
to specialise. I have more knowledge of economics than the average
person in the street. I have the capacity to acquire a comprehensive
knowledge and understanding of economics if I choose to do that - it
will involve some opportunity costs - whereas you do not have the
capacity to acquire the level of understanding and knowledge of
mathematics that I currently have or anything like it; it is simply
beyond your abilities no matter how many opportunities you sacrifice.
But that is not important either, that is simply a matter of
undeserved good fortune on my part, I was lucky enough to be born with
an unusual talent. Although I can take credit for the effort I have
put into developing my talents, just as you can take credit for the
effort you have put into developing yours and into building your
career.

I do know some economics, more than the average person in the street,
I don't have comprehensive knowledge of the subject, you claim to have
studied it in depth but have declined to provide documentation proving
that fact. So what?

You were comically trying to put on an air of intellectual superiority
by talking about "infrastructure and capital accumulation". I am sorry
to tell you this Ball but most people who are working on a
postgraduate qualification will be aware of the importance of
infrastructure and capital markets in economic development. I have
actually studied mathematical models for the markets in financial
assets in some depth.

> >>>>>>>> and because their
> >>>>>>>> governments don't handcuff them.
> >>>>>>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
> >>>>>>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
> >>>>>>> overseas.
> >>>>>> Doesn't happen.
> >>>>> Er, yes,
> >>>> Doesn't happen.
>
> >>> You're
> >> Doesn't happen.
>
> >>>>>>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
> >>>>>>> food resources
> >>>>>> False.
> >>>>> You're a lunatic.
> >>>> False.
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>> Maybe you think I should talk it over with my doctor?
> >> Yes.  Wait until the meds wear off first.
>
> > What, exactly, should I say?
>
> That you're fucked up and wish to be committed to a mental hospital.
>

They'll probably want some elaboration on the nature of the problems
I've been experiencing before they can do that. What should I say
about that?

> >>>>>> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
> >>>>>> than facts.
> >>>>> You're just a lunatic
> >>>> False.
>
> >>>>>>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
> >>>>>>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
> >>>>>> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
> >>>>> Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.
> >>>> You most certainly did.
> >>> No, sorry,
> >> You said something nonsensical.
>
> [extremely comical mockery of Ball's inanity]
>
> >>>> You blabbered about the "inequitable"
> >>>> distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of
> >>>> course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in
> >>>> market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way
> >>>> is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive?
> >>>> And you couldn't answer.
>
> >>> First of all, the simple fact of superior productivity is not a "food
> >>> resource" in my language.
> >> But is is the overwhelming factor, and you know it.
>
> > This was never in contention.
>
> You pretend there is some "inequity" in food productive resource
> distribution, and the only real difference is a difference in
> productivity.  You haven't identified any resource that is inequitably
> distributed.
>

I'm referring to an inequality in consumption of resources, which will
obviously stem from inequality in incomes. And I'm saying it's
reasonable to bring this up in a discussion of global food production.
That's all I'm saying. You can't deny the simple fact of economic
inequality while in the same breath talking about applying for
commitment to a mental hospital. Well, you can, you'd be amazed at
what Jonathan Ball can do, but...


> >> As for the rest,
> >> it's not as if we're "stealing" anything.
>
> > Never made this claim either.
>
> It's implied when you talk about "inequity".
>

But I've explained repeatedly that the use of the word "inequity" was
an inadvertant mistake and I've withdrawn that word. You choose not to
listen.

> >> If the growing regions of
> >> North America have more rainfall than the farming regions of sub-Sahara
> >> Africa, there is no "inequity" in that.
>
> > I changed the word to "unequal" a long time ago.
>
> You clearly mean them to be synonyms.

What was that about mental hospitals again? If you want to know what I
meant you should listen to what I'm saying.

> Redistributionists like you
> always interpret "unequal" to *mean* inequitable.
>

Okay, Ball, listening carefully? I'm an anarchist. All right? I'm a
libertarian, you're not because you think you have the right to
interfere in voluntary employment transactions. Okay? Does that clear
things up?

> >> You cannot substantiate your claim that there is an "inequitable"
> >> distribution of agricultural resources.  That is nothing but partisan
> >> bullshit.
>
> > Yes, well done for picking up on my mistake, Ball, but I explicitly
> > retracted the word "inequitable"
>
> No, you didn't retract it.
>

The same way you didn't tell me that "axiomatisable" wasn't a real
word? Should I discuss this with my doctor?

> > and changed it to "unequal" a long
> > time ago.
>
> It certainly wasn't a "long time" ago.  It was two days and three posts
> ago, you lying fuck.

In my book that's a pretty long time to get someone to listen to what
you're saying, which you still haven't done.

>  I see time measurement isn't your strong suit any
> more than economics.
>

Nothing wrong with my time measurement. And you talk about me losing
my grip. Fascinating.

> > We can talk about the philosophy of distribution of wealth if you
> > want. I wasn't actually trying to bring that up, I just made a
> > mistake,
>
> [snip several dozen words of wheeze]
>
> I'm not sure it really was a mistake.

I'm not sure you've got a degree. But when it comes to what I actually
mean to say you should probably just take my statements at face value.

> If you *do* change it to unequal,
> then it's not worth bringing up.  No one cares that it's unequal, unless
> you're going to read some negative moral meaning into it, in which case
> you actually *mean* inequitable.
>
> You sure are a confused fuck.
>

No, it's you who are experiencing confusion about what I'm saying. I
was making the elementary point that it is reasonable to mention the
inequality of consumption of food resources in a discussion of global
food production. It is you who brought this topic up, you were
complaining about Richard Steiner doing this. After a few more posts,
we may eventually get through your thick skull that that's what I was
saying.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> >>>>>>>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
> >>>>>>>>>>> his real name, I
> >>>>>>>>>>> wonder?
> >>>>>>>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
> >>>>>>> Is that what I'm doing today
> >>>>>> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
> >>>>>> hip hop albums?
> >>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
> >>>> You're a fuckstain.
>
> >>> You could
> >> You're a fuckstain.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is clear.
> >>>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
> >>>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
> >>>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> >>>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
> >>>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
> >>>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
> >>>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
> >>>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
>
> >>> The implications from what?
> >> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
> >> eeeeeeevil meat.
>
> > Be more specific.
>
> Already been specific enough.

No, you've comically provided a quotation consisting of facts which
are not in dispute.

> READ the cunt lesley's shit hemorrages,
> you jerk - she copypastaed the entire articles.
>

Why are you incapable of providing a quotation to support your case?

> >>>>>>>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
> >>>>>>>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> >>>>>>>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> >>>>>>>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> >>>>>>>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
> >>>>>>>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
> >>>>>>>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
> >>>>>>>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>>>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
> >>>>>>>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
> >>>>>>>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
> >>>>>>>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
> >>>>>>>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
> >>>>>>>> writes.
> >>>>>>> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
> >>>>>>> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
> >>>>>> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
> >>>>>> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
> >>>>>> implement.
> >>>>> Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention
> >>>> It's the clear implication of his whining about meat production.
> >>> *What* whining?
> >> You've read it for yourself already.  All the pissing and moaning about
> >> meat is whining.
>
> > No, I haven't read it.
>
> The shrill cunt lesley did her usual copypasta of the assholes' entire
> articles in her posts.  Read them.
>

I don't take orders from you. I'll read them when I have the time and
inclination.

Why are you incapable of providing a quotation to support your case,
when you supposedly have a postgraduate qualification?

> >>>>  He
> >>>> wants it stopped; that's clear.  Stopping it requires totalitarianism;
> >>>> that's also clear.
>
> >>> The first statement is as yet unsupported,
> >> No, it isn't.  It's clearly implied by the whining about meat.
>
> > It may or may not be,
>
> READ the fucking posts.
>
> >> Meat
> >> production is eeeeeeeeevil, in his view, and he wants it stopped.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
> >>>>>>>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
> >>>>>>>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
> >>>>>>>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
> >>>>>>>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
> >>>>>>>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
> >>>>>>>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
> >>>>>>>> than point out their dishonesty.
> >>>>>>> If this is the case,
> >>>>>> It is the case, beyond dispute.
> >>>>> Oh, it's beyond dispute
> >>>> Yes.  It is beyond dispute that fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics believe meat
> >>>> production in the developed world causes starvation in the shitholes,
> >>>> and it is beyond dispute that you cynically keep quiet about their false
> >>>> beliefs, even though you claim to realize they're false.
>
> >>> Then why is it so hard for you to come up with just one iota of
> >>> evidence
> >> Have done.  READ the whiny screeds, cocksucker.
>
> > Sure, I'll do that if you refuse to meet your obligation to support
> > your case with citations.
>
> Read MY posts if you don't want to read the cunt lesley's, then.  I put
> my comments in immediately after the comments of Patel and the other
> shitbag.
>

There's nothing in your posts to support your contentions, as I've
been pointing out.

> >>>>>>>>>>>> That claim is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
> >>>>>>>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
> >>>>>>>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
> >>>>>>>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
> >>>>>>>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
> >>>>>>> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
> >>>>>> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.
> >>>>> Well,
> >>>> You didn't know what you were talking about - again.
>
> >>> No, I did know what I was talking about.
> >> You did not and you do not.
>
> Concession noted.

Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning.

I pass over your inane drivel without comment and you think that's a
concession?

No, Ball, I do not concede that I did not and do not know what I was
talking about. My view of the matter is that you constantly make a
ludicrous clown out of yourself, and that you do not know what you are
talking about, and that I do an excellent job of pointing out the
deficiencies in your posts. That is certainly my view of the matter,
whatever merit it may have, so there is certainly no question of any
"concession" on my part. I am surprised that this needed to be
explained.

I am happy to talk this one over. When you say I did not and do not
know what I was talking about, were you referring to our discussion of
world poverty or our discussion of your capacity to tie your
shoelaces? (You'd completely forgotten the context and were just
reflexively babbling, weren't you?)

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:45 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> rupie, losing his grip again, histrionically blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
>>>>>>>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
>>>>>>>>>> Any time, ham hock.
>>>>>>>>> It's very generous of you.
>>>>>>>> I'm a very generous man.
>>>>>>> You are indeed.
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
>>>>> Yes, I do.
>>>> No, you don't.  Move along.
>> Good - you made at least a little bit of progress.
>>
> 
> How so?

You moved along.


>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
>>>>>>>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
>>>>>>>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
>>>>>>>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>>>>>>>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
>>>>>>>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
>>>>>>>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
>>>>>> He's doing nothing,
>>>>> My original statement was correct.
>>>> Your statement was bullshit.  As usual.
>>> Why don't you elaborate on this
>> It's the same as before, so nothing new to add.  You don't do anything
>> but talk, and that's not doing anything substantive.
>>
> 
> My original statement was "you don't know what he is and isn't doing
> about it",

[snip massive shit hemorrhage]

I know that he, like you, isn't doing *anything* about it.


>>
>>>>>> just as you do nothing.
>>>>> I don't do nothing,
>>>> You do nothing.
>>> This is a pretty meaningless statement
>> [snip tired wheeze]
>>
>> No, it isn't.  You don't do anything concrete regarding animal "rights".
> 
> See above.

Hundreds of words of bullshit above, mercifully snipped.


>>   You can't even be bothered to reduce your own death toll.
> 
> I have reduced my death toll in all sorts of ways

You haven't reduced your death toll in *any* way.  It's the same as it 
was when you first learned of collateral deaths in agriculture.


>> You're
>> nothing but talk.
>>
> 
> How about you? What do you do 

Lots.  Unlike you, it's not just hot air.


>>>>>> Running your mouth isn't
>>>>>> doing "something".
>>>> Running your mouth is all you do, and it amounts to nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
>>>>>>>>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
>>>>>>>>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
>>>>>>>>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
>>>>>>>>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
>>>>>>>>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
>>>>>>>>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
>>>>>>>>> ethic.
>>>>>>>> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
>>>>>>>> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
>>>>>>>> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
>>>>>>>> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
>>>>>>>> Sorry (not really).
>>>>>>> I have studied a bit of economics
>>>>>> No.
>>>>> Stupid clown.
>>>> No.
>>>> You do not know economics, period.
>>> You do not know anything about what I do and do not know about
>>> economics
>> [snip more rambling, empty wheeze]
>>
>> You do not know economics.
>>
> 
> My statement that "I have studied a bit of economics" was correct.

My statement that you do not know economics is correct.


> 
>>>>>>>>>> and because their
>>>>>>>>>> governments don't handcuff them.
>>>>>>>>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
>>>>>>>>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
>>>>>>>>> overseas.
>>>>>>>> Doesn't happen.
>>>>>>> Er, yes,
>>>>>> Doesn't happen.
>>>>> You're
>>>> Doesn't happen.
>>>>>>>>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
>>>>>>>>> food resources
>>>>>>>> False.
>>>>>>> You're a lunatic.
>>>>>> False.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Maybe you think I should talk it over with my doctor?
>>>> Yes.  Wait until the meds wear off first.
>>> What, exactly, should I say?
>> That you're fucked up and wish to be committed to a mental hospital.
>>
> 
> They'll probably want some elaboration 

They're the experts; they can do tests.


>>>>>>>> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
>>>>>>>> than facts.
>>>>>>> You're just a lunatic
>>>>>> False.
>>>>>>>>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
>>>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
>>>>>>>> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
>>>>>>> Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.
>>>>>> You most certainly did.
>>>>> No, sorry,
>>>> You said something nonsensical.
>> [extremely stupid bit of rupie bullshit]
>>
>>>>>> You blabbered about the "inequitable"
>>>>>> distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of
>>>>>> course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in
>>>>>> market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way
>>>>>> is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive?
>>>>>> And you couldn't answer.
>>>>> First of all, the simple fact of superior productivity is not a "food
>>>>> resource" in my language.
>>>> But is is the overwhelming factor, and you know it.
>>> This was never in contention.
>> You pretend there is some "inequity" in food productive resource
>> distribution, and the only real difference is a difference in
>> productivity.  You haven't identified any resource that is inequitably
>> distributed.
>>
> 
> I'm referring to an inequality in consumption of resources,

Meaningless.


>>>> As for the rest,
>>>> it's not as if we're "stealing" anything.
>>> Never made this claim either.
>> It's implied when you talk about "inequity".
>>
> 
> But I've explained repeatedly

No; you just brought that up today.


> that the use of the word "inequity" was
> an inadvertant mistake and I've withdrawn that word.

If you *don't* mean inequity, then you're not saying anything. 
Inequality is meaningless.


>>>> If the growing regions of
>>>> North America have more rainfall than the farming regions of sub-Sahara
>>>> Africa, there is no "inequity" in that.
>>> I changed the word to "unequal" a long time ago.
>> You clearly mean them to be synonyms.
> 
> What was that about mental hospitals again? 

Get into one.


>> Redistributionists like you
>> always interpret "unequal" to *mean* inequitable.
>>
> 
> Okay, Rudy, listening carefully? I'm an anarchist. 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  SURE you are!  That's why you go off to 
teach maths in a one-party dictatorship!  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!



> All right? I'm a libertarian, 

You're not.


> you're not

I am.


> because you think you have the right to
> interfere in voluntary employment transactions.

No, I never indicated any willingness to interfere in any such thing.


>>>> You cannot substantiate your claim that there is an "inequitable"
>>>> distribution of agricultural resources.  That is nothing but partisan
>>>> bullshit.
>>> Yes, well done for picking up on my mistake, Rudy, but I explicitly
>>> retracted the word "inequitable"
>> No, you didn't retract it.
>>
> 
> The same way you didn't tell me 

You didn't retract it.


>>> and changed it to "unequal" a long
>>> time ago.
>> It certainly wasn't a "long time" ago.  It was two days and three posts
>> ago, you lying fuck.
> 
> In my book that's a pretty long time 

It's not.


>>  I see time measurement isn't your strong suit any
>> more than economics.
>>
> 
> Nothing wrong with my time measurement.

Yes, there is.


>>> We can talk about the philosophy of distribution of wealth if you
>>> want. I wasn't actually trying to bring that up, I just made a
>>> mistake,
>> [snip several dozen words of wheeze]
>>
>> I'm not sure it really was a mistake.
> 
> I'm not sure you've got a degree.

You don't need to be.


>> If you *do* change it to unequal,
>> then it's not worth bringing up.  No one cares that it's unequal, unless
>> you're going to read some negative moral meaning into it, in which case
>> you actually *mean* inequitable.
>>
>> You sure are a confused fuck.
>>
> 
> No, 

Yes, you're a confused fuck.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his real name, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder?
>>>>>>>>>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
>>>>>>>>> Is that what I'm doing today
>>>>>>>> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
>>>>>>>> hip hop albums?
>>>>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>>>>> You're a fuckstain.
>>>>> You could
>>>> You're a fuckstain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is clear.
>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
>>>>>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
>>>>>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
>>>>>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
>>>>>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
>>>>>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
>>>>>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
>>>>> The implications from what?
>>>> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
>>>> eeeeeeevil meat.
>>> Be more specific.
>> Already been specific enough.
> 
> No,

Yes; plenty specific.


>> READ the cunt lesley's shit hemorrages,
>> you jerk - she copypastaed the entire articles.
>>
> 
> Why are you incapable of providing a quotation to support your case?

Read the posts.


>>>>>>>>>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
>>>>>>>>>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
>>>>>>>>>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
>>>>>>>>>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
>>>>>>>>>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
>>>>>>>>>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
>>>>>>>>>> writes.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
>>>>>>>>> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
>>>>>>>> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
>>>>>>>> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
>>>>>>>> implement.
>>>>>>> Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention
>>>>>> It's the clear implication of his whining about meat production.
>>>>> *What* whining?
>>>> You've read it for yourself already.  All the pissing and moaning about
>>>> meat is whining.
>>> No, I haven't read it.
>> The shrill cunt lesley did her usual copypasta of the assholes' entire
>> articles in her posts.  Read them.
>>
> 
> I don't take orders from you.

Fuck off, squirt.


>>>>>>  He
>>>>>> wants it stopped; that's clear.  Stopping it requires totalitarianism;
>>>>>> that's also clear.
>>>>> The first statement is as yet unsupported,
>>>> No, it isn't.  It's clearly implied by the whining about meat.
>>> It may or may not be,
>> READ the fucking posts.
>>
>>>> Meat
>>>> production is eeeeeeeeevil, in his view, and he wants it stopped.
>>>>>>>>>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
>>>>>>>>>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
>>>>>>>>>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
>>>>>>>>>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
>>>>>>>>>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
>>>>>>>>>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
>>>>>>>>>> than point out their dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>> If this is the case,
>>>>>>>> It is the case, beyond dispute.
>>>>>>> Oh, it's beyond dispute
>>>>>> Yes.  It is beyond dispute that fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics believe meat
>>>>>> production in the developed world causes starvation in the shitholes,
>>>>>> and it is beyond dispute that you cynically keep quiet about their false
>>>>>> beliefs, even though you claim to realize they're false.
>>>>> Then why is it so hard for you to come up with just one iota of
>>>>> evidence
>>>> Have done.  READ the whiny screeds, cocksucker.
>>> Sure, I'll do that if you refuse to meet your obligation to support
>>> your case with citations.
>> Read MY posts if you don't want to read the cunt lesley's, then.  I put
>> my comments in immediately after the comments of Patel and the other
>> shitbag.
>>
> 
> There's nothing in your posts to support your contentions

There is.  It is clear to all reasonable readers that Patel and the 
other shitbag are making a fuckwitted "inefficiency" argument, when they 
don't understand efficiency considerations.  That fuckwitted 
"inefficiency" argument is in *addition* to their environmental concerns.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
>>>>>>>>>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
>>>>>>>>>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
>>>>>>>>>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
>>>>>>>>> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
>>>>>>>> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.
>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>> You didn't know what you were talking about - again.
>>>>> No, I did know what I was talking about.
>>>> You did not and you do not.
>> Concession noted.
> 
> Thanks 

Any time.

On Jun 26, 9:17 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2:45 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> rupie, losing his grip again, histrionically blabbered:
>
> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Professor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally do:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
> >>>>>>>>>> Any time, ham hock.
> >>>>>>>>> It's very generous of you.
> >>>>>>>> I'm a very generous man.
> >>>>>>> You are indeed.
> >>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
> >>>>> Yes, I do.
> >>>> No, you don't.  Move along.
> >> Good - you made at least a little bit of progress.
>
> > How so?
>
> You moved along.
>

Oh, right, so when you said "you can move on from this topic now" you
were referring to the topic of your generosity. I thought you meant
the entire thread.

Yes, I would agree that we have more or less exhausted that topic.

You might find this website interesting.

http://blog.givewell.net

> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
> >>>>>>>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
> >>>>>>>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
> >>>>>>>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
> >>>>>>>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
> >>>>>>>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
> >>>>>>> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
> >>>>>> He's doing nothing,
> >>>>> My original statement was correct.
> >>>> Your statement was bullshit.  As usual.
> >>> Why don't you elaborate on this
> >> It's the same as before, so nothing new to add.  You don't do anything
> >> but talk, and that's not doing anything substantive.
>
> > My original statement was "you don't know what he is and isn't doing
> > about it",
>
> [snip massive shit hemorrhage]
>
> I know that he, like you, isn't doing *anything* about it.
>

You don't know anything about what he or I are doing. What you don't
know could fill a library.

The statement that I am not doing anything about people dying of
malnutrition is patently false.

>
>
> >>>>>> just as you do nothing.
> >>>>> I don't do nothing,
> >>>> You do nothing.
> >>> This is a pretty meaningless statement
> >> [snip tired wheeze]
>
> >> No, it isn't.  You don't do anything concrete regarding animal "rights".
>
> > See above.
>
> Detailed refutation of Ball's rubbish above, snipped in Ball's usual lame, evasive, non-responsive style.
>

Let's see, what are the possibilities?

(1) Ball believes that the stuff he snipped is false.
(2) Ball believes that the activities I described do not amount to
"doing anything concrete about animal rights", although he declines to
elaborate on what would amount to doing something concrete.
(3) Ball didn't even bother to read the stuff he snipped and just
mindlessly snipped it and reflexively uttered more babble.
(4) Ball knows that he has been decisively refuted and is desperately
trying to pretend it didn't happen.

Oh, well, who cares?

> >>   You can't even be bothered to reduce your own death toll.
>
> > I have reduced my death toll in all sorts of ways
>
> You haven't reduced your death toll in *any* way.  It's the same as it
> was when you first learned of collateral deaths in agriculture.
>

First of all, that's a goalpost move. You should modify your first
sentence to "You haven't reduced your death toll in any way since you
first heard of the collateral deaths argument".

Second of all, supposing this were true, what would it prove? Nothing.
Any further reduction that I could achieve in my death toll, short of
growing all my own food, would be marginal. Being vegan, together with
all the volunteer work and activism I do,  is a perfectly respectable
effort at doing something to reduce harm to nonhuman animals. The
original statement was "You are doing nothing", and you are still
sticking to it despite the fact that it's palpable rubbish. You spend
half your life talking palpable rubbish and show no signs of being
embarrassed. It's really quite remarkable.

Thirdly, it's false as it happens. I first heard of the collateral
deaths argument during adolescence before I was vegetarian.

> >> You're
> >> nothing but talk.
>
> > How about you? What do you do
>
> Lots.  Unlike you, it's not just hot air.
>

Tell me more. Maybe I can learn from your fine example.

> >>>>>> Running your mouth isn't
> >>>>>> doing "something".
> >>>> Running your mouth is all you do, and it amounts to nothing.
> >>>>>>>>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
> >>>>>>>>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> >>>>>>>>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
> >>>>>>>>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
> >>>>>>>>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
> >>>>>>>>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
> >>>>>>>>> ethic.
> >>>>>>>> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
> >>>>>>>> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
> >>>>>>>> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
> >>>>>>>> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
> >>>>>>>> Sorry (not really).
> >>>>>>> I have studied a bit of economics
> >>>>>> No.
> >>>>> Stupid clown.
> >>>> No.
> >>>> You do not know economics, period.
> >>> You do not know anything about what I do and do not know about
> >>> economics
> >> [snip more rambling, empty wheeze]
>
> >> You do not know economics.
>
> > My statement that "I have studied a bit of economics" was correct.
>
> My statement that you do not know economics is correct.
>

If "knowing economics" means having studied the subject in great
depth, yes. What of it? Just looking at the earlier conversation
again:

"Oh, wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so
you don't know about things like infrastructure and capital
accumulation. Sorry (not really)."
"I have studied a bit of economics."
"No."
"Stupid clown."
"No."

As we see, you've been talking rubbish about things you know nothing
about. As usual. Your statement that I "don't know about things like
infrastructure and capital accumulation" is absurd. The words and
phrases "infrastructure" and "capital accumulation" are not esoteric
words and phrases like "morphism", "topos" or "Banach space". Every
reasonably educated person knows the meanings of these terms and
understands that infrastructure and capital accumulation are important
determinants of the productivity of an economy. It would be like me
saying you've never studied calculus.

I really don't know why you attach so much importance to how much
economics I know. What's your point?

>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> and because their
> >>>>>>>>>> governments don't handcuff them.
> >>>>>>>>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
> >>>>>>>>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
> >>>>>>>>> overseas.
> >>>>>>>> Doesn't happen.
> >>>>>>> Er, yes,
> >>>>>> Doesn't happen.
> >>>>> You're
> >>>> Doesn't happen.
> >>>>>>>>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
> >>>>>>>>> food resources
> >>>>>>>> False.
> >>>>>>> You're a lunatic.
> >>>>>> False.
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Maybe you think I should talk it over with my doctor?
> >>>> Yes.  Wait until the meds wear off first.
> >>> What, exactly, should I say?
> >> That you're fucked up and wish to be committed to a mental hospital.
>
> > They'll probably want some elaboration
>
> They're the experts; they can do tests.
>

As I say, the first step will be an interview in which they ask me
what sort of problems I've been experiencing. What should I focus on?

There isn't any aspect of my life which you're aware of which I regard
as a problem. I'm not aware of any problems I have which I would
regard as mental-health-related.

What do *you* think my problems are? What's prompted you to suggest
that I check myself into a mental hospital? Is it the fact that I've
been pointing out that you once said "axiomatisable" is not a real
word, and that you don't know anything about what I do or don't do
about people suffering from malnutrition? Do you think that's
indicative of poor mental health?

> >>>>>>>> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
> >>>>>>>> than facts.
> >>>>>>> You're just a lunatic
> >>>>>> False.
> >>>>>>>>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
> >>>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
> >>>>>>>> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
> >>>>>>> Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.
> >>>>>> You most certainly did.
> >>>>> No, sorry,
> >>>> You said something nonsensical.
> >> [extremely stupid bit of rupie bullshit]
>

You talk nothing but stupid bullshit. It's the entirety of your usenet
output.

> >>>>>> You blabbered about the "inequitable"
> >>>>>> distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of
> >>>>>> course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in
> >>>>>> market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way
> >>>>>> is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive?
> >>>>>> And you couldn't answer.
> >>>>> First of all, the simple fact of superior productivity is not a "food
> >>>>> resource" in my language.
> >>>> But is is the overwhelming factor, and you know it.
> >>> This was never in contention.
> >> You pretend there is some "inequity" in food productive resource
> >> distribution, and the only real difference is a difference in
> >> productivity.  You haven't identified any resource that is inequitably
> >> distributed.
>
> > I'm referring to an inequality in consumption of resources,
>
> Meaningless.
>

Oh man oh man, you're fucking dumb.

> >>>> As for the rest,
> >>>> it's not as if we're "stealing" anything.
> >>> Never made this claim either.
> >> It's implied when you talk about "inequity".
>
> > But I've explained repeatedly
>
> No; you just brought that up today.
>

My statement was correct. I've made the point repeatedly. Once should
have been enough.

> > that the use of the word "inequity" was
> > an inadvertant mistake and I've withdrawn that word.
>
> If you *don't* mean inequity, then you're not saying anything.
> Inequality is meaningless.
>

Various resources are used and consumed in food production. The
quantities of these resources used or consumed in order to produce the
food consumed by different individuals, or the individuals in
different nations collectively, can be compared. Demand for various
resources has an impact on price, which has an impact on the
opportunity sets of those at lower economic levels. People in
developed nations who eat foods with high crop inputs worsen the
situation of those in undeveloped nations by competing with them as
buyers. If you're applying for a job, and I'm better qualified, and I
make a decision to apply for that job as well, that worsens your
situation. This is a factual description, not a moral argument. If I
cared about your well-being, and I could avoid applying for the job at
a trivial cost to myself, then it would be rational for me to do that.
Similarly, if I have a desire that fewer people suffer from
malnutrition, and I can reduce my contribution to the demand for crop
inputs at a trivial cost to myself, it might be rational for me to do
that. It is reasonable to discuss such facts in the context of a
discussion of food production considered on a global scale. This is
not a profound point; however, you denied it and I bothered to correct
you.

> >>>> If the growing regions of
> >>>> North America have more rainfall than the farming regions of sub-Sahara
> >>>> Africa, there is no "inequity" in that.
> >>> I changed the word to "unequal" a long time ago.
> >> You clearly mean them to be synonyms.
>

Typical Ball bullshit.

> > What was that about mental hospitals again?
>
> Get into one.
>

What's the first thing I should say to them? Should I say "I believe I
may have some sort of mental health problem"? They're going to want me
to be more specific than that. How should I characterise my problem?



> >> Redistributionists like you
> >> always interpret "unequal" to *mean* inequitable.
>
> > Okay, Rudy, listening carefully? I'm an anarchist.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  SURE you are!  That's why you go off to
> teach maths in a one-party dictatorship!  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>

Oh, so I do teach maths now, as opposed to telemarketing or making hip
hop albums?

I'm not sure what your point is, Ball. All the territory in the world
is controlled by governments. Accepting an offer of employment in
China doesn't mean that I have positive feelings about the Chinese
government. Obviously living in a country with not very much freedom
is a consideration, but on the other hand it's a job, it's better than
telemarketing, I get to do something I'm interested in and enjoy, and
I get to have the experience of living in a different country and
learning more about the world. I don't have the option of living in a
country with the amount of freedom which I think people ought to be
entitled to.

What are you saying, that all people who go and work in China
subscribe to Marxism as a political philosophy? You really are a
weirdo.

> > All right? I'm a libertarian,
>
> You're not.
>

You're a fucking idiot.

> > you're not
>
> I am.
>

This *really* is funny. :)

Someone who supports immigration restrictions is not a libertarian,
Ball. You really need to brush up on your political philosophy.

> > because you think you have the right to
> > interfere in voluntary employment transactions.
>
> No, I never indicated any willingness to interfere in any such thing.
>

You advocate that the government should enforce immigration
restrictions, and presumably you are willing to let this belief of
yours influence your voting decisions. Immigration restrictions
wrongfully prevent poor foreigners from working for companies that are
willing to employ them, thereby worsening their situation (and also
that of the companies). If an Indian worker wants to come and work for
a company in the US that is a voluntary employment transaction which
is none of your business. You should not get to have a say in whether
it takes place or not. If you think you do have the right to have a
say in it, or that the government does have the right to make a
decision about the matter, then you are not a libertarian. QED.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:86Odnbot55BCuvnVnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:wd6dnU4q0_Ztef7VnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:gMWdnXNgeeqv5__VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>> <..>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> >>> <..>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
> >>>>>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
> >>>>>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> >>>>>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
> >>>>>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
> >>>>>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
> >>>>>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
> >>>>>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
> >>>>> The implications from what?
> >>>> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
> >>>> eeeeeeevil meat.
> >>> 'Food Revolution: Reversing the Spread of Hunger
> >>>
> >>> by John Robbins, an author widely recognized as
> >> an unknowledgeable fruitcake.
> >
> > 'Bullies project [blah blah blah bullshit]
>
> You stupid cunt.

'Avoiding acceptance of responsibility - denial, counterattack and
feigning victimhood

The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside;
he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that
the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional
development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants
to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and
unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the
benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to
accept responsibility for their behaviour.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
..
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
..'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:wJOdnfzk9qNP9_nVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2:45 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >> rupie, losing his grip again, histrionically blabbered:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Professor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally do:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
> >>>>>>>>>> Any time, ham hock.
> >>>>>>>>> It's very generous of you.
> >>>>>>>> I'm a very generous man.
> >>>>>>> You are indeed.
> >>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
> >>>>> Yes, I do.
> >>>> No, you don't.  Move along.
> >> Good - you made at least a little bit of progress.
> >>
> >
> > How so?
>
> You moved along.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
> >>>>>>>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
> >>>>>>>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
> >>>>>>>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
> >>>>>>>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
> >>>>>>>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
> >>>>>>> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
> >>>>>> He's doing nothing,
> >>>>> My original statement was correct.
> >>>> Your statement was bullshit.  As usual.
> >>> Why don't you elaborate on this
> >> It's the same as before, so nothing new to add.  You don't do anything
> >> but talk, and that's not doing anything substantive.
> >>
> >
> > My original statement was "you don't know what he is and isn't doing
> > about it",
>
> [snip massive shit hemorrhage]
>
> I know that he, like you, isn't doing *anything* about it.
>
>
> >>
> >>>>>> just as you do nothing.
> >>>>> I don't do nothing,
> >>>> You do nothing.
> >>> This is a pretty meaningless statement
> >> [snip tired wheeze]
> >>
> >> No, it isn't.  You don't do anything concrete regarding animal "rights".
> >
> > See above.
>
> Hundreds of words of bullshit above, mercifully snipped.
>
>
> >>   You can't even be bothered to reduce your own death toll.
> >
> > I have reduced my death toll in all sorts of ways
>
> You haven't reduced your death toll in *any* way.  It's the same as it
> was when you first learned of collateral deaths in agriculture.
>
>
> >> You're
> >> nothing but talk.
> >>
> >
> > How about you? What do you do
>
> Lots.  Unlike you, it's not just hot air.
>
>
> >>>>>> Running your mouth isn't
> >>>>>> doing "something".
> >>>> Running your mouth is all you do, and it amounts to nothing.
> >>>>>>>>>>> and it is reasonable to bring up the
> >>>>>>>>>>> topic of inequitable global distribution of food resources in the
> >>>>>>>>>>> context of discussing the current global system of food production.
> >>>>>>>>>> There is no "inequitable" distribution, ham hock.  American and European
> >>>>>>>>>> - and maybe even Australian - farmers produce far more food than farmers
> >>>>>>>>>> in poorer places because they're better at it,
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, I see, it's because of their superior abilities and their work
> >>>>>>>>> ethic.
> >>>>>>>> For sure due in large part to their superior abilities.  That's what
> >>>>>>>> good infrastructure and access to capital markets will do for you.  Oh,
> >>>>>>>> wait - you haven't studied any bit of economics in your life, so you
> >>>>>>>> don't know about things like infrastructure and capital accumulation.
> >>>>>>>> Sorry (not really).
> >>>>>>> I have studied a bit of economics
> >>>>>> No.
> >>>>> Stupid clown.
> >>>> No.
> >>>> You do not know economics, period.
> >>> You do not know anything about what I do and do not know about
> >>> economics
> >> [snip more rambling, empty wheeze]
> >>
> >> You do not know economics.
> >>
> >
> > My statement that "I have studied a bit of economics" was correct.
>
> My statement that you do not know economics is correct.
>
>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> and because their
> >>>>>>>>>> governments don't handcuff them.
> >>>>>>>>> It might help poor people if their governments didn't mollycoddle them
> >>>>>>>>> and protect them from competition by poverty-stricken farmers
> >>>>>>>>> overseas.
> >>>>>>>> Doesn't happen.
> >>>>>>> Er, yes,
> >>>>>> Doesn't happen.
> >>>>> You're
> >>>> Doesn't happen.
> >>>>>>>>> This is all a red herring. There is an unequal global distribution of
> >>>>>>>>> food resources
> >>>>>>>> False.
> >>>>>>> You're a lunatic.
> >>>>>> False.
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Maybe you think I should talk it over with my doctor?
> >>>> Yes.  Wait until the meds wear off first.
> >>> What, exactly, should I say?
> >> That you're fucked up and wish to be committed to a mental hospital.
> >>
> >
> > They'll probably want some elaboration
>
> They're the experts; they can do tests.
>
>
> >>>>>>>> Ipse dixit, and false.  You spout memorized propaganda rather
> >>>>>>>> than facts.
> >>>>>>> You're just a lunatic
> >>>>>> False.
> >>>>>>>>>> In what way is it "inequitable" that North American farmers can get 44
> >>>>>>>>>> tons of potatoes per hectare, while Chinese farmers manage 12 tons?
> >>>>>>>> Can't answer, can you, squirt?
> >>>>>>> Why should I? I never said anything so nonsensical.
> >>>>>> You most certainly did.
> >>>>> No, sorry,
> >>>> You said something nonsensical.
> >> [extremely stupid bit of rupie bullshit]
> >>
> >>>>>> You blabbered about the "inequitable"
> >>>>>> distribution of food resources, and the most important food resource, of
> >>>>>> course, is the hugely superior productivity of the western farmer in
> >>>>>> market economies.  So I asked you, you smarmy smirking fuck, in what way
> >>>>>> is it "inequitable" that western farmers are so much more productive?
> >>>>>> And you couldn't answer.
> >>>>> First of all, the simple fact of superior productivity is not a "food
> >>>>> resource" in my language.
> >>>> But is is the overwhelming factor, and you know it.
> >>> This was never in contention.
> >> You pretend there is some "inequity" in food productive resource
> >> distribution, and the only real difference is a difference in
> >> productivity.  You haven't identified any resource that is inequitably
> >> distributed.
> >>
> >
> > I'm referring to an inequality in consumption of resources,
>
> Meaningless.
>
>
> >>>> As for the rest,
> >>>> it's not as if we're "stealing" anything.
> >>> Never made this claim either.
> >> It's implied when you talk about "inequity".
> >>
> >
> > But I've explained repeatedly
>
> No; you just brought that up today.
>
>
> > that the use of the word "inequity" was
> > an inadvertant mistake and I've withdrawn that word.
>
> If you *don't* mean inequity, then you're not saying anything.
> Inequality is meaningless.
>
>
> >>>> If the growing regions of
> >>>> North America have more rainfall than the farming regions of sub-Sahara
> >>>> Africa, there is no "inequity" in that.
> >>> I changed the word to "unequal" a long time ago.
> >> You clearly mean them to be synonyms.
> >
> > What was that about mental hospitals again?
>
> Get into one.
>
>
> >> Redistributionists like you
> >> always interpret "unequal" to *mean* inequitable.
> >>
> >
> > Okay, Rudy, listening carefully? I'm an anarchist.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  SURE you are!  That's why you go off to
> teach maths in a one-party dictatorship!  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>
>
> > All right? I'm a libertarian,
>
> You're not.
>
>
> > you're not
>
> I am.
>
>
> > because you think you have the right to
> > interfere in voluntary employment transactions.
>
> No, I never indicated any willingness to interfere in any such thing.
>
>
> >>>> You cannot substantiate your claim that there is an "inequitable"
> >>>> distribution of agricultural resources.  That is nothing but partisan
> >>>> bullshit.
> >>> Yes, well done for picking up on my mistake, Rudy, but I explicitly
> >>> retracted the word "inequitable"
> >> No, you didn't retract it.
> >>
> >
> > The same way you didn't tell me
>
> You didn't retract it.
>
>
> >>> and changed it to "unequal" a long
> >>> time ago.
> >> It certainly wasn't a "long time" ago.  It was two days and three posts
> >> ago, you lying fuck.
> >
> > In my book that's a pretty long time
>
> It's not.
>
>
> >>  I see time measurement isn't your strong suit any
> >> more than economics.
> >>
> >
> > Nothing wrong with my time measurement.
>
> Yes, there is.
>
>
> >>> We can talk about the philosophy of distribution of wealth if you
> >>> want. I wasn't actually trying to bring that up, I just made a
> >>> mistake,
> >> [snip several dozen words of wheeze]
> >>
> >> I'm not sure it really was a mistake.
> >
> > I'm not sure you've got a degree.
>
> You don't need to be.
>
>
> >> If you *do* change it to unequal,
> >> then it's not worth bringing up.  No one cares that it's unequal, unless
> >> you're going to read some negative moral meaning into it, in which case
> >> you actually *mean* inequitable.
> >>
> >> You sure are a confused fuck.
> >>
> >
> > No,
>
> Yes, you're a confused fuck.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     cattle (weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     of the planet's land surface.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>     loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm. He is stating some facts. And somehow this makes the post
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid. What would we do without the insights of Jonathan Ball who keeps comically trying to hide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> his real name, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder?
> >>>>>>>>>> You'd continue as a tele-marketer.
> >>>>>>>>> Is that what I'm doing today
> >>>>>>>> Probably something even more annoying.  Have you begun trying to record
> >>>>>>>> hip hop albums?
> >>>>>>> Thanks for the laugh.
> >>>>>> You're a fuckstain.
> >>>>> You could
> >>>> You're a fuckstain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The implication is clear:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rudy, in that quotation he states a set of facts which you agree with,
> >>>>>>>>>> Some of them, but not at all with his implication of what ought to be done.
> >>>>>>>>> If you're going to argue with anything he says about what ought to be
> >>>>>>>>> done, you should quote the part of the text where he says it.
> >>>>>>>> The implication is clear:  stop producing meat, and massively
> >>>>>>>> redistribute food from societies that produce it to those that don't.
> >>>>>>> Stop making up stuff about implications.
> >>>>>> The implications are perfectly clear, and you know it.  Stop the bullshit.
> >>>>> The implications from what?
> >>>> The implications of the fuckwitted "vegans" hysterical screeds about
> >>>> eeeeeeevil meat.
> >>> Be more specific.
> >> Already been specific enough.
> >
> > No,
>
> Yes; plenty specific.
>
>
> >> READ the cunt lesley's shit hemorrages,
> >> you jerk - she copypastaed the entire articles.
> >>
> >
> > Why are you incapable of providing a quotation to support your case?
>
> Read the posts.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> and which are indeed not in dispute by any well-informed person.
> >>>>>>>>>> What is very much in dispute is what, if anything, should be done.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if only we weren't producing "wasteful" meat,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then six million people wouldn't die from malnutrition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Meat production requires high amounts of crop inputs. If people in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> developed countries were not demanding food with such high crop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs, it is possible that the crops would become more affordable to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> people in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and that as a result fewer people would die of malnutrition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, *absolutely* not.  There is far more than enough unused agricultural
> >>>>>>>>>>>> capacity in the west to grow food for these poor starving people.  The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that they don't have any fucking MONEY to buy food from us,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, thank you, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>>>>>> And Americans and Europeans and Australians producing meat is *not* the
> >>>>>>>>>> problem, and you're very well aware of that, too, but because you're a
> >>>>>>>>>> sleazy and cynical and dishonest shitbag, you're willing to go along
> >>>>>>>>>> with this pseudo-scientist's political rant in the the guise of a
> >>>>>>>>>> scientifically based opinion, and overlook the out-and-out bullshit he
> >>>>>>>>>> writes.
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not overlooking anything because I haven't read anything except
> >>>>>>>>> what you've quoted: namely, a set of facts which are not in dispute.
> >>>>>>>> The polemical shit-flinger did more than cite some facts.  There was an
> >>>>>>>> implied policy solution in there, one that requires totalitarianism to
> >>>>>>>> implement.
> >>>>>>> Well, give us a quotation that supports your contention
> >>>>>> It's the clear implication of his whining about meat production.
> >>>>> *What* whining?
> >>>> You've read it for yourself already.  All the pissing and moaning about
> >>>> meat is whining.
> >>> No, I haven't read it.
> >> The shrill cunt lesley did her usual copypasta of the assholes' entire
> >> articles in her posts.  Read them.
> >>
> >
> > I don't take orders from you.
>
> Fuck off, squirt.
>
>
> >>>>>>  He
> >>>>>> wants it stopped; that's clear.  Stopping it requires totalitarianism;
> >>>>>> that's also clear.
> >>>>> The first statement is as yet unsupported,
> >>>> No, it isn't.  It's clearly implied by the whining about meat.
> >>> It may or may not be,
> >> READ the fucking posts.
> >>
> >>>> Meat
> >>>> production is eeeeeeeeevil, in his view, and he wants it stopped.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because their nations are run by murderous dictators who actually want
> >>>>>>>>>>>> many of those people to die.  It absolutely has nothing to do with meat
> >>>>>>>>>>>> being produced in the developed countries.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No-one has ever suggested that meat production in developed countries
> >>>>>>>>>>> is the primary cause of starvation in the third world.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, quite a lot of fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics suggest exactly that,
> >>>>>>>>>> you stinking douchenozzle, and you cynically keep quiet about it rather
> >>>>>>>>>> than point out their dishonesty.
> >>>>>>>>> If this is the case,
> >>>>>>>> It is the case, beyond dispute.
> >>>>>>> Oh, it's beyond dispute
> >>>>>> Yes.  It is beyond dispute that fuckwitted "vegan" fanatics believe meat
> >>>>>> production in the developed world causes starvation in the shitholes,
> >>>>>> and it is beyond dispute that you cynically keep quiet about their false
> >>>>>> beliefs, even though you claim to realize they're false.
> >>>>> Then why is it so hard for you to come up with just one iota of
> >>>>> evidence
> >>>> Have done.  READ the whiny screeds, cocksucker.
> >>> Sure, I'll do that if you refuse to meet your obligation to support
> >>> your case with citations.
> >> Read MY posts if you don't want to read the cunt lesley's, then.  I put
> >> my comments in immediately after the comments of Patel and the other
> >> shitbag.
> >>
> >
> > There's nothing in your posts to support your contentions
>
> There is.  It is clear to all reasonable readers that Patel and the
> other shitbag are making a fuckwitted "inefficiency" argument, when they
> don't understand efficiency considerations.  That fuckwitted
> "inefficiency" argument is in *addition* to their environmental concerns.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete bullshit, of course.  Those people die because they mostly live
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in poor countries run by corrupt tyrannies who in many cases *want*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to die of starvation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Government corruption is also a part of the problem, certainly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is far and away the biggest part.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Despite lacking a C. Phil. in economics, even I realise that the
> >>>>>>>>>>> causes of world poverty are quite complex and
> >>>>>>>>>> You don't know anything about the causes of world poverty.
> >>>>>>>>> You don't know how to tie your own shoelaces.
> >>>>>>>> I know half a dozen different ways to lace and tie shoes.
> >>>>>>> Well,
> >>>>>> You didn't know what you were talking about - again.
> >>>>> No, I did know what I was talking about.
> >>>> You did not and you do not.
> >> Concession noted.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Any time.

'His very self is a piece of fiction concocted to fend off hurt and to
nurture the narcissist's grandiosity. He fails in his "reality test" - the
ability to distinguish the actual from the imagined. The narcissist
fervently believes in his own infallibility, brilliance, omnipotence,
heroism, and perfection. He doesn't dare confront the truth and
admit it even to himself.
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal75.html

The narcissist claims to be infallible, superior, talented, skilful,
omnipotent, and omniscient. He often lies and confabulates to
support these unfounded claims. Within his cult, he expects awe,
admiration, adulation, and constant attention commensurate with
his outlandish stories and assertions. He reinterprets reality to fit
his fantasies.
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal79.html

The narcissist often pretends to know everything, in every field of
human knowledge and endeavour. He lies and prevaricates to avoid
the exposure of his ignorance. He resorts to numerous subterfuges
to support his God-like omniscience.
http://samvak.tripod.com/faq3.html

The abuser's biography sounds unusually rich and complex. His
achievements - incommensurate with his age, education, or renown.
Yet, his actual condition is evidently and demonstrably incompatible
with his claims. Very often, the abuser's lies or fantasies are easily
discernible. He always name-drops and appropriates other people's
experiences and accomplishments as his own.
http://samvak.tripod.com/abuse8.html

Yet, deep inside, the narcissist is aware that his life is an artifact, a
confabulated sham, a vulnerable cocoon. The world inexorably and
repeatedly intrudes upon these ramshackle battlements, reminding the
narcissist of the fantastic and feeble nature of his grandiosity. This is
the much-dreaded Grandiosity Gap.
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal74.html

The False Self is nothing but a concoction, a figment of the narcissist's
disorder, a reflection in the narcissist's hall of mirrors. It is incapable of
feeling, or experiencing. Yet, it is fully the master of the
psychodynamic processes which rage within the narcissist's psyche.
http://samvak.tripod.com/faq39.html

One of the most important symptoms of pathological narcissism (the
Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is grandiosity. Grandiose fantasies
(megalomaniac delusions of grandeur) permeate every aspect of the
narcissist's personality. They are the reason that the narcissist feels
entitled to special treatment which is typically incommensurate with
his real accomplishments. The Grandiosity Gap is the abyss between
the narcissist's self-image (as reified by his False Self) and reality.
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal91.html

The narcissist then resorts to self-delusion. Unable to completely ignore
contrarian opinion and data - he transmutes them. Unable to face the
dismal failure that he is, the narcissist partially withdraws from reality.
To soothe and salve the pain of disillusionment, he administers to his
aching soul a mixture of lies, distortions, half-truths and outlandish
interpretations of events around him.
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal42.html

A Grandiosity Bubble is an imagined, self-aggrandising, narrative
involving the narcissist and elements from his real life - people around
him, places he frequents, or conversations he is having. The narcissist
weaves a story incorporating these facts, inflating them in the process
and endowing them with bogus internal meaning and consistency. In
other words: he confabulates - but, this time, his confabulation is
loosely based on reality.
http://samvak.tripod.com/grandiositybubbles.html

The irony is that narcissists, who consider themselves worldly,
discerning, knowledgeable, shrewd, erudite, and astute - are actually
more gullible than the average person. This is because they are fake.
Their self is false, their life a confabulation, their reality test gone.
They live in a fantasy land all their own in which they are the center
of the universe, admired, feared, held in awe, and respected for
their omnipotence and omniscience.
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal68.html

The disparity between the accomplishments of the narcissist and his
grandiose fantasies and inflated self-image - the Grandiosity Gap - is
staggering and, in the long run, insupportable. It imposes onerous
exigencies on the narcissist's grasp of reality and social skills. It
pushes him either to seclusion or to a frenzy of "acquisitions" - cars,
women, wealth, power.
http://samvak.tripod.com/grandiositygap.html

The narcissist rarely admits to a weakness, ignorance, or deficiency.
He filters out information to the contrary - a cognitive impairment
with serious consequences. Narcissists are likely to unflinchingly
make inflated and inane claims about their sexual prowess, wealth,
connections, history, or achievements.

All this is mighty embarrassing to the narcissist's nearest, dearest,
colleagues, friends, neighbours, even on-lookers. The narcissist's tales
are so patently absurd that he often catches people off-guard.
Unbeknownst to him, the narcissist is derided and mockingly imitated.
He fast makes a nuisance and an imposition of himself in every
company.
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal59.html

The "modesty" displayed by narcissists is false. It is mostly and merely
verbal. It is couched in flourishing phrases, emphasised to absurdity,
repeated unnecessarily - usually to the point of causing gross
inconvenience to the listener. The real aim of such behaviour and its
subtext are exactly the opposite of common modesty.
http://samvak.tripod.com/faq36.html

Narcissists, like children, have magical thinking. They feel omnipotent.
They feel that there is nothing they couldn't do or achieve had they only
really wanted to and applied themselves to it.
http://samvak.tripod.com/faq45.html

"The signs are here, the gestures, the infinitesimal movements that
you cannot control. I lurk. I know that definite look, that imperceptible
twitch, the inevitability of your surrender."
http://gorgelink.org/vaknin/conman-en.html

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 26, 9:17 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 2:45 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> rupie, losing his grip again, histrionically blabbered:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:08 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 6:45 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 3:44 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 11:24 am, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE DATE OF POST:  June 11, 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love P-I Focus:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By PROFESSOR RICHARD STEINER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a typically stupid post from a typically stupid "ara".  For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starters, if you go to the link, the author is *NOT* identified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Professor Richard Steiner"; instead, it reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then at the end of the article, he is identified as literate people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the post is stupid for more reasons than that.  In the article,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steiner identifies environmental degradation resulting from animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture as a problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, my goodness, how stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His fatuous hand-wringing over six million people a year dying of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malnutrition, when it can in no way be blamed on meat production, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed stupid, you stupid telemarketing fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the good laugh so early in the morning, Rudy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any time, ham hock.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's very generous of you.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm a very generous man.
>>>>>>>>> You are indeed.
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>> You can move on from this topic now.  You have nothing to add.
>>>>>>> Yes, I do.
>>>>>> No, you don't.  Move along.
>>>> Good - you made at least a little bit of progress.
>>> How so?
>> You moved along.
>>
> 
> Oh, right, so when you said "you can move on from this topic now" you
> were referring to the topic of your generosity. I thought you meant
> the entire thread.

You make lots of mistakes.


>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, to return to the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> After 150 words of wheeze.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to be concerned about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people dying of malnutrition,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Red herring - I never suggested it wasn't, you stupid shitbag.
>>>>>>>>>>> You said it was stupid to "wring your hands" about it.
>>>>>>>>>> He's not doing anything about it, apart from trying to blame meat
>>>>>>>>>> production for it, when meat production has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>>> You don't know what he is and isn't doing about it
>>>>>>>> He's doing nothing,
>>>>>>> My original statement was correct.
>>>>>> Your statement was bullshit.  As usual.
>>>>> Why don't you elaborate on this
>>>> It's the same as before, so nothing new to add.  You don't do anything
>>>> but talk, and that's not doing anything substantive.
>>> My original statement was "you don't know what he is and isn't doing
>>> about it",
>> [snip massive shit hemorrhage]
>>
>> I know that he, like you, isn't doing *anything* about it.
>>
> 
> You don't know anything about what he or I are doing. 

I know that neither of you is doing anything meaningful.  All you do is 
talk.


>>>>>>>> just as you do nothing.
>>>>>>> I don't do nothing,
>>>>>> You do nothing.
>>>>> This is a pretty meaningless statement
>>>> [snip tired wheeze]
>>>> No, it isn't.  You don't do anything concrete regarding animal "rights".
>>> See above.
>> [rupie's self-serving bullshit snipped]
>> You don't do anything concrete.
>>
> 
> Let's see,

Nothing to see:  you don't do anything.


>>>>   You can't even be bothered to reduce your own death toll.
>>> I have reduced my death toll in all sorts of ways
>> You haven't reduced your death toll in *any* way.  It's the same as it
>> was when you first learned of collateral deaths in agriculture.
>>
> 
> First of all, that's a goalpost move.

No.


> Thirdly, it's false as it happens. I first heard of the collateral
> deaths argument during adolescence before I was vegetarian.

Bullshit.  *NO* "vegan" has ever heard of it until they start trying to 
defend their "veganism".  There is absolutely no reason you *would* have 
heard of it.


>>>> You're
>>>> nothing but talk.
>>> How about y