Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
DC
In his new book, �Eating Animals� (Amazon.com:
http://snurl.com/EatAni ), the novelist Jonathan Safran
Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
oblivious slacker who �waffled among any number of diets�
to �committed vegetarian.� Last month, Gary Steiner, a
philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
page of The New York Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
people should strive to be �strict ethical vegans� like
himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
finery is nothing less than �outright murder,� he said...
But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to �committed
vegetarians� and �strong ethical vegans,� we might consider
that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
that way. The more that scientists learn about the
complexity of plants � their keen sensitivity to the
environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
help from afar � the more impressed researchers become, and
the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
backdrop...
Continued: http://snurl.com/ttw97
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> NY Times
>
> In his new book, �Eating Animals� (Amazon.com:
> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
> to �committed vegetarian.� Last month, Gary Steiner, a
> page of The New York Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
>
> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to �committed
> vegetarians� and �strong ethical vegans,� we might consider
> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
> that way. The more that scientists learn about the
> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
> backdrop...
>
> Continued: http://snurl.com/ttw97
"vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products.
In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the
person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because
"veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about
making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then
patting oneself on the back.
dh
>NY Times
>
>In his new book, �ｿｽEating Animals�ｿｽ (Amazon.com:
>http://snurl.com/EatAni ), the novelist Jonathan Safran
>Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
>oblivious slacker who �ｿｽwaffled among any number of diets�ｿｽ
>to �ｿｽcommitted vegetarian.�ｿｽ Last month, Gary Steiner, a
>philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
>page of The New York Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
>people should strive to be �ｿｽstrict ethical vegans�ｿｽ like
>himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
>including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
>finery is nothing less than �ｿｽoutright murder,�ｿｽ he said...
�ｿｽ Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �ｿｽ
The Consulate
Anything that you can pluck from the trees or plants such as
say an apple that falls to the ground or a brussel sprout is
not life and does not live.
A potato that grows roots is life and does live.
An apple that falls to the ground can be eaten with a
totally clear conscience, providing that you plant the seeds
back into the ground.
But a brussel sprout is totally different to a potato, a
potato is life and grows and lives, but a brussel sprout
once removed from the plant is not life and will not grow.
The plant however where the brussel sprout comes from is
life, but not the sprout.
Do humans really need this explaining?
Unbelievable just how stupid humans are.
Anything that can be taken from plants or trees that cannot
sustain life are OK to eat with a clear conscience.
You should not eat seeds, or any product or animal or
creature that can sustain their own life.
And being vegan is not about giving yourself a pat on the
back, it is eating what you know you can eat with a totally
clear conscience.
Milk and eggs also cause suffering to the animals and birds
concerned. These also cannot be consumed with a clear
conscience.
A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to
others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and
eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better
than the greed and gluttony of the masses.
The Consulate
fish.
The reason humans do is that they place their enjoyment of
eating and their gluttony and greed BEFORE the respect and
sanctity they should give to other life.
OBVIOUSLY the sanctity and respect toward other life takes
priority over human greed and gluttony and their very
superficial desires for taste sensations.
Humans are a vegetarian animal by nature, they are not
naturally flesh-eaters.
Horses and apes and many animals, live admirably and grow
strong on vegetarian diets.
And humans are another animal just like they.
They are just more filthy and more stupid and more greedy.
The Consulate
or beef flavour, or chicken flavour.
These are living, breathing, sentient animals and birds and
fish.
And yet to humans, all they are is "snacks".
We find that repulsive, and evident of a population who are
brain dead and do not think.
If humans want milk, they should get their pregnant women
after childbirth and bung them in a cold shed place suckers
on their mammary glands and see how they like it.
If they do not like it, then don't do this to others.
And next time a young human male behaves badly, have him
neutered, and if he does not like it then don't do this to
others.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> It is almost impossible to believe humans are such dicks.
You speak from experience, obviously.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:al3aj5dstdmb0udn3...@4ax.com...>>In his new book, "Eating Animals" (Amazon.com:
>>http://snurl.com/EatAni ), the novelist Jonathan Safran
>>Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
>>to "committed vegetarian." Last month, Gary Steiner, a
>>philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
>>page of The New York Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
>>himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
>>including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
>
> � Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals
No boilerplate bullshit
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> There is no requirement at all for humans to eat meat or
> fish.
> The reason humans do is that they place their enjoyment of
> eating and their gluttony and greed BEFORE the respect and
> sanctity they should give to other life.
There is no moral problem with eating meat.
dh
<cons...@icecool.com> wrote:
>A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to
>others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and
>eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better
>than the greed and gluttony of the masses.
� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:49:32 -0000, "The Consulate"
>
> >A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to
> >others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and
> >eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better
> >than the greed and gluttony of the masses.
>
Animals do not benefit by coming into existence. Therefore, there is
nothing to consider in that regard.
Rupert
> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
> oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets”
> to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a
> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
> people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like
> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
> finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said...
>
> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed
> vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider
> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
> or a chuckled aside.
That's very sad.
> Plants are lively and seek to keep it
> that way. The more that scientists learn about the
> complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the
> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
> help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and
> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
> backdrop...
>
> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97
There is no good evidence at all that plants have desires. But if you
do want to minimise the number of plants that are killed to produce
your food then you should go with plant-based agriculture, because
more plants need to be killed and fed to animals to produce the same
amount of animal protein as you would get from eating the plants
directly.
Rupert
wrote:
> DC wrote:
> > NY Times
>
> > In his new book, “Eating Animals” (Amazon.com:
> > Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
> > to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a
> > philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
> > page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
> > himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
> > including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
>
> > But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed
> > vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider
> > that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
> > than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
> > Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
> > or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
> > that way. The more that scientists learn about the
> > environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
> > the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
> > that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
> > the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
> > backdrop...
>
> > Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97
>
> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products.
> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the
> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because
> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about
> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then
> patting oneself on the back.
You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 25, 7:17 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> DC wrote:
>>> NY Times
>>> http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran
>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to �committed
>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the
>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
>>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
>>> backdrop...
>>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97
>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products.
>> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the
>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because
>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about
>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then
>> patting oneself on the back.
>
"vegans" cannot show how refraining from consuming animal products
comprises more ethical behavior. "veganism" is and only can be about
sanctimony. Any time a person's "ethics" consists in comparing oneself
with others, it isn't ethics at all.
Rupert
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 7:17 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> DC wrote:
> >>> NY Times
> >>>http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran
> >>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
> >>> to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a
> >>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
> >>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
> >>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
> >>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
> >>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed
> >>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
> >>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
> >>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
> >>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
> >>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the
> >>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
> >>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
> >>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
> >>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
> >>> backdrop...
> >>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97
> >> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products.
> >> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the
> >> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because
> >> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about
> >> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then
> >> patting oneself on the back.
>
> > [garbage]
>
> "vegans" cannot show how refraining from consuming animal products
> comprises more ethical behavior.
Why not?
Rupert
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 7:17 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> DC wrote:
> >>> NY Times
> >>>http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran
> >>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
> >>> to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a
> >>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
> >>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
> >>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
> >>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
> >>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed
> >>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
> >>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
> >>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
> >>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
> >>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the
> >>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
> >>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
> >>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
> >>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
> >>> backdrop...
> >>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97
> >> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products.
> >> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the
> >> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because
> >> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about
> >> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then
> >> patting oneself on the back.
>
> > [garbage]
>
> "vegans" cannot show how refraining from consuming animal products
> comprises more ethical behavior.
Why not?
And even supposing they can't, that hardly gives you the conclusions
that you were going for...
ex-PFC Wintergreen
really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. And in any
case, it isn't the consumption of the products /per se/ that causes any
putative moral harm.
All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
I don't consume any animal products;
therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. In fact, consuming
animal products is not the only way one might cause animals to suffer
and die. Virtually every normal human activity in which "vegans" engage
has some deleterious impact on animals - an impact "vegans" ignore.
The next step in their thinking, once the fallacy is pointed out to
them, is to fall back to a claim of "minimizing" the suffering and death
they cause animals. This position, too, is rubbish. They do not
minimize the harm, for several reasons:
1. they have never measured
2. even *within* a "vegan" lifestyle, some products they consume
cause more harm than others; there can be no claim to be
"minimizing" if one includes some higher-harm goods when there
are lower-harm substitutes available
So, they don't cause zero harm, and they aren't minimizing the harm they
cause. What's the next false claim? "I'm doing the best I can." This
is disposed of by the same means by which the claim of minimization was
vitiated. They could be doing something more, by definition: if they
aren't minimizing, then they are *not* doing the best they can.
So, what's left? Only this: "I'm doing better than you." Not only is
that claim not proved, it is the very epitome of sanctimony and moral
bankruptcy. Ethical behavior *never* consists in doing less of some
morally wrong thing than someone else. If sodomizing young children is
wrong, one cannot claim to be "more ethical" because one "only"
sodomizes children once a week, versus someone else who does it daily.
The *only* way to claim to be ethical when it comes to sodomy committed
against children is *never* to engage in it.
If causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong, the only way validly to
be able to claim to be ethical on that issue is not to engage in *any*
of it. Refraining from consuming animal products simply doesn't meet
the requirement. All it does is give the "vegan" an utterly false sense
of self-satisfaction. In short, it is the vilest sort of sanctimony and
hypocrisy.
I hope this helps some people to eliminate confusion over this issue.
Ha
> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
>
> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> I don't consume any animal products;
>
> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
All vegans?
rather a sweeping statement!
chazwin
Actually its worse than that. In increasing the intake of vegetables,
Vegans are responsible for the death of more animal life than a meat
eater.
As a meat eater I can subsist on the life of one animal for a long
time. To eat a vegetable I am responsible for the death of many
insects that have to be killed to protect that life if that plant.
On Dec 24, 8:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:
> DC wrote:
> > NY Times
>
> > In his new book, “Eating Animals” (Amazon.com:
> >http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran
> > Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
> > oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets”
> > to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a
> > philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
> > page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
> > people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like
> > himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
> > including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
> > finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said...
>
> > But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed
> > vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider
> > that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
> > than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
> > Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
> > or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
> > that way. The more that scientists learn about the
> > complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the
> > environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
> > the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
> > that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
> > help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5jgcj5pdhr36u72np...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:49:32 -0000, "The Consulate"
> <cons...@icecool.com> wrote:
>
>>A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to
>>others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and
>>eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better
>>than the greed and gluttony of the masses.
>
> � Vegans
Cram the boilerplate bullshit up your ass.
Dutch
"Ha" <h...@brit.con> wrote
You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the
validity of the message.
Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an
exception?
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e619b5e5-69f5-4514...@d4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...> > In his new book, �Eating Animals� (Amazon.com:
> >http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran
> > Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
> > philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
> > page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
> > himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
> > including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
>
> > But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to �committed
> > that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
> > than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
> > Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
> > or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
> > that way. The more that scientists learn about the
> > environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
> > the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
> > that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
> > the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
> > backdrop...
>
> > Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97
>
> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products.
> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the
> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because
> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about
> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then
> patting oneself on the back.
You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball?
------->
That's not claptrap, it is quite true. Of course vegans want to do what is
right, but sanctimony is part of it. I've been on both sides of the issue,
and the charge is valid.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Without exception. They all start with that, and many - probably most -
never move off it. Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol
"veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free"
lifestyle. Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the
logical fallacy.
Here's a claim at the terrorist Animal Liberation Front's web site:
You don't have to do it over night. You can take small steps by
eliminating one cruel product at a time until you arrive at your
ultimate goal of a cruelty-free diet.
http://www.animalliberation.org.au/vego.php
By the way, there is a poster in this very newsgroup who is a terrorist
and card-carrying supporter of the terrorist organization ALF.
Here's another instance:
Whether you're hosting a vegan at your holiday table, or looking for
holiday recipes as a vegan yourself, it can be a daunting task to
find recipes that accommodate the cruelty-free diet
http://www.ehow.com/way_5498650_vegan-holiday-recipes.html
Here's a PETA page hawking supposedly "cruelty-free" products:
http://tinyurl.com/ycvwtzf. The *only* reason they consider these
products "cruelty-free" is because they don't contain animal parts - in
other words, they are under the influence of the logical fallacy in
claiming the products to be "cruelty-free". They don't take into
consideration any animals that are killed in the course of obtaining the
ingredients of the products, manufacturing the products, or distributing
them.
Yes, indeed: *all* "vegans" start by believing the logical fallacy, and
many if not most of them never leave it. Those who do abandon it merely
move to another, equally invalid moral pose. In short, "veganism" has
nothing whatever to do with /real/ ethics. It's all about the pose.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> Actually its worse than that. In increasing the intake of vegetables,
> Vegans are responsible for the death of more animal life than a meat
> eater.
Not necessarily, but it's really beside the point. The real point is,
they never really attempt to measure their death toll. It's rather
obvious that some possible omnivores' diets have a lower death toll than
some "vegan" diets.
> As a meat eater I can subsist on the life of one animal for a long
> time.
But more likely than not, you don't.
> To eat a vegetable I am responsible for the death of many
> insects that have to be killed to protect that life if that plant.
Depends. If you lived entirely on fruits and nuts that you personally
harvested from trees - preferably after they already fell off the trees
- then you probably would have a lower death toll than virtually all
omnivores. But of course, no one does that.
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 24, 8:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> DC wrote:
>>> NY Times
>>> In his new book, �Eating Animals� (Amazon.com:
>>> http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran
>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous,
>>> oblivious slacker who �waffled among any number of diets�
>>> to �committed vegetarian.� Last month, Gary Steiner, a
>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat
>>> people should strive to be �strict ethical vegans� like
>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
>>> finery is nothing less than �outright murder,� he said...
>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to �committed
>>> vegetarians� and �strong ethical vegans,� we might consider
>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the
>>> complexity of plants � their keen sensitivity to the
>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
>>> help from afar � the more impressed researchers become, and
ex-PFC Wintergreen
He might be, but he's lying.
I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". They do
*all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a
"cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
I'm not persuaded of that at all.
Dutch
"ex-PFC Wintergreen" <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote in message
news:Y-OdneVrPN5yG6vW...@earthlink.com...
I do think that is the initial intent for many at least partially, I mean
who doesn't want to do the right thing? Others begin by aiming for optimum
health. It morphs as the experience sinks in and the ego creeps in. When the
vegan begins her journey the focus is primarily on the issue of the
suffering of animals. The ego is what introduces the whole "my diet is
superior to your diet" syndrome. Once the ideas of not consuming animal
products and eliminating suffering are linked in the brain and welded by the
rush of ego gratification the fallacy you describe so well becomes embedded.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
More than doing the right thing, "vegans" seem to be driven by a wish
not to do the wrong thing. They view what "everybody else" does as the
wrong thing, and they decide not to do it. It starts at the very
beginning as a comparison with others.
Most people who honestly think about trying to do the right thing don't
conceive of it as a contrast with what others are doing. I don't
consciously refrain from robbing banks out of a fear that if I did rob
banks, it would make me too much like others; I refrain from robbing
banks because, irrespective of what anyone else thinks, I know that it's
wrong to rob banks. I also don't refrain from robbing banks out of a
wish to think well of myself.
As you note below, ego plays a huge role in "vegans'" formulation of
what they think right behavior is. For properly ethical people, ego
plays no part in it.
Ha
Ha
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Ha" <h...@brit.con> wrote
>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>
>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
>>>>
>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>>
>>>> I don't consume any animal products;
>>>>
>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
>>> All vegans?
>>> rather a sweeping statement!
>> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the
>> validity of the message.
>>
>> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an
>> exception?
>
> He might be, but he's lying.
and you're assuming
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It showed very little thought when it was first written, and the tedious
repetition of it shows even less thought.
jack...@kick_fwit.com
> NY Times
>
> In his new book, �Eating Animals� (Amazon.com:
> oblivious slacker who �waffled among any number of diets�
> to �committed vegetarian.� Last month, Gary Steiner, a
> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed
> page of The New York Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
> people should strive to be �strict ethical vegans� like
> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals,
> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and
> finery is nothing less than �outright murder,� he said...
>
> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to �committed
> vegetarians� and �strong ethical vegans,� we might consider
> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok
> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my
> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument
> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it
> that way. The more that scientists learn about the
> complexity of plants � their keen sensitivity to the
> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in
> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks
> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit
> help from afar � the more impressed researchers become, and
> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill
> backdrop...
>
> Continued: http://snurl.com/ttw97
There is no such thing as a "death-free" diet. Living creatures are
killed in order to provide humans with food.
Rupert
wrote:
> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>
> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
> And in any
> case, it isn't the consumption of the products /per se/ that causes any
> putative moral harm.
>
> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
>
> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> I don't consume any animal products;
>
> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
>
False. Not all vegans believe that. I was aware of the collateral
deaths argument during adolescence but became vegan as a young adult
anyway. Gary Francione is undoubtedly aware of the collateral deaths
argument. It is quite likely that Mylan Engel Jr. is too.
> This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.
Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah....
> In fact, consuming
> animal products is not the only way one might cause animals to suffer
> and die. Virtually every normal human activity in which "vegans" engage
> has some deleterious impact on animals - an impact "vegans" ignore.
>
That is correct. Participating in a technological civilisation in any
meaningful way will inevitably lead to you buying products and
services whose production or provision involved the infliction of some
suffering and premature death on sentient nonhuman animals. Gary
Francione certainly acknowledges that point, for one. I don't know of
anyone who denies it.
However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products. I have linked to one article which attempts to argue
this case to which you have not yet responded. In any event you have
shown no very good reason why it should not be the case. A lot of
people, when contemplating the factual information about how animal
products are generally produced in modern societies, together with the
small burden involved in avoiding them, would just take it to be
obvious.
> The next step in their thinking, once the fallacy is pointed out to
> them, is to fall back to a claim of "minimizing" the suffering and death
> they cause animals. This position, too, is rubbish. They do not
> minimize the harm, for several reasons:
>
> 1. they have never measured
We all face time constraints. People who make the decision to go vegan
become acquainted with some factual information about how nonhuman
animals are treated, and decide that they want to do something about
it, even if they don't necessarily have the time to find out
absolutely everything they can about the issue. So they go vegan, as a
reasonable rule of thumb based on what they have found out so far,
with the proviso that they hope to find out more later.
> 2. even *within* a "vegan" lifestyle, some products they consume
> cause more harm than others; there can be no claim to be
> "minimizing" if one includes some higher-harm goods when there
> are lower-harm substitutes available
>
If the differential is so high that it looks like culpable negligence,
sure, but you haven't demonstrated that that holds in every case.
> So, they don't cause zero harm, and they aren't minimizing the harm they
> cause.
They're adopting a reasonable rule of thumb for minimisation (within
reasonable constraints about how much you sacrifice) based on the
information they've had time to acquire so far.
> What's the next false claim? "I'm doing the best I can." This
> is disposed of by the same means by which the claim of minimization was
> vitiated. They could be doing something more, by definition: if they
> aren't minimizing, then they are *not* doing the best they can.
>
But they are doing an adequate job of fulfilling their obligations
towards nonhuman animals, as some might take them to be, based on the
constraints they face and the information that they have encountered
so far. And the claim might also be made that reasonably well-informed
people who continue to consume animal products are *not* doing such an
adequate job. You've done nothing to cast doubt on this claim.
> So, what's left? Only this: "I'm doing better than you." Not only is
> that claim not proved,
You've acknowledged elsewhere that it's not the subject of a
reasonable doubt.
> it is the very epitome of sanctimony and moral
> bankruptcy.
Nonsense. I have decided to volunteer some time and effort serving
coffee and sandwiches to homeless people. (This is not an example of
fulfilling a moral obligation, of course.) But the change in behaviour
was motivated that it would help to achieve some goals I wanted to
achieve, as was going vegan. If it is morally worthy to invest time
and effort into doing what you reasonably believe will achieve certain
goals, then these changes in behaviour are moral improvements; if
there's no moral value in it, then fine, at least it doesn't hurt
anyone. But you haven't *demonstrated* that there's no moral value in
it in the case of veganism. And if you had it would hardly
substantiate a claim of moral bankruptcy.
Vegans, contrary to all your inane babbling, are not motivated by a
desire to prove themselves "better" than other people, they are
motivated by a desire to do something to reduce their contribution to
animal suffering. You obviously want to see it the former way because
you find the decision somehow threatening.
> Ethical behavior *never* consists in doing less of some
> morally wrong thing than someone else.
Please comment on the example of applying a blowtorch to a dog which I
provided in a different threat. Do you agree that you are ethically
required to refrain from such behaviour? Then you can have moral
obligations towards nonhuman animals even if you are not morally
required to stop buying all the products of commercial agriculture. So
the question remains *how extensive* your obligations towards nonhuman
animals are. You have done nothing to specify where you draw the line
or why the place where you draw it is better than the place where
vegans draw it. This makes a complete nonsense of your argument below,
which you have been repeating ad nauseam for the last God knows how
many years.
> If sodomizing young children is
> wrong, one cannot claim to be "more ethical" because one "only"
> sodomizes children once a week, versus someone else who does it daily.
> The *only* way to claim to be ethical when it comes to sodomy committed
> against children is *never* to engage in it.
>
Quite.
> If causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong, the only way validly to
> be able to claim to be ethical on that issue is not to engage in *any*
> of it.
So what's your conclusion? That there's no obligation to make *any
effort at all* to reduce your contribution to unnecessary harm to
animals?
If there's an obligation to make *some* effort, the question is *how
much*. You haven't said anything to show that the conclusions vegans
draw about that are mistaken.
Think that over carefully. It's important.
> Refraining from consuming animal products simply doesn't meet
> the requirement. All it does is give the "vegan" an utterly false sense
> of self-satisfaction.
It gives them a justified sense of satisfaction in having genuinely
reduced their contribution to the demand for processes which cause
unnecessary suffering. And when large numbers of people do it there is
an actual reduction in unnecessary suffering, which is of course the
whole point.
> In short, it is the vilest sort of sanctimony and
> hypocrisy.
>
You couldn't be being a little bit overblown here, could you?
> I hope this helps some people to eliminate confusion over this issue.
Any hope you have that you have produced an argument that any sane
person could take seriously is utterly empty.
Rupert
wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Ha" <h...@brit.con> wrote
> >> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>
> >>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
>
> >>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> >>> I don't consume any animal products;
>
> >>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
>
> >> All vegans?
> >> rather a sweeping statement!
>
> > You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the
> > validity of the message.
>
> > Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an
> > exception?
>
> He might be, but he's lying.
>
You wouldn't have a clue, you stupid pointless clown. You *constantly*
make categorical assertions about people regarding things about which
you *obviously* would not have the slightest clue. It's one of your
well-established habits.
> I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". They do
> *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a
> "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
False. I have never believed that. You have no evidence that Gary
Francione ever believed it. He certainly doesn't now.
Rupert
wrote:
> Ha wrote:
> > ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>
> >> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
>
> >> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> >> I don't consume any animal products;
>
> >> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
>
> > All vegans?
>
> Without exception. They all start with that, and many - probably most -
> never move off it. Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol
> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free"
> lifestyle. Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the
> logical fallacy.
>
It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread, but any
academic defender of veganism would obviously be aware of the
collateral deaths argument, and as I say I was aware of it during
adolescence.
> Here's a claim at the terrorist Animal Liberation Front's web site:
>
> You don't have to do it over night. You can take small steps by
> eliminating one cruel product at a time until you arrive at your
> ultimate goal of a cruelty-free diet.
>
> http://www.animalliberation.org.au/vego.php
>
> By the way, there is a poster in this very newsgroup who is a terrorist
> and card-carrying supporter of the terrorist organization ALF.
>
Who are you thinking of there?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 27, 8:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> "Ha" <h...@brit.con> wrote
>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
>>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>>> I don't consume any animal products;
>>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
>>>> All vegans?
>>>> rather a sweeping statement!
>>> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the
>>> validity of the message.
>>> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an
>>> exception?
>>
>> *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a
>> "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> False. I have never believed that.
You have.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>>
>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
>
> What's the fallacy in this argument?
>
> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20Immorality%20of%20Eating%20Meat%20(2000).pdf
>
Argument is unsound: based on false premises.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Ha wrote:
>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>> I don't consume any animal products;
>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
>>> All vegans?
>> Without exception. They all start with that, and many - probably most -
>> never move off it. Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol
>> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free"
>> lifestyle. Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the
>> logical fallacy.
>>
>
> It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread
Universal, at the outset. Most never abandon it.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>>
>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
>
> What's the fallacy in this argument?
>
> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20Immorality%20of%20Eating%20Meat%20(2000).pdf
The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling
case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
meat consumption is immoral.
Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
The sophistry of guys like this is simply staggering. They have a
position to which they've leapt, and then they try to backfill the
yawning chasm behind them.
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products.
--------------->
This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
necessarily linked. The main problem with veganism is that adherents tend to
see abstension from animal products as both necessary and sufficient steps
when such is clearly not the case. (See the vegan in an SUV (or like some
celebrities with private jets) vs the omnivore on a bike) A glaring
illustration of this issue plays out as a vegan examines a condiment in a
restaurant to ensure it does not contain even a milligram of animal cells,
(the horror!) all the while a 1% reduction in his caloric consumption would
do far more to reduce his impact on animals.
The elephant in the room is the notion that man ought not to view animals as
commodities, everything serves that master. Working from that perspective
the desire to avoid animal products makes perfect sense. If we're talking
about attempting to count and compare the number of animals that are harmed
or killed and assign some acceptable moral level, then we're kidding
ourselves, we're not actaully doing that, nor can we.
Nobody can say fairly that a vegan lifestyle is not likely to have a pretty
low level of associated animal deaths, but this is not the type of
reasonable argument being made.
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, I would certainly know. We
can agree on that much, yes?
On what exactly is your confidence based?
You often make a big deal of how vegans ought to back claims such as
"A widespread transition to a vegan diet would be effective at
reducing suffering" with careful research and evidence. Well, quite.
Well, similarly, statements such as "All vegans begin their transition
to veganism in the belief that a vegan lifestyle as typically does not
involve buying *any* products whose production caused nonhuman
suffering and death" or "Rupert began his transition to veganism by
believing this", ought to be based in *evidence*. You have made the
bare-fased *assertion*, as is your wont, without offering the
slightest reason for thinking that you could possibly have any
evidence.
You have shown us some websites which make the statement that a vegan
diet is "cruelty-free". Such statements certainly are frequently made
and it's not too hard to understand to understand why advocates of
veganism would want to make them. Whether most vegans believe the
statement to be literally true in the sense *you* have in mind, or
*began* their transition to veganism by believing this, is a moot
point. You just haven't got the kind of evidence that would justify
you in saying this. As a big fan of the scientific method you ought to
appreciate this point.
Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does
not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the
suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware
that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously
contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with
my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one
way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to
disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no
rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony.
Rupert
See the discussion in my other post.
Rupert
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
> >> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
> >> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
> >> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
> >> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>
> >> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
> >> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
>
> > What's the fallacy in this argument?
>
>
> Argument is unsound: based on false premises.
Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false?
I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable?
Rupert
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
> >> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
> >> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
> >> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
> >> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>
> >> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
> >> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
>
> > What's the fallacy in this argument?
>
>
> The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling
> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
> meat consumption is immoral.
>
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the
case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there
anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products
of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case
that I wanted to make.
> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
>
No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
criticise. It is an environmental argument. We went through the
distinction before. As I have made clear repeatedly you have done
nothing to cast doubt on the environmental argument. Making the
*purely* economic argument, which is the target you set yourself and
the only one to which your criticisms apply, is extremely rare.
> The sophistry of guys like this is simply staggering. They have a
> position to which they've leapt, and then they try to backfill the
> yawning chasm behind them.
Just specify where the argument breaks down. Which of the premises are
wrong? Do you concede the case against factory farming, and if not,
why not? Or if you think the generalisation beyond factory farming is
unwarranted then address the remarks he makes about that and show why
the additional generalisation is "unwarranted".
Recall that my claim was that this paper offers compelling reasons for
boycotting *almost* all animal products. I don't think that the paper
is free of logical gaps, no, but I believe that it achieves something.
In any event, you have left by rebuttal of your endlessly-repeated
tirade about vegans being morally bankrupt unreplied to, so I take it
you agree that those remarks of mine are unanswerable and that you
were posting indefensible nonsense all those years? Of *course* you do
because despite strenuous efforts to give a contrary impression you
actually are at least a moderately intelligent person, in your best
moments at least.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
We both know you began by believing in the fallacy.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
See my well established fact, above: All "vegans" begin by believing in
the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to
produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral.
>
> I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable?
Junk philosophy.
Dutch
Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does
not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the
suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware
that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously
contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with
my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one
way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to
disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no
rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony.
---------->
Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing
animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking.
Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse,
conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like
health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by avoiding
that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you
contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even though
you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" using
animals *as end products*.
Personally it does not bother me that animals are viewed as commodities, as
long as their capacity to suffer pain and deprivation is taken into account.
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
> animal products.
> --------------->
>
> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
> necessarily linked.
No such claim was made. The claim was that
(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, and Ball has
done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is fucking
OBVIOUS)
(2) it could be at least *argued* that typical people in Western
societies have a moral obligation to do *about* that much by way of
reducing their contribution to animal suffering. It does not logically
follow from my contention that some nonhuman animals have some rights,
no. But it's a plausible enough position and you and Ball have done
nothing to show that wherever it is you choose to draw the line is any
better. You could plausibly claim that your position would have more
popular appeal at the moment, but that is argumentum ad verecundam. I
have not offered *reasons* for thinking that my position is better but
that is a symmetrical situation.
> The main problem with veganism is that adherents tend to
> see abstension from animal products as both necessary and sufficient steps
> when such is clearly not the case. (See the vegan in an SUV (or like some
> celebrities with private jets) vs the omnivore on a bike) A glaring
> illustration of this issue plays out as a vegan examines a condiment in a
> restaurant to ensure it does not contain even a milligram of animal cells,
> (the horror!) all the while a 1% reduction in his caloric consumption would
> do far more to reduce his impact on animals.
>
Fine. I agree with all that.
> The elephant in the room is the notion that man ought not to view animals as
> commodities, everything serves that master. Working from that perspective
> the desire to avoid animal products makes perfect sense. If we're talking
> about attempting to count and compare the number of animals that are harmed
> or killed and assign some acceptable moral level, then we're kidding
> ourselves, we're not actaully doing that, nor can we.
>
Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is
a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans
inflict less suffering on nonhumans. Reducing one's own personal
contribution as best one can short of dropping out of technological
civilisation altogether is a reasonable strategy with respect to the
goal of reducing one's personal responsibility for an aspect of the
world one dislikes. Ball has done nothing to show that this is morally
bankrupt.
It is one position regarding how humans should relate to nonhumans. It
is not especially widely held one at the moment but I don't believe
that anyone else has shown that theirs is more coherent or better
justified. Narveson's position, which involves saying that he wouldn't
call the police if he saw someone torching a stray dog, certainly *is*
more coherent. He's definitely being consistent. But most of us don't
like that one, so we need to find some rational ground for choosing
between the other available positions. I do not say that I have done
that yet. I say that Ball's endlessly-repeated tirade over all these
years is indefensible nonsense. Which is of course obvious.
> Nobody can say fairly that a vegan lifestyle is not likely to have a pretty
> low level of associated animal deaths, but this is not the type of
> reasonable argument being made.
It is the one being made by me, and Ball said that he was talking
about all vegans.
I think he needs to get more specific. He's casting the net a bit too
broad. If he wants to criticise Tom Regan or Gary Francione that's
great, I'm sure there's plenty to criticise; he should probably have a
look at what they wrote. Or if he wants to criticise my stance that's
great, but again he should make sure his remarks are actually
applicable to the stance being taken.
If he's going to try to argue that all vegans are morally bankrupt I
don't think he's going to get there. Based on my experience with
vegans they are not especially morally criticisable people, indeed a
lot less so than Ball based on my experience of him, but in many cases
you might want to say there are problems with the intellectual
foundations of the position that they take. I certanily grant that. It
is not clear to me that Ball avoids this problem either.
But of course none of this alters the obvious fact that Ball was
obviously talking complete nonsense as always, which was of course my
point. He has declined to answer my case for this contention.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
>>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
>>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
>>> What's the fallacy in this argument?
>>> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20...
>> The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling
>> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
>> meat consumption is immoral.
>>
>
> He does make some remarks about how to make the further
> generalisation,
Unpersuasive. He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
farming".
>> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
>> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
>>
>
> No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
> criticise.
Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
meat consumption is immoral:
1. allegedly extremely energy intensive
2. allegedly inefficient use of water
3. alleged nutrient inefficiency
4. soil erosion
5. hazardous waste production
*All* of these are offered as *further evidence* that meat consumption
is immoral.
The whole thing falls to pieces, because of economic and environmental
illiteracy, along with the basic, inescapable fact that killing animals
to eat them is not inherently immoral.
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for,
you mean "something you made up when obviously you have no particular
evidence for it".
Rupert
That's not on his list of premises. He explicitly gives the list of
premises in an appendix for your convenience.
>
>
> > I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable?
>
> Junk philosophy.
I am not altogether heartbroken that you think that, because it is
extremely obvious to any person of good sense that you were talking
drivel, and I pointed out the reasons why in a rather cogent fashion.
You have declined to attempt to respond, so I'll take it as read that
you cannot give a satisfactory response.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
>> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
>> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
>> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
>> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
>> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
>> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
>> animal products.
>> --------------->
>>
>> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
>> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
>> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
>> necessarily linked.
>
> No such claim was made. The claim was that
>
> (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
> means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering,
No, it can't. Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within*
the set of vegetable food products. If potatoes provide comparable
nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental
degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side
effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no
rice, and to eat potatoes instead. But no "vegan" has ever made that
analysis, and none of them ever will.
The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
any credibility to start.) *Some* "vegan" diets are higher in many
undesirable side effects than *some* meat-including diets, so the fact
of abstaining from meat /per se/ achieves nothing.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Indeed it is what I was looking for.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 29, 10:59 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
>>>>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
>>>>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
>>>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
>>>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>>>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
>>>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
>>>>> What's the fallacy in this argument?
>>>>> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20...
>>>> Argument is unsound: based on false premises.
>>> Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false?
>> Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to
>> produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral.
>>
>
> That's not on his list of premises.
It is.
Dutch
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the
case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there
anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products
of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case
that I wanted to make.
So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production. Provided
that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing wrong in
that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy locally
produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile. It is worth noting that
the same principle works for vegans when they buy grain, fruit and vegetable
products, local and fresh vs imported and/or processed. Simply avoiding
animal products is neither sufficient nor necessary in addressing the
legitimate (IMO) issues, only the elephant in the room quasi-political issue
of "animal liberation".
Rupert
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
> >>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
> >>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
> >>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
> >>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
> >>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
> >>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
> >>> What's the fallacy in this argument?
> >>>http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20...
> >> The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling
> >> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
> >> meat consumption is immoral.
>
> > He does make some remarks about how to make the further
> > generalisation,
>
> Unpersuasive.
That is not engaging with what he said.
> He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
> farming".
>
Point out his factual errors then. Just specify which of his premises
is wrong. Is this really too hard for a "master of logic and
philosophy"?
> >> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
> >> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
>
> > No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
> > criticise.
>
> Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
> environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
> meat consumption is immoral:
>
> 1. allegedly extremely energy intensive
> 2. allegedly inefficient use of water
> 3. alleged nutrient inefficiency
> 4. soil erosion
> 5. hazardous waste production
>
For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument you clueless
pointless clown. The reason those things are bad is because they
contribute to environmental degradation. That is made quite clear. You
explicitly conceded that your criticisms were not directed at the
environmental argument, as of course they can't be.
Sheesh. You *cannot* possibly be this stupid.
> *All* of these are offered as *further evidence* that meat consumption
> is immoral.
>
Because of their environmental consequences.
> The whole thing falls to pieces, because of economic and environmental
> illiteracy, along with the basic, inescapable fact that killing animals
> to eat them is not inherently immoral.
He explicitly concedes that *alleged* fact for the sake of argument
and sets out to make his case in that context. You have offered no
evidence of "economic or environmental illiteracy" and the
environmental argument is not necessary for his case anyway, it is an
additional argument.
If the whole thing falls to pieces then you ought to be able to
specify which one of his premises is wrong and why the argument is
invalid.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> He does make some remarks about how to make the further
> generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the
> case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there
> anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products
> of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case
> that I wanted to make.
> --------->
>
> So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production.
> Provided that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing
> wrong in that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy
> locally produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile.
I am convinced that the "buy local" trend is mostly about feel-goodism,
just as "organic" is. Any talk of measurable benefit is entirely
superfluous - what the real issue is, is feeling good about oneself.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It's enough.
>> He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
>> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
>> farming".
>>
>>>> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
>>>> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
>>> No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
>>> criticise.
>> Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
>> environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
>> meat consumption is immoral:
>>
>> 1. allegedly extremely energy intensive
>> 2. allegedly inefficient use of water
>> 3. alleged nutrient inefficiency
>> 4. soil erosion
>> 5. hazardous waste production
>>
>
> For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument
The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know
what he's talking about. For one thing, environmental degradation
applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable
agriculture. For another, it is the economic cost of environmental
degradation that is of concern. No one with a brain wants to avoid any
and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want
to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social
benefit. There is going to be some environmental degradation involved
in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production.
Dutch
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
> animal products.
> --------------->
>
> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to
> minimize
> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like,
> does
> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are
> not
> necessarily linked.
No such claim was made. The claim was that
------->
Whatever you did that one post to allow the insertion of carats is not
happening.
(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering
-------->
Nobody is denying that. That's the reasonable claim I mentioned earlier.
, and Ball has
done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is fucking
OBVIOUS)
---------->
It's not morally bankrupt to avoid animal products, it isn't even a bad
idea, it is morally bankrupt to transpose moral conclusions about it from
the notion that animals must be liberated and project those conclusions onto
others.
[..]
Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is
a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans
inflict less suffering on nonhumans.
--------->
I think it is an absurd strategy. For one thing hominids have included
animal products as part of their survival strategy for millions of years,
for another thing, a lot of land is unsuited for plant agriculture. A
reasonable strategy would be to work towards much higher standards of
treatment for livestock animals, not rejecting AW as counter-productive as
some ARAs do. Very high standards of care would make costs rise and that
would decrease the number of animals *exploited* which is your underlying
goal.
Dutch
"ex-PFC Wintergreen" <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote in message
news:4bCdnZffDY9g0aTW...@earthlink.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> He does make some remarks about how to make the further
>> generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the
>> case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there
>> anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products
>> of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case
>> that I wanted to make.
>> --------->
>>
>> So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production. Provided
>> that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing wrong in
>> that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy locally
>> produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile.
>
> I am convinced that the "buy local" trend is mostly about feel-goodism,
> just as "organic" is. Any talk of measurable benefit is entirely
> superfluous - what the real issue is, is feeling good about oneself.
There is no doubt that locally produced food contains a lower transportation
(petroleum) component, which supports the argument that a calorie from
locally caught salmon is more sustainable, causing less impact on the planet
and thus animals, than a calorie of bananas flown in from Chile.
Rupert
No, I know I didn't, and you apparently think you know I did, but you
are sadly deluded, as is not uncommon. You should just start being a
bit more selective about what you claim to "know". You very frequently
claim to "know" things which are utter nonsense and which you
obviously do not have the slightest reason to believe. You should do
something about it.
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does
> not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the
> suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware
> that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously
> contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with
> my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one
> way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to
> disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no
> rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony.
> ---------->
>
> Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing
> animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking.
>
> Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse,
> conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like
> health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by avoiding
> that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you
> contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even though
> you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" using
> animals *as end products*.
>
I'm not sure what your point is here, I thought we were agreed that a
widespread transition to veganism would lead to a significant
reduction in animal suffering. By being vegan and publicly defending
this stance I am doing my bit to reduce my share of responsibility for
the problem.
> Personally it does not bother me that animals are viewed as commodities, as
> long as their capacity to suffer pain and deprivation is taken into account.
Which they clearly aren't...
Rupert
Well, that's a shame, because actually it's a false claim, which you
asserted on the basis of no particular evidence.
Rupert
Pffffffft.
The premises are numbered (p1)-(p16) in the Appendix. Care to specify
which number this premise is? :)
Rupert
No.
First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one and you
still have an obligation to address the main one. Secondly, it's not
idiotic; the idea is that the externalities that you impose on other
people, including future generations, are not fully reflected in the
market price, but that you have a moral obligation to absorb those
externalities anyway. If you were absorbing all the externalities
associated with the production of your food then you would have to
take that on board when buying rice, fruit, vegetables, meat,
whatever. But his claim is that it would almost certainly involve
avoiding meat, and you've done nothing in particular to cast doubt on
that.
Rupert
wrote:
Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated?
"Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for
institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm."
And Engel's premise 6:
"Even a minimally decent person would take steps to help
reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the
world, if she could do so with very little effort."
Well, do those principles require you to boycott rice? Well, I don't
know. My level of rice consumption is small and I am fairly skeptical
that it's the world's biggest tragedy. With phrases such as "very
little effort" or "every reasonable effort", the cost of acquiring
information has to be factored in. Given the time constraints I am not
able to determine the optimal strategy for reducing my contribution to
unnecessary suffering and environmental degradation in the minutest
detail. I have put some effort into it, but I am not able to do
everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal
goals and also my ability to make the world better in other ways. We
are not talking about principles which require you to make
*substantial* sacrifices, especially when your ability to improve the
world in other ways is at stake.
Or maybe I haven't done a good job, maybe I am a moral hypocrite. If
your goal in life is to demonstrate that Rupert is a moral hypocrite
then that must be joyful. But the issue *should* be whether these are
good moral principles. I don't see any particular reason why they're
not.
> The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
> vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
> any credibility to start.)
No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the
argument. The reasons most vegans don't do it is probably because the
issue hasn't occurred to them. They probably feel like they're doing
enough already, which may or may not be the case but this has no
bearing on the merits of the decision to go vegan in the first place.
When these issues were discussed in this newsgroup I did make some
effort to become more informed about such issues and modify my diet
accordingly but got bogged down in other projects, as you probably
would. Since as far as DeGrazia and Mylan Engel Jr. are concerned, we
are only talking about behavioural modifications that involve
"reasonable effort" or "little effort", I think it's probably fair to
say that I've met their standards. But that's neither here nor there
anyway, the issue should be whether there is a moral obligation to go
at least as far as what would be required by those principles I stated
above on any reasonable interpretation. You've offered no particularly
good reason to think that there isn't.
I *do* have to acknowledge moral hypocrisy as far as reducing my
contribution to climate change goes, for the moment at least. If you
can plausibly claim to be totally free of moral hypocrisy, that's
awesome. I'm not really that interested in discussing this issue here.
If I am a moral hypocrite then that's for me to worry about. We are
talking about the merits of the principles under discusion.
Demonstrating that someone is a moral hypocrite does not undermine
their moral argument; that is the tu quoque fallacy.
> *Some* "vegan" diets are higher in many
> undesirable side effects than *some* meat-including diets, so the fact
> of abstaining from meat /per se/ achieves nothing.
In most cases, the decision to go vegan will result in a significant
reduction in your contribution to animal suffering and environmental
degradation. More may be required, yes.
Rupert
Jolly good. Actually, Ball *does* deny it. He replied to this very
same post to which you have just replied to and denied it. So you and
Ball differ. There it is.
But at least we have agreement on this point.
> , and Ball has
> done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is fucking
> OBVIOUS)
> ---------->
>
> It's not morally bankrupt to avoid animal products, it isn't even a bad
> idea, it is morally bankrupt to transpose moral conclusions about it from
> the notion that animals must be liberated and project those conclusions onto
> others.
>
Did you have a look at the Mylan Engel Jr essay? I'd be interested in
your comment. I don't say that the essay is free of flaws but I don't
believe that simply putting forward the point of view is morally
bankrupt.
> [..]
>
> Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is
> a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans
> inflict less suffering on nonhumans.
> --------->
>
> I think it is an absurd strategy. For one thing hominids have included
> animal products as part of their survival strategy for millions of years,
> for another thing, a lot of land is unsuited for plant agriculture.
But the amount of land required for plant agriculture would be
enormously less...
> A
> reasonable strategy would be to work towards much higher standards of
> treatment for livestock animals, not rejecting AW as counter-productive as
> some ARAs do. Very high standards of care would make costs rise and that
> would decrease the number of animals *exploited* which is your underlying
> goal.
Well. That's the debate, isn't it.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
You did.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
I don't think so.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It is.
It's another slender reed that won't support the bloated weight of what
he wants to believe.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Something you don't achieve.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Laughably little.
> but I am not able to do
> everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal
> goals
So your inherent selfishness and wish for ease, comfort and glory
override your obligation to behave ethically. But then, that was always
obvious.
>> The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
>> vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
>> any credibility to start.)
>
> No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the
> argument.
Absolutely it does. It proves they don't believe their own nonsense.
It proves this is purely about self exaltation.
Rupert
Rupert
Whatever process you use for belief-formation, you should work on
making it more truth-tracking.
Rupert
Enough for what?
Enough to achieve whatever it is you get out of being here, no doubt,
but why would anyone care about that?
Enough to make a satisfactory response, obviously not.
Sheesh.
Why did you snip the rest of the paragraph?
Rupert
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Not an argument; not even a claim.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Logic and rational analysis.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Enough to engage what he said.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Your own admission.
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5efdb34a-eb91-4a95...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
------>
I could hardly make it any clearer, *veganism*, the substitition of products
which do not contain animal parts, fulfils the principle of not *exploiting
animals as commodities* but does not elevate or deify the vegan in any way
more than the omnivore who also takes steps to reduce his impact. Being a
vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in this regard, but it
carries the risk of turning the person into an anal-retentive nit who
studies the small print on bottles of sauce in dimply-lit restaurants,
sneers secretively at people in the meat aisle, and drops unsolicited
insulting, not-very-subtle suggestions to others about how they should eat.
I thought we were agreed that a
widespread transition to veganism would lead to a significant
reduction in animal suffering.
---------->
It might, but the issue I just brought up essentially wipes out that
advantage in my opinion.
By being vegan and publicly defending
this stance I am doing my bit to reduce my share of responsibility for
the problem.
------>
Why should you defend it? so does the person who consumes less, consumes
fewer imported goods, etc.
> Personally it does not bother me that animals are viewed as commodities,
> as
> long as their capacity to suffer pain and deprivation is taken into
> account.
Which they clearly aren't...
------------>
That is something that can be addressed, and it is a more practical and
straightforward solution than equating omnivorism with cannibalism, or
murder, which is essentially what vegans try to do, the honest ones.
Rupert
You wouldn't know how much. More than you, it's certainly safe to say
that.
You obviously don't think that there is any obligation to make any
effort at all to reduce the amount of suffering caused by the
production of the food you consume, so I'm not really sure why you
think you're in a position to try to put down the amount of effort
I've made, which you obviously wouldn't know anything about anyway.
We are discussing these two moral principles:
"Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for
institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm."
And Engel's premise 6:
"Even a minimally decent person would take steps to help
reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the
world, if she could do so with very little effort."
Now, sometimes you say that some of the terms are vague, but on this
occasion you apparently understand them well enough to know that I
don't live up to them, so I welcome any effort to explain why. If you
convince me then I will change my behaviour, but I would like some
kind of rational case you don't mind. I have explained why I don't
think I'm morally required to find out more about the impact of rice
production. It's just not an especially good investment of my time and
resources with regard to the goal of reducing suffering. Completing my
Ph.D. was a better investment, though in that case there was a self-
interested component too, obviously. And joining a philanthropy group
and doing research about what charities are the most effective is also
a better investment.
I'm not really sure why you are so concerned about whether *I* live up
to them. Obviously *I* should worry about that but I don't know why
*you* would care. Oh, silly me: because your only purpose in hanging
out on these newsgroups is to make lame attempts to put people down,
not to have intellectually serious discussion.
Anyway, in all seriousness, I take it you don't accept the principles,
I would be interested in hearing what you think is wrong with them.
> > but I am not able to do
> > everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal
> > goals
>
> So your inherent selfishness and wish for ease, comfort and glory
> override your obligation to behave ethically. But then, that was always
> obvious.
>
No. That is not the claim under discussion. The claim is that there is
an ethical obligation which is overridable by other considerations.
That was always the claim. Ethical obligations can be like that, even
if they are grounded in rights.
Speaking of behaving ethically, you remember that time where you asked
me if my history of psychosis was a product of a history of child
abuse? Do you have any thoughts about the ethics of that at all?
I mean, it's big of you to spend your life on usenet offering people
free feedback about their alleged shortcomings, but have you ever
thought about having a look at your own?
> >> The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
> >> vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
> >> any credibility to start.)
>
> > No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the
> > argument.
>
> Absolutely it does. It proves they don't believe their own nonsense.
What they do or do not believe has no bearing on the merits of the
argument, either. Most likely the situation with most vegans is that
they do believe that there is an obligation to minimise suffering but
it has not occurred to them that there is any particular issue with
plant-based food. That is probably the situation regarding what they
believe, make of it what you will. But what most vegans believe has no
bearing on what I am discussing. I have put forward two moral premises
for discussion and you have not explained to me what is wrong with
them. On other occasions you have said that they are too vague to be
applied but on this occasion you wish to say that you understand them
well enough to know that I don't live up to them. Well, if I don't I'd
better change my behaviour. I just don't think that you've made an
especially good case. But that's a side-issue. What I want to know is
why *you* don't think the premises are correct.
> It proves this is purely about self exaltation.
It doesn't prove any such thing, you silly clown. You would like to
believe that no-one could ever be genuinely motivated to do something
about the suffering in the world, but it just ain't so.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Exactly. The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce;
can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can
supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided
meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering
(grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.)
> Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in
> this regard,
But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory,
comparative-ethics hypocrite.
Nothing could be more obvious: "veganism", and the irrationally ardent
defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of
legitimate ethics. There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an
"I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan".
Ethical behavior simply *cannot* be determined by a comparison with
others, but that's all that's left to "veganism" when you strip away all
the taxpayer-funded (wasteful by definition) philosophical blather.
"vegans" still:
- "unnecessarily" cause animals to suffer and die
- aren't minimizing
- aren't willing to expend /any/ effort to learn more about relative
death tolls of different non-animal foods
"vegans" make an unwarranted assumption that their "lifestyle"
(nauseating both as word and concept) is inherently less harm-causing
than /any/ meat-including one, but that's simply not true.
There's another interesting thing to note. Vegetarianism generally, and
"veganism" specifically, are predominantly practiced in the western
world by clueless urbanites. This is not in serious dispute. Urbanites
are generally richer than rural dwellers, and being richer, consume
more. They consume more electricity, more water, more gasoline, more
natural gas - more of just about everything. Their resource consumption
is greater both directly and indirectly. The indirect components arises
from the fact that the more expensive things richer people buy require
more resources to produce. For relatively rich urban "vegans", this is
true for everything /except/ perhaps their diet, in which they consume
no resource-intensive meat.
But "vegans" - almost universally clueless urbanites, such as
mathematics and philosophy lecturers and graduate students, as well as
air-headed film starlets - weakly assume that all the rest of their
rich, resource-wasteful consumption is somehow offset by not putting
animal parts into their mouths. The assumption, it goes without saying,
is unwarranted.
> but it carries the risk of turning the person into an
> anal-retentive nit who studies the small print on bottles of sauce in
> dimly-lit restaurants, sneers secretively at people in the meat aisle,
ex-PFC Wintergreen
I know more than enough.
>>> but I am not able to do
>>> everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal
>>> goals
>> So your inherent selfishness and wish for ease, comfort and glory
>> override your obligation to behave ethically. But then, that was always
>> obvious.
>>
>
> No.
Yes.
> Speaking of behaving ethically, you remember that time where you asked
> me if my history of psychosis was a product of a history of child
> abuse? Do you have any thoughts about the ethics of that at all?
As a matter of fact, I do. I believe child abuse is unethical.
>>>> The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
>>>> vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
>>>> any credibility to start.)
>>> No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the
>>> argument.
>> Absolutely it does. It proves they don't believe their own nonsense.
>
> What they do or do not believe has no bearing on the merits of the
> argument, either.
Of course it does. If they really believed it, they'd make /some/
effort to live up to it. Of course, they do not.
Rupert
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
No, it doesn't carry those risks. The issue of whether veganism is
better than conscientious omnivorism in typical cases is our main
point of disagreement. I am happy to consider any factual information
that you have to offer about this. Have you had a look at Peter
Singer's book "The Ethics Of What We Eat?"
> I thought we were agreed that a
> widespread transition to veganism would lead to a significant
> reduction in animal suffering.
> ---------->
>
> It might, but the issue I just brought up essentially wipes out that
> advantage in my opinion.
>
Well, I don't regard the picture that you paint of vegans as being
especially reasonable, and I think that we might also disagree about
the importance of reducing animal suffering.
> By being vegan and publicly defending
> this stance I am doing my bit to reduce my share of responsibility for
> the problem.
> ------>
>
> Why should you defend it? so does the person who consumes less, consumes
> fewer imported goods, etc.
>
Yeah, fine, but I wandered onto here many years ago and saw people
making critical remarks about veganism, and offered some thoughts
about the matter, and was subject to a tirade of abuse, and for some
reason developed an obsession with showing these people that their
attacks were ill-founded. You guys started it, so to speak. I do think
that veganism advocacy is a good thing but in my general I don't
really go out of my way to talk about my views with people who don't
want to hear about it. I am an ethical vegan, I talk about it with
those who express interest, and I engage in animal activism, but I'm a
fairly live and let live type of guy.
We clearly have some disagreement about what the human-nonhuman
relationship should be, and about what vegans are usually like, but
other than that there's nothing especially wrong with what you are
saying. But Ball has made it his life's mission to denigrate vegans
just for being vegans and the arguments he offers are palpable
nonsense, and I'm just doing him the favour of explaining why.
What's your take on Ball, anyway? He asked me whether my history of
psychosis was due to a history of child abuse. Do you not think that
that is fairly disgusting? You talk about the risks of being a vegan;
maybe Ball illustrates the risks of being an anti-ARA.
> > Personally it does not bother me that animals are viewed as commodities,
> > as
> > long as their capacity to suffer pain and deprivation is taken into
> > account.
>
> Which they clearly aren't...
> ------------>
>
> That is something that can be addressed,
Well, that remains to be seen.
> and it is a more practical and
> straightforward solution than equating omnivorism with cannibalism, or
> murder, which is essentially what vegans try to do, the honest ones.
The likes of Gary Francione, of whom most vegans are a bit of a fan,
think that animals will inevitably be abused as long as they are
property. That is of course the central point of disagreement.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
So, you were just wasting time. Of course, that's easy to do when your
time is worth so little.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Proof, as if any more were needed, that this is purely about an
invidious, nasty, sanctimonious comparison.
Once again, for the slow learners (among whom number all "vegans", by
definition): ethical behavior /never/ is determined by a comparison
with the behavior of others. Ethical behavior consists solely in doing
what is right, without regard to any others. If your brother sodomizes
the four-year-old neighbor boy twice a week, and you "only" sodomize the
boy once a week, you are not "more ethical" than your brother; you are,
in fact, entirely unethical. *Any* amount of sodomy committed against
four-year-old boys makes you unethical - full stop.
If causing "unnecessary" animal suffering and death is wrong, then it's
wrong in any amount. It simply won't do to try to equivocate on the
concept of necessity by appealing to one's own selfish wishes and wants
- that is, one cannot simply define as "necessary" some suffering, the
elimination of which would inconvenience you in the pursuit of purely
selfish goals. If reducing the animal harm caused by your "lifestyle"
would adversely affect your attainment of academic glory, then your
attainment of academic glory will simply have to give way - that is, it
will if there is any compelling reason in the first place to reduce harm
to animals.
Rupert
wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary"
undefined. I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by
"little" animal suffering that would be awesome. The point in
contention is whether it is especially easy for most people living in
cities to get hold of commercially produced meat that one reasonably
believes involves little animal suffering, whatever that might mean.
There might be some disagreement about what "little animal suffering"
means.
But if you've done your homework and you know you can get it, that's
great, and I would never mock your efforts at conscientious
omnivorism, even though you mock my efforts to find out more about
rice production when you obviously know nothing about how much effort
I made. I've actually conceded that point for a fairly long time,
despite it leading to Derek playing jokes on me thinking he has hacked
my email account and emailing my friends saying that I shouldn't be a
voting member of Animal Liberation. I'm pretty sure that I said from
day one that some forms of conscientious omnivorism might be
acceptable, I just think it's a bit of a stretch to say that I would
be able to find any form of conscientious omnivorism that I would find
acceptable. We probably have some disagreement about what constitutes
"acceptable conscientious omnivorism". That is indeed what I hoped to
thrash out in the other thread I started with the paraphrase of Mylan
Engel Jr's argument, but it ended up with you making a false and
unsupported assertion about what I mean by "unnecessary suffering"
which bears no relation to anything I have ever actually written about
the matter.
You seem to think I came in here with the purpose of proving myself
better than everyone else; well, I don't think there's any particular
evidence of that in what I actually wrote, but I probably get a bit
defensive when I am subjected to a tirade of abuse that I regard as
absurd and unjustified. But I'm pretty sure that I said more than once
that I have no way of knowing whether your diet is better than mine,
certainly I said that to Rick Petter. When Dutch admits to eating
factory-farmed meat in restaurants you feel like you can make an
educated guess, but who knows. Unlike you I don't usually focus on the
specifics of other people's behaviour, I am more interested in
debating the ethical issues. I have conceded for a long time that some
forms of conscientious omnivorism might be acceptable, I just haven't
put the effort into finding out much about it because it doesn't
really appeal. I am happy to listen to any factual information you
have to offer about conscientious omnivorism, I'm just waiting for the
attempt at reasoned argument really, as opposed to the endless tirade
of verbal abuse. But whatever floats your boat.
> > Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in
> > this regard,
>
> But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory,
> comparative-ethics hypocrite.
>
No, it does not. You say repeatedly that it does but you offer no
particular support for this claim and most outside observers would
form the view that you are being a bit defensive. In any case I think
the issue of what is the most effective way to do something about
animal suffering should be more important.
> Nothing could be more obvious: "veganism", and the irrationally ardent
> defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of
> legitimate ethics.
Nothing could be more obvious *bollocks*.
Why, Ball? Why does it make a mockery of legitimate ethics any more
than whatever stance you want to defend? It's really just a different
view about what is involved in fulfilling your obligations to
nonhumans. What makes it a "mockery of legitimate ethics". The fact
that you don't like it? The fact that you don't get on with the vegans
you have met?
Sheesh, talking with you is such a waste of time.
> There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an
> "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan".
>
Ball, I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care*
about whether I am more ethical than you, I care about fulfilling my
moral obligations as best I can work out what they are, and that is
what you should care about too. If you think I am mistaken about my
moral obligations then you should simply offer reasons for thinking
that I am mistaken. You have never done that.
I have never expressed moral contempt at you not being vegan, although
I don't think you've done an especially good job of defending the
points of view you put around here. I've expressed moral contempt at
you for plenty of other things, obviously.
You are the one who tries to make it your life's mission to show that
I do not live up to my stated moral principles. You don't do an
especially good job of it because I put qualifying phrases into them.
Then you express contempt at me for doing that. Which reduces to the
"all-or-nothing" argument, really. You can have a moral obligation
which can be outweighed by competing considerations. I tell you you
can. You think so, too, because you acknowledge some moral constraints
on your behaviour towards nonhumans but put them aside when it comes
to deciding what you buy at the supermarket.
> Ethical behavior simply *cannot* be determined by a comparison with
> others, but that's all that's left to "veganism" when you strip away all
> the taxpayer-funded (wasteful by definition) philosophical blather.
How about using public money to keep immigrants from coming into the
country and accepting employment from people who want to employ them?
Is *that* wasteful by definition? :)
My contributions to this newsgroup aren't taxpayer-funded, and your
responses to them aren't very good.
I've explained to you countless times what's wrong with all this
rubbish.
> "vegans" still:
>
> - "unnecessarily" cause animals to suffer and die
> - aren't minimizing
> - aren't willing to expend /any/ effort to learn more about relative
> death tolls of different non-animal foods
>
We've been over this plenty of times in the other thread. You think
that the only way vegans can offer a coherent foundation for their
position is by holding themselves to standards much higher than the
ones that they in fact do. It just ain't so.
> "vegans" make an unwarranted assumption that their "lifestyle"
> (nauseating both as word and concept) is inherently less harm-causing
> than /any/ meat-including one, but that's simply not true.
>
I don't know of any evidence that vegans make such an assumption, I
certainly don't. In *typical* cases it's not a bad rule of thumb.
> There's another interesting thing to note. Vegetarianism generally, and
> "veganism" specifically, are predominantly practiced in the western
> world by clueless urbanites.
Yawn. Oh yes, that's fascinating.
> This is not in serious dispute.
Some rural folks do convert to veganism. The reasons why it is less
likely to happen for them are pretty clear.
> Urbanites
> are generally richer than rural dwellers, and being richer, consume
> more. They consume more electricity, more water, more gasoline, more
> natural gas - more of just about everything. Their resource consumption
> is greater both directly and indirectly. The indirect components arises
> from the fact that the more expensive things richer people buy require
> more resources to produce. For relatively rich urban "vegans", this is
> true for everything /except/ perhaps their diet, in which they consume
> no resource-intensive meat.
>
> But "vegans" - almost universally clueless urbanites, such as
> mathematics and philosophy lecturers and graduate students, as well as
> air-headed film starlets - weakly assume that all the rest of their
> rich, resource-wasteful consumption is somehow offset by not putting
> animal parts into their mouths. The assumption, it goes without saying,
> is unwarranted.
>
Mathematics and philosophy lecturers are generally not especially
"clueless" in my book. Knowledge is a big inter-related web. Most of
the vegans I know do worry about the impact of the rest of their
consumption, but the abuses involved in food production are
particularly egregious and should be spoken out about.
We should worry about other areas of consumption too.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does
> not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the
> suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans.
What an absurd, convoluted bit of double negation. You really ought to
take a course in remedial English, and learn to write plain, forthright
sentences.
> I was well aware
> that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously
> contemplated giving up meat,
That's simply bullshit. You just aren't thoughtful enough to have
reached that understanding in adolescence - probably not even now.
If you aren't sufficiently aware in your 30s of what is necessary in
order realistically to say that you are "minimizing" the harm you cause,
subject to reasonable constraints (which reasonable constraints do *NOT*
include your wish to achieve academic glory) - and plainly, you are not
aware - then it is entirely unreasonable and unrealistic to think that
you were aware in adolescence that refraining from eating meat was
insufficient to achieve the end of causing no harm to animals.
I have always been amused by people who claim to have had precocious
awareness or understanding of anything, but especially of difficult
philosophical issues. There's always a huge and obvious element of
self-flattery at work in such claims, and you're no exception. You
simply aren't as clever or perceptive or aware as you like to pretend,
and that is and has been true throughout your life.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Not "undefined"; flexi-defined. "Unnecessary", as you and your fellow
sophists use it, is extremely supple. It means whatever you need it to
mean.
> I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by
> "little" animal suffering
I'm happy to oblige. An example might prove instructive and helpful to
a clueless urbanite like you: a single high-powered rifle slug through
the heart of a 70 kg mule deer causes relatively little animal
suffering. An agricultural discing machine slicing through a dozen or
so rabbits to prepare a hectare of land for some grain crop causes
relatively much animal suffering.
I hope that helps.
>>> Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in
>>> this regard,
>> But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory,
>> comparative-ethics hypocrite.
>>
>
> No, it does not.
It does.
>> Nothing could be more obvious: "veganism", and the irrationally ardent
>> defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of
>> legitimate ethics.
>
> Nothing could be more obvious
Right - that's what I said.
>> There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an
>> "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan".
>>
>
> I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care*
> about whether I am more ethical than you,
Of course you do.
> I care about fulfilling my
> moral obligations as best I can work out what they are,
You don't do that. Your moral obligations, if you took them seriously,
demand that you do much more than you do to reduce the harm to animals
that your consumption habits cause. You refuse to do it.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
They are utterly clueless about things that happen outside academe,
particularly those that happen outside urban environments. They don't
like to get their hands dirty, and they have *ZERO* /real/ understanding
of the reality of those people who do get their hands dirty providing
the maths and philosophy lecturers with the "necessities" of life.
There is a reason - a very sound reason - that most people view maths
and philosophy lecturers, among many others, as largely detached from
unpleasant physical reality. The reason is that you are. In fact, most
urbanites - clueless ones like you, as well as relatively more clued-in
ones like me - don't have nearly enough contact with and awareness of
the the realities of those who do our dirty work. The difference
between you and me is, you don't want to know. You revel in and pride
yourself in the distance. You affect a nauseating egalitarianism, but
the phoniness of it is like a sledgehammer between the eyes. You sneer
at what you conceive of as the simple and simpleminded rustics who
cultivate the organic veggies you take great and public pride in eating.
You are a fraud.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> [massive load of clueless urbanite crap]
So, how long have you been back in Sydney? Are you back in
telemarketing (better known as bothering people)? What happened with
your little Chinese slattern? Did you nobly rescue her from the
ecologically contemptuous and politically totalitarian regime you were
serving, or did one of you dump the other and now you're split up?
Rupert
It's Christmas holidays, and writing "Yawn" did not take up that much
time. In any case, pot and kettle.
You truly are a silly man.
Rupert
What's your evidence for that?
> > I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by
> > "little" animal suffering
>
> I'm happy to oblige. An example might prove instructive and helpful to
> a clueless urbanite like you: a single high-powered rifle slug through
> the heart of a 70 kg mule deer causes relatively little animal
> suffering. An agricultural discing machine slicing through a dozen or
> so rabbits to prepare a hectare of land for some grain crop causes
> relatively much animal suffering.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
Well, that's totally awesome, although you'd still have in factor in
the ratios of how much food is produced.
You were referring to "commercially produced meat", you utterly
clueless clown. That was the context.
Sheesh.
> >>> Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in
> >>> this regard,
> >> But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory,
> >> comparative-ethics hypocrite.
>
> > No, it does not.
>
> It does.
>
What's that based on, Ball? Some kind of scientific research with
serious statistical methodology?
Exactly how many vegans have you run into in your time? Were the ones
with whom you discussed the matter in depth all on the Internet?
> >> Nothing could be more obvious: "veganism", and the irrationally ardent
> >> defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of
> >> legitimate ethics.
>
> > Nothing could be more obvious
>
> Right - that's what I said.
>
Lame.
> >> There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an
> >> "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan".
>
> > I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care*
> > about whether I am more ethical than you,
>
> Of course you do.
>
Please do me a favour and say that I didn't laugh out loud when I read
that. That was totally awesome. :)
There is no rational reason about why I would care about whether I am
more ethical than *you*, Ball. I really have no strong reason to think
that that would be any achievement to write home about in any case,
but however that may be there is no reason why I would care. I should
care about being as ethical as I can be. Comparing myself with you
would not be the issue. We can agree on that, yes?
So what exactly gave you the idea that comparing myself with you is
some kind of big issue?
Sorry, my friend David said I have to stop talking to you because I
have to go and talk to him and he says you're not worth spitting on.
> > I care about fulfilling my
> > moral obligations as best I can work out what they are,
>
> You don't do that. Your moral obligations, if you took them seriously,
> demand that you do much more than you do to reduce the harm to animals
> that your consumption habits cause. You refuse to do it.
Why do you think that, Ball? And why do the same remarks not equally
apply to you? Presumably because you don't really mean what you
actually said, you mean my obligations *as I conceive them*. Which
would have to be based on what I actually *wrote*.
Dear oh dear. There's just no hope for you, is there?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It was wasting time, something that comes easily to you.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Your statements.
dh
>Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
>really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
>identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
>it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:50:18 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>
>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to animals. If domestic
animals are no longer bred, there will be no loss to any animals.