On Feb 25, 10:10*am, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
> sure the
> majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> many
> of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> greater
> priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> refuse to eat
> off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> meat, or
> arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> ethics -
> I kid you not!
>

Are you sure it was an actual vegan who brought up this question and
not just someone trying to satirize the vegan position?

I know plenty of vegans and not one of them would view that as a
serious question. I've had someone bring up the question with me for
the purposes of making fun of veganism.

We may be loopy, but we're not *that* loopy.

> I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> have become
> so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> sight of the
> objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.

There's clearly some truth to this in the sense that there a quite a
few vegans who don't really appreciate the point that you can't really
give a good reason for worrying about which beer and wine to drink if
you're going to allow yourself to eat rice and use electricity.

If Ball is content with saying "Look how silly the vegans are,
worrying about which beer and wine to drink" then that's fine, I
guess. I find him quite silly myself quite frequently and I enjoy
making fun of him. No reason why I should have all the fun.

But to my mind this is not really an interesting issue. Ball agrees
that we have some moral obligations towards nonhuman animals. He
criticizes the animal rights position for failing to find a coherent
foundation for where to "draw the line". Well, fine. But who has found
a coherent foundation for where to draw the line? As far as I can see,
we're all in the same boat. Some of us are actually interested in
making a good faith effort to think about the problem, rather than
getting gratification from insulting people on usenet.