On Feb 25, 7:09*am, Rupert > wrote:
> 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.

He was an active member of the animal rights movement. I do have a
confession to
make though. I did not actually hear the conversation. I just heard
about it so I guess
he could have been using irony but it didn't sound that way from the
account I heard.
>
> > 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.

Well I can't speak for him but I wouldn't even go that far. Just cos
you don't
do everything shouldn't mean you can't do anything without having
'hypocrite'
shoved down your throat. I guess you could say the time spent figuring
which
wines and beers are OK could be used more productively....

> 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.

Oh, I totally agree with you on this point!

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -