On Feb 24, 8:10*pm, 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!
>
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
support itself with religious rhetoric.