On Feb 26, 12:37*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:03 am, 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.
>
> No, it isn't. *It is completely accurate. *All "vegans" *do* start by
> believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> cause no animal suffering and death. *And that's false - they *do*
> cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. *Most
> "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. *Those who
> do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> all:
>
> 1. *They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> 2. *They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> 3. *They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.
>
> *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.
>
> *> I am a vegan and I'd like
>
> > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.
>
> I have. *I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. *All
> they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> those who do consume animal parts.
>
> *>You only
>
> > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > argument.
>
> It is.
>
> *> It's you against your straw man.
>
> No, there's no straw man. *I have accurately described the very
> essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
'veganism'", as you called it. But like I keep telling you, it's not
your job to tell me what my position is, anyway. Let's see how you
like it:
Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings, but
only for food, clothing, health, etc.

Is that about right?