On Feb 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Very true.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > dream
> > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > do
> > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > for our benefit.
>
> Dictionary.com:
> subjugate--
> 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
>
> I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> word "subjugate".

I wasn't suprised that he objected. People
tend to object when those on the other side
of the debate use "loaded" terms. I don't have a
problem with it though. Nor do I consider it
inaccurate.

> Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> Anyway...
> I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
> what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> worms in your compost pile? (joke)- Hide quoted text -

Well the least controversial example I can think of
would be working dogs, trained to follow orders. I
know it is a minority fringe within the vegan community
but I have seen objection, even to pets on the grounds
that is technically a master-slave relationship as
the owner owns the pet. A working dog would also
be made to work for the owner but would normally
be quite content with its lot and I don't see the
problem.

A more controversial would be a laying hen reared
in a compassionate free range style. You can take
keep the hen and take the unfertilized eggs without
infringing upon the hens freedom. The difference is that
the hen's status is likely to be more like
"economic resource" than companion and therefore
her needs will most likely be given less weight.
If nothing else she is likely to be killed when she
ceases to be "economically viable".

The most controversial situation I would accept
is the raising animals for meat or killing game animals.
I can see why this is very hard to justify in light of my
previous comments. Taking a life is the ultimate
"rights infringement" and example of placing the
animal's needs subservient to ones own.

However I prefer to look at it from another angle.
Predation, I have been led to believe is not merely
an undesirable reality but a way of keeping wild
animal populations in balance. Without a population
of natural predators and in the absense of human
intervention, the numbers of the species would
increase till they deplete their natural resources
and start dying off of starvation. If you can accept
that predation is for the greater good then why
does it matter if the predator is human or not?

The collateral deaths argument much touted on
here also seems quite strong to me. Granted there is
a difference between lives deliberately taken and
lives lost as an incidental, unintended consequence
but is this a difference of practical significance or
is it only relevant to "ivory towers" ethics?

> - Show quoted text -