On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, wrote:
> 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.

No, I have *absolutely* described the essence of "veganism". The
empty, symbolic gesture of refusing to consume animal parts is all
there is to it. It has no moral substance to it at all. *ALL* of the
conclusions "vegans" wish to draw from this purely symbolic and
*passive* act are completely false. We've been through this already:
they're not causing zero deaths; they're not causing minimal deaths;
they're not "doing the best they can"; they're not doing *ANYTHING* of
any moral substance. The only thing they're doing is flattering their
egos.

> But like I keep telling you,

No, as you keep falsely claiming.


> it's not your job to tell me what my position is, anyway.

Yet, I know what it is all the same! I know *exactly* what your
position is. Your position is that you falsely believe being "vegan"
somehow is morally meaningful, and I have shown you that it is not.
It is nothing but posturing, and it's really disgusting, because you
continue to delude yourself into thinking there's moral substance to
it, and there isn't.


> 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,

No, I've never advanced any such argument; your conclusion is false.

> but only for food, clothing, health, etc.
>
> Is that about right?

No - not because it doesn't incorporate some of what I believe,but
because I have not advanced *any* argument about what I believe. I
have only pointed out that "veganism" isn't what its adherents believe
it to be; and that, in fact, it ("veganism") isn't *any* kind of
coherent moral belief.