On Feb 27, 3:34*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> 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 -
I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
have the right to limit another's freedom?
I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
intentional harm and unintentional harm.