On Mar 2, 10:17 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 2, 7:37 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 10:19 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 12:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 10:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > You only need to point out your own beliefs.
>
> > > > This isn't about my beliefs in any way, kid. It's about yours, and
> > > > the extravagant and false claims you make based on your beliefs. I
> > > > have shown complete incoherence in your beliefs and claims, and you're
> > > > trying to weasel out of addressing the problems by trying to shift the
> > > > discussion to me. The discussion is about "veganism", and that's what
> > > > the discussion will continue to be about.
>
> > > I don't have a problem with that at all; it's one of my favorite
> > > topics. But you do not begin a debate by defining your opponent's
> > > position.
>
> > But I *do* know your position. I don't see what problem you have with
> > me indicating that I know what it is.
>
> This is what you stated:
>

Quote:

> 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 is not my belief.

Perhaps not now. But you still have some kind of irrational belief
that not putting animal parts in your mouth somehow makes a moral
difference. It does not.


> This is not how I began my belief.

Yes, it was.