"C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote
>
> > > No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of
> > > information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very
> > > convenient.
> >
> > You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals
> > are abhorred by only *one* side.
>
> I'm well aware that vegans abhor suffering and death of animals and you
> don't.

Vegans abhor "certain" animal suffering but ignore most of it.

> > IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make
> > the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are
> > meaningless without proof.
>
> You're big into people's rights. Don't you think that people have a right
to
> live and eat as they want without having to prove anything to you?

You're not just living or eating right now, you're proclaiming on an ethics
forum that your diet causes less animal death and suffering than another
diet. That claim requires support if you want it to be believed.

> > The fact remains that animals die for either
> > dietary choice.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The
prevalent
> > > anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that
> their
> > > lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I
> > > represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering
and
> > > casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot
be
> > > substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have
> > > peace.
> >
> > I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone
> > else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or
> > minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices
> > remain suspect.
>
> Why is that so important to you that you must beat people over the head
with
> it? You know that it can't be proved either way. Are you going to spend
the
> rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute?

If you want to just eat your beans and rice quietly without claiming your
diet causes less death and suffering you wouldn't have to hear it.

> > > I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make.
You
> > > cannot make them support something they do not claim.
> >
> > No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other
> > threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims
> > made by others in afv.
>
> People make claims they can't support. Don't you ever act on your sense of
> things in lieu of actual proof? If people want to be vegan for reasons
that
> you don't agree with then they should be able to do so without having to
> prove things to you. Live with it.

Then acknowledge that you do not know if your diet causes more or less
suffering than a diet that contains meat.

> > > You keep turning the tables on vegans.
> >
> > They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs.
>
> There's a skip in your record...

Then stop making the claims.
>
> > > I am talking about anti-vegan claims
> > > here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties
than
> > > eating meat.
> >
> > I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim
> > that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties.
>
> Why?

Because contrary to the rule of veganism there are diets which include meat
or fish that common sense will tell you cause fewer animal deaths than a
typical vegan diet.

> > >>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State?
> > >
> > > Just the ones I stated previously.
> >
> > You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR
> > site.
>
> No, I also said I didn't see credible references substantiating his data,
or
> who funded his work.

But common sense tells you that their is truth in what he's reporting.

> > > Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the
> reasons I
> > > stated previously.
> >
> > That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their
> > 'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it.
>
> There's nothing "orthodoxy" about questioning the credibility of
> information. If you're basing your whole premise on Davis' work then it's
> very, very weak indeed.

Do you question the credibility of reports from PeTA?

> > Those aren't nice names.
>
> The choice of names is yours. You can be as nice or as nasty as your
> character dictates.
>
> > >>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a
> > >>statistical difference.
> > >
> > > I think you're wrong.
> >
> > On what basis?
>
> Based on my sense of how the numbers from the "counting game" would
probably
> result. Pretty much the same level of basis as your "sticking your neck
> out".
>
> > > Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and
deaths
> > > make it more ethical?
> >
> > Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a
> > day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of
> > agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once
> > or millions of times.
>
> Beating a child once a month wins over beating a child once a week every
> time.

You're not talking about morals or ethics any more, that's a utilitarian
measurement of greater good/lesser harm. On that basis, a diet including
meat from a moose in your freezer probably causes less net harm to animals
than one which substitutes an equivalent amount of factory farmed rice,
wheat and soy products. Killing an animal once per winter beats killing them
once a week every time.

So which is it, are you following a rule that sometimes causes less death
and sometimes causes more, or are you following a principle which attempts
to cause less death all the time? If it's veganism, it's the former.

> > > There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand.
Don't
> > > generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few.
> >
> > See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something
> > ethical.
>
> No, I never said that. Go back and read again. I keep saying that fewer
> incidents of suffering and death is better than more incidents of suffeing
> and death. You see only black and white when, in fact, there are many
shades
> of gray.

Good advice, I think you should re-read that yourself.

[..]

> > Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat
> > which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to
> > cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet.
>
> Well, I'll give you that grass-fed will result in fewer CDs than
grain-fed,
> but that's still a far cry from "invalidating my thesis".

No it's not, as I described above, the fundamental thesis of veganism which
is the systematic non-consumption of animal products does not categorically
move in the direction of less suffering to animals. People who include
freshly caught fish in their diet are very likely doing better than that.
That fact invalidates the rule of veganism.

> > >>Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or
> > >>ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops
> there.
> > >
> > > And you are the police that hold them to it?
> >
> > I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their
> > moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If
> > that bothers them, or you, tough shit.
>
> I don't think you are interested in the truth. You have taken a position
> that you can't substantiate and you're defending it as the truth. You
insist
> that vegans substantiate their position and then somehow take their
failure
> to do so as support of your "truth". I think the truth is that there is no
> absolute truth in this argument.

There is one undeniable fact, and that is that veganism is a faulty ideal if
you are sincerely attempting to minimize the death and suffering to animals.
*substituting plant-based foods* for animal products in many cases will
undoubtedly have this effect, but not always, and the philosophy of veganism
by definition dictates that one must *always* try to avoid animal products.

In short, veganism is really about eliminating *the appearance of* causing
harm to animals.