Bill wrote:
> Your rotten explanation for your appalling inconsistency stinks.

Only because you have no understanding that it is not only my
individual action which concerns me. I see more than you do;
I am concerned for social change, not personal attack.


> Killing animals for meat, and thoughtlessly killing them collaterally in
> the course of vegetable production, *both* reflect a failure or refusal
> to recognize what you claim is their intrinsic worth.

True, as far as it goes. But one results from the other (which is
far older) and is difficult to continue without the other. Your
own personal attack with the feeble stick of CDs is a confirmation
of my own view: that if meat production cannot be justified, then
thoughtless killing of animals is other areas cannot be justified.
But if raising and killing animals for meat and other products is
perfectly O.K., why should use of lethal methods against "pests" be
seen as wrong?

> Your adoption of a
> strictly vegetarian diet does nothing to change the societal view of
> animals; it is a symbolic gesture *only*, and is plainly seen as such.

Again, true as far as it goes.


> Likewise, working assiduously to ensure that you consumed only CD-free
> vegetables *also* would be *only* a symbolic gesture, and would
> correctly be seen as such.

True, as far as it goes.


> Why do you engage in one purely symbolic,
> utterly ineffectual gesture, but not the other?

Because, as I said, the entire system of meat and animal-derived
commercial product production is founded in an immoral concept
of animals as things, as property. The system, like slavery, is
immoral _per se_. Vegetable production is not immoral _per se_.
All that is required is that methods of vegetable production
be changed, and that we search among existing vegetables for
ones produced with less harm. It is the difference between
buying a shirt made in a sweatshop, and buying a slave. Neither
is perfect, but sweatshops can be upgraded, and slavery must be
abolished.


> Your answer to date is unacceptable. I asked earlier what distinguishes
> the two gestures:

> Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
> CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
> gestures. What distinguishes them?

> You answered:

> What distinguishes them is that buying meat and other
> animal products supports a system which represents a view
> of animals which is philosophically opposed to AR: that
> animals are property, that they have a moral standing which
> allows us to use them in unjust ways, raise and delibrately kill
> them without consideration of their intrinsic worth.

> That answer is wrong, because collateral deaths in vegetable production
> *also* occur due to societal failure to give "consideration of their
> intrinsic worth."

Yes, as far as it goes, but, as I said, the system of vegetable
production is not immoral per se, and the lack of consideration
of CDs is based in the same philosophical blindness that allows
meat production to exist. One failure of methods is rooted in
the other basic immorality as a system.

> In fact, you have ADMITTED as much, in your sleazy
> rationalization for why you refuse to make the more difficult and costly
> symbolic gesture, preferring instead to continue to cause CDs:

I would say that I don't cause CDs. My purchase of vegetables
provides a motive for farmers to cause CDs, but it is not my
fault that farmers use unethical methods. They choose to do so.

> I am convinced that veganism is a more ethical
> position, since it rejects such animal deaths in
> principle, and if the vegan position is accepted,
> collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as
> a whole until a moral stance against the intentional
> deaths of animals in production of food and other
> products is seen as obligatory. Then society can
> and will advance to the consideration of
> unintentional deaths as well.

> So, your claim about what the distinction is is FALSE. What IS the
> distinction, then?

> The distinction is: cost and ease. Being "vegan" is cheap and easy,
> relative to refraining from eating CD-causing vegetables. BOTH are
> merely symbolic, but one is much more costly than the other.

> Your engagement in one symbolic gesture, but not the other, clearly is
> NOT based on any legitimate principle, because the principle -
> recognition of the intrinsic moral worth of animals - should dictate BOTH.

> Thus, we see that you are a thorough-going liar, three times:

> 1. why you're "vegan": it is not based on principle

Yes, it is.

> 2. why you don't abstain from CD-causing produce: it
> *is* based on cost and convenience,

To a degree. I live in a real world, not in a fantasy. I
wish it were possible for me to be more sure about the
sources of my own food. But my personal actions are not
the issue, except to tunnel-vision Antis whose only
argument is personal attack. I'm talking about systems
and general social change -- I don't attack you personally.
Why do you never see beyond the end of your nose?

> and on making
> your adherence to principle contingent on others'
> acceptance of your views

I do not.

> 3. what you have said about your dirty rationalization
> of #2

???

> You LIED when you claimed you didn't base your refusal to abstain from
> CD-causing produce on others' views and behavior. It is *exactly* what
> you do:

> > You claim that your inaction - your continued
> > participation in the collateral slaughter of
> > animals you don't eat - continues only because the
> > slaughter of animals that are eaten continues.

I don't claim any such thing. I do claim that unintentional
CD deaths will not be seen as a major issue by society in
general until intentional slavery and slaughter of animals
for food and other products is seen as immoral by society in
general. I think that is both true and obvious.

> I have never claimed any such thing.

> You are a liar. You do it above:

> ...if the vegan position is accepted, collateral
> deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> of farmers.

Which is true. They will.

> YOU could stop participating in CDs today, but you won't,

If, as you say, my individual action is a useless,
ineffectual, symbolic gesture, how would my individual
action change general social forces that create both
meat production and CDs? That is my goal.

> because others
> won't. You are waiting for CDs to go away by virtue of *others'*
> changes in attitudes and behavior.

> Calling you a liar is not a "personal attack".

What else could it be?

> You throw that out there
> as if it invalidates the analysis of the appalling inconsistency in your
> behavior, but you are wrong. The analysis of your shoddy moral pose is
> correct. Your lying doesn't begin until you react to the correct
> analysis, and the labeling of you as a liar follows that. You ARE a
> liar, Karen.

Why only address personal attacks? Why don't you ever discuss
ideas?

Rat