Dutch wrote:
> [..]

>>>If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have
> the
>>>right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you
> have
>>>instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

>> Used, killed, by moral agents,

> That cannot be true, veganism focuses soley on a few specific *uses* of
> animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.

The same is true of human death -- humans die and are killed in a
myriad of ways (of old age, by disease, by accident, by error)
but law and ethics focus on only a few.

>> not by other animals or other
>> moral patients,

> Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the very
> design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?

For the same reason we restrict ourself from farming and eating
people but not tomatoes.

>>and not if the animal products (like a
>> moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
>> exploitation.

> Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano, dung,
> or mother's milk.

Most do directly, and all by implication. The "roadkill argument"
is to the Anti argument what the CD argument is supposed
to be against ARists -- it proves your claim
that AR or veganism is based on a rule rather than a moral principle
is false, and you can't deal with it. It skewers your prejudices
and demonstrates them for what they are.

>>>>>>>On another page from their site they define veganism as;
>>>>>>>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
>>>>>>>seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
>>>>>>>forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
>>>>>>>food, clothing or any other purpose.

>>>>> Not an absolute, but a principle.

<snip>
>To be sure, unfair labour practises and
>>>exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish
> your
>>>tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children
> deliberately
>>>and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.
> Nowhere
>>>are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.

>> Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
>> as property, as objects, as things.

> Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.

They are seen as, collectively, property of the state. That is
why states create game preserves and National parks, why they
prosecute poachers, and why states sell hunting licenses. If
states recognized moral rights of animals individually, states
would not engage in culling of herds, etc.

> Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.

Duh....

>> There's such a cognitive disconnect here.

> I'll agree with you there.

>> I have said many times

> You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things many
> times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it sound
> like you're a broken record.

>> that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
>> immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
>> and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
>> their moral status which causes both.

> If cds and livestock production are so damned similiar then why are there a
> million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the other?

Because CDs are accidents, a sideeffect of the system of vegetable
production, a method, not an inherent part of vegetable production.
They would not exist IF farmers saw "pests" as ARists do. The
system which uses animals as products is the source of the whole
thing, the central issue, and is rightly seen as such. We attack
the central cause, and refuse to be diverted to perepheral issues until
the major one is adquately addressed. CDs are mentioned now and then,
usually as part of a general opposition to agribusiness, but they
really are a red herring as used by Antis.

> There's your cognitive disconnect.

>> Antis respond by whining
>> that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
>> culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
>> routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
>> They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
>> as animals are. What else would you expect?

> It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by most
> people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
> recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals. They
> are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about certain
> animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.

As usual, false. ARists are advocates for animals as supporters of
human rights are advocates for people. Not all bad things that
happen to people are violations of rights. Not all violations of
rights are equally central and serious.

>>>More to
>>>the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
>>>than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with
> so-called
>>>"animal rights".

>> ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
>> people who believe animals HAVE rights.

> Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human rights
> than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains a
> legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows.

Do you have an opinion on female genital mutilation, child indentured
servitude, or womens' rights under the Taliban? Then you do claim to
be more in tune with human rights than at least some other people.

> ARAs *do* claim to be
> more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
> rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
> principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other ways,
> that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they say
> they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products without
> consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
> argument from start to finish.

It simply demonstrates that ARists are no more personally immoral
or hypocritical than anyone else. We ALL are hypocritical and
sinful and incomplete in our application of principle. We
are all human. Personal attacks go both ways, once you bring
them in.

>>> <snip>

>>>>>>>but then again, so are mine when
>>>>>>>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I
>>>>>>>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had
>>>>>>>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died
>>>>>>>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in
>>>>>>>a shot.

>>>>> I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.

>>>>That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
>>>>weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
>>>>it?

>>>Not at all, you're both lying.

>> Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
>> prejudices, call them a liar.

> It doesn't fit my impression of you AT ALL,

Because your impression of me is wrong.

> you are ALL about appearances.

If I were, I would do many things I do not.

> You would not risk someone seeing you eat a rib.

I wouldn't care who saw me, if I believed the animal
had not been unjustly treated.

> Derek, I would believe
> anything of him, I doubt if he's even a vegetarian.

Because your impression of him is probably wrong, too.

>>>No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.

>> *Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
>> meat are immoral.

> Partly, but also because vegans demonize meat-eaters and despise meat-eating
> so much that it would be too much of a mental switch.

Again, your prejudices have the better of you.

>> *grinds teeth,restraining self from using
>> term of personal insult.*

> Your little tirades don't bother me, but as we know, they don't advance your
> cause, do they ?

>> Look -- I ate meat for many years,
>> up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
>> eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.

> I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating meat
> again your thinking would change.

It would be a result, not a cause. If I changed my ethical views,
I would change my conduct. You did.

> Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
> fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you don't
> respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
> great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.

Ah,ah...watch it, Dutch. You just admitted I act on principle.

Watch out, or your blinding prejudice might let in a little light.

>> If those
>> ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
>> I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

> If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral self-gratification
> then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that keeps
> them in it.

Or their devotion to principle....

Rat

>