"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> 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 solely 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.

That's a misleading comment on several levels. First, the law_does address
accidental deaths, by charging those responsible with negligent homicide,
manslaughter, or any number of other charges as applicable. In addition, it
is incumbent on_everyone to take every conceivable measure to ensure they do
not happen. Failure to so is itself a crime. Disease and old age are red
herrings, they are of course, facts of every life. The real issue here is
the ubiquitous killing of animals in food production. You pay lip service to
the fact here when pressed, but it's not addressed in vegan philosophy and
it's not addressed to any degree in vegans' day-to-day lives. It remains a
huge contradiction in the vegan raison d'être that cannot be rationalized
away.

> >> 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 ourselves from farming and eating
> people but not tomatoes.

I don't see the very design of the ecosystem embracing cannibalism, except
in very rare and isolated circumstances. Species consume *other* species.

> >>and not if the animal products (like a
> >> molted 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 discussion here is *entirely* about killing and using animals. You're
just muddying the waters.

> 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.

It's a strawman. The rule of veganism is that's wrong to kill and eat
animals. Nobody is claiming that vegans would have a moral objection to
roadkill. I insist that vegans would not eat roadkill on aesthetic grounds,
but that's an aside.

No the cd argument says that vegans believe that it's wrong to kill and eat
animals but implicitly believe that it's not wrong to kill animals in the
course of food production. This is inconsistent with the claimed principle,
which is that animals possess basic rights. It's also inconsistent with one
of the primary vegan claims, about animal death and suffering.

> >>>>>>>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 practices 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 routinely 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....

It's an important point. ARAs are wont to say that animals are treated as
property, as if that means they are not seen as animals also. Both can be
true.

>
> >> 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 similar 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.

In reality, they ARE an inherent part of vegetable production. The fact that
a tomato can theoretically can be grown on a patio with no (visible) animal
deaths is hardly more significant than the fact that a chicken leg can
theoretically be obtained without killing the chicken.

> They would not exist IF farmers saw "pests" as ARists do.

If "ARists" ran commercial farms we would all starve.

> The
> system which uses animals as products is the source of the whole
> thing, the central issue, and is rightly seen as such.

I agree it's the central issue. The issues of animal suffering, health, and
environmental impact are peripheral issues used by ARAs in dishonest ways to
promote the central issue.

>We attack
> the central cause,

No, you much more frequently dishonestly attack the peripheral issues.

> and refuse to be diverted to perepheral issues until
> the major one is adquately addressed.

ARism lives on peripheral issues.

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.

You only object to peripheral issues when they gore your ox, otherwise you
exploit them mercilessly with the most livid rhetoric you can muster..

> > 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.

In the realm of human rights, being killed routinely without thought is a
serious violation of rights. Even livestock are afforded more consideration
than animals killed in the course of vegetable production.

> >>>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.

My awareness of those things does not make me a better person unless I do
something about them.

> > 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.

My point is that when it comes to violations of human rights, most of if not
all of us are less than perfect in addressing how they leak into our lives,
this applies to ARAs and omnivores alike. We agree that exploitation of
children and mutilation of women is wrong, but we mostly lack the time
and/or energies to do anything about these things. There's no demonstrable
link between this and the issue of animal rights as you claim, because we DO
NOT agree on the the fundamental basis for the idea of animal rights. That
argument is a tu quoque and a red herring.

-snips-

> >> 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.

The two are more interchangeable that you imagine. People act according to
their beliefs and believe according to their actions.

> > 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.

There is a principle involved, that it's immoral to use animals for personal
gain, to treat them as objects. The problem is that the principle becomes
lost in a myriad of misguided rationalizations and misstatements about
peripheral issues, (aka "lies")

What should be happening is this..

You: I believe that it's wrong to use animals for personal gain, therefore I
won't do it.

Me: I don't think it's wrong, so I will keep doing it.

Result: We both get to believe we live according to our principles (and go
to heaven as applicable) and meanwhile you get to benefit from my principles
by using modern medicine and products, and I don't bother mentioning the
hypocrisy of it all.

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

That's rich.

> >> 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....

If it were widely understood that veganism was not categorically more animal
or environmentally friendly, or more healthy, many people would simply take
the sensible path and limit the amount of "factory farmed" meat in their
diets, and not become addicted to this "moral gratification" syndrome that
plagues the mental processes of vegans. Self-righteousness is a ubiquitous
mental disorder that is not unique to ARism. Anyone who wished to remain a
vegan strictly "on principle" would do so.