usual suspect wrote:
> degene-Rat wrote:
>
>>>> Who says it is?
>>
>>
>>> You, Tom Regan, Peta, et al.
>>
>>
>> That is false.
>
>
> No, it's true. The general vegan activist message isn't to avoid or
> minimize CDs, just meat and leather and products made with either.

Yep: "don't consume animal parts". It's a classic
instance of committing the Denying the Antecedent fallacy.

>
>>>> Certainly no ethical vegan.
>>
>>
>>> Oxymoron.
>>
>>
>> *sigh*
>
>
> Checkmate.
>
>>>> This is a strawman
>>>> which Antis create and which, from there, takes their "argument"
>>>> blundering off into endless night....
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
> That's pretty low. Why can't you refute what I said?
>
> Not strawman, it's a matter of ignorance or deceit for those
> like you who make unfounded claims about dietary morality. In
> your case, it's deceit because you know better

Among other things, because she COMPLETELY doesn't
understand what the term "strawman" means.

>
>>>>> Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy
>>>>> professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the
>>>>> contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least
>>>>> harm would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet
>>>>> - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk
>>>>> products.
>>
>>
>>>> But, again, this is not the central basis of Regan's argument.
>>
>>
>>> Does Regan argue that a vegan diet causes less harm or not? That's
>>> the issue.
>>
>>
>> Regan argues, mainly, that a vegan lifestyle is more just. He is not a
>> utilitarian.
>
>
> Answer my question, Karen. Is Regan responsible for the notion of the
> "Least Harm Principle" (LHP)? Does he argue that a vegan diet causes
> less harm (under LHP) or not?
>
>>>> It
>>>> applies only within a category already created on deontological
>>>> grounds for other reasons. This attempts to make Regan a utilitarian,
>>>> which he is not, and which he clearly states he is not.
>>
>>
>>> Irrelevant. The issue is whether or not a vegan diet causes fewer
>>> animal deaths and less suffering.
>>
>>
>> Not primarily for Regan, or for me.
>
>
> Yes, it is. Your moral posturing indicates as much.

They can't escape the utilitarian implications of their
silly deonotological beliefs, and in fact, Regan's
"LHP" is an overt acknowledgment of the implications.
So is the shabby critique of Steven Davis's position by
this unknown goof Gaverick Matheny: he *explicitly*
criticizes Davis on the basis of utilitarianism.

In order to continue to ignore utilitarianism, "St."
Tom and Karen would have to maintain that, faced with
the choice of deliberately killing one deer to feed
their "families" (term used loosely in Karen's case)
versus shredding 10 deer fawns in the course of
producing an nutritionally equivalent amount of grain,
they would shred the fawns.


>> The issue is whether a vegan diet
>> is more just.
>
>
> According to what standard --
> a. that animals still die in the course of producing it?
> b. that you don't eat the flesh of the animals killed in the production
> of it?
> c. that you engage in a counting game and rely upon moral relativity?
> d. that a vegan diet allows you to assume a high moral posture without
> requiring you to do a body count?
>
> Animals die to make meat for diets. Animals die in the course of crop
> farming. The two types of diet (vegan and meat-including) are
> *indistinguishable* if deaths and suffering are the criteria for what's
> moral, ethical, or just.
>
>> I am not a utilitarian either, although I certainly
>> support causing less death and suffering, insofar as the means of doing
>> so are in accord with justice.
>
>
> Then why does your diet still include CDs?
>
>> <snip>
>
>
> Why did you not reply to that? I think the shortcomings of Regan's
> thesis deserve greater discussion, especially by those who defend him
> and his thesis. His thesis, indeed veganism as a whole, fails because
> it's based on Ivory Tower utopianism rather than in-the-fields reality.

Usual, Karen simply isn't smart enough to defend "St."
Tom's thesis. She thinks she's the smartest person
ever to participate here, and she really isn't very
smart at all. She mistakes glibness for articulation.
She also views Regan as something akin to Moses: He
has brought down the sacred "ar" texts from the
mountain, and they need no defense.

Long before you began to participate here, I posted the
following rude, snide response I got from Regan himself
when I asked him to comment on the obvious problem that
cell culture, a medical investigative technique that he
and others refer to as "non animal", in fact isn't non
animal at all: http://tinyurl.com/yqbb7

"ar" and its goofy dietary expression of "veganism" are
full of this kind of contradiction.

>
>>> Why not? Those deaths and maimings are not wholly inadvertent. Many
>>> of them are intentional: pesticides and traps are deliberate.
>>
>>
>> And I agree, such intentional deaths are _also_ wrong and should be
>> eliminated, as far as possible.
>
>
> "As far as possible" is a very pragmatic qualifier coming from a
> utopian. Elimination of death and suffering, too, sounds good, but how
> practical is it in the real world? Answer: not very. Your food will
> always have death and suffering attributed to it. Those are inescapable
> measures that veganism doesn't address, just brush over and snip.
>
>>>> Regan's argument is based on
>>>> intentional acts which violate the rights of subject-of-a-life beings.
>>
>>
>>> Weak sophistry. Even organic farmers intentionally violate those same
>>> "rights" by applying pesticides, among other practices. So, too, do
>>> granaries and warehouses when they follow the law and engage in
>>> pro-active pest management.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree those methods should _also_ be eliminated as far as
>> possible.
>
>
> Agree with whom? I don't want rats or weevils living in my food. Kill them!
>
>> But one does not follow justice by incorporating two
>> evils rather than one into one's life.
>
>
> You're still engaging in passivist sophistry. I don't think pest control
> is an evil: it saves human lives by reducing the risk posed by vermin.
> But I do understand your misanthropic objections to pest management.
>
>>>> Those acts must be ended to follow Regan's ethics.
>>
>>
>>> You cannot see the forest for the trees. The vegan-AR agenda is
>>> predicated on delusions, chief among them is the belief that
>>> abstention from meat causes no/reduced animal casualties.
>>
>>
>> I certainly do not believe that -- I know some unjust and unnecessary
>> deaths are inherent in all production of products: unjust toward
>> humans, unjust toward animals, unjust toward our obligations as stewards
>> of God's creation. But that does not make meat-production just.
>
>
> It doesn't make it unjust, either. Dropping God's name only invites a
> recitation of passages dealing with how animals are to be treated, not
> to mention how they can be eaten. The great irony in your religious
> views is: what God allows, you condemn; what God condemns, you promote.
>
>>> All that really means, though, is that one doesn't actually eat the
>>> animals killed in the course of their own food production. Animals
>>> still suffer and die, both intentionally and unintentionally, for
>>> their grains, veggies, fruits, and beans. That leads you to the
>>> counting game, which only shows the complete moral failure of
>>> veganism as a solution to a problem it's supposed to address.
>>
>>
>> I don't engage in the counting game -- which seems to be your chief
>> complaint against me ( and Regan) here. I say injustice is injustice --
>> I am not a utilitarian.
>
>
> Yet you continue committing and supporting what you perceive to be
> injustice. My chief complaint is that you're a sanctimonious hypocrite.
>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The fact remains that the "solution" promoted by you, Regan, and the
>>> folks at Peta consists of grains, legumes, veggies, and fruits. Those
>>> foods are grown without regard for animals,
>>
>>
>> Not by vegans
>
>
> You admit CDs occur; you purchase foods. You call it injustice, yet you
> support the cycle. You're no more ethical than anyone else. You're a
> hypocrite.
>
>>> and animals still die for vegan diets despite everything said by
>>> activists. I think you're morally obligated to tell the truth:
>>> animals still die in a vegan diet, and in many cases more animals die
>>> than if one eats grazed ruminants and home-grown vegetables.
>>
>>
>> I've no problem with home-grown vegetables. I don't know any vegan
>> activist who suggest people buy agribusiness-produced veggies RATHER
>> than home-grown. This is another strawman.
>
>
> No, it isn't a strawman. Where do you draw the line at "agribusiness"?
> The local co-op gets their organic vegetables from the same suppliers as
> most of the grocery chains (exception noted below). Much of that produce
> comes from the same farms, and some of the organic produce is from large
> distributors like Earthbound Farms. Do you consider the mass-market fare
> from Earthbound agribusiness? Or only stuff from Dole and other companies?
>
> One of the larger grocery chains here (HEB) skips middle-men and has
> deals with Texas farmers. While the co-op is selling produce from
> California and even overseas, the chain is selling organic and
> conventional produce from local farmers. Why do vegans then continue to
> shop at the co-op, much less buy from large outfits like Earthbound Farms?
>
> http://heb.com/yourHEBStore/SD-produce.jsp
>