"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message .net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Much, much better. You obviously had it in you all
> along; pity you had to play a weird game for so long.
>
> >
> > Jon, et. al.,
> >
> > Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
> > from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
> > game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
> > animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
> > You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
> > them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
> > zealous vegans.
>
> Exactly right. No omnivore in his right mind is going
> to get into a death-counting ****ing contest with
> "vegans". It seems eminently reasonable to me to
> acknowledge that "vegans" almost certainly cause the
> deaths of far fewer animals than omnivores.

Exactly. So if one's goal is to follow the least-harm
diet, then he is morally obligated to follow a vegan
diet.

[..]

> There are quite a few problems with "veganism", but the
> worst ones stem from the simplistic and bad thinking
> inherent in "animal rights", of which "veganism" is the
> dietary expression. A "vegan" - a so-called "ethical
> vegetarian" - need not be an ardent believer in "animal
> rights", and even less need be well-versed in the
> written dogma handed down by "ar"/"al" gurus like Tom
> Regan and Peter Singer; in fact, most "vegans" probably
> are not well-read on "ar" issues at all. It suffices
> for them to believe that it is morally wrong for humans
> to kill animals, based on some possibly inchoate notion
> that the animals have some kind of "right" not to be
> killed. To the extent that the "vegan" is NOT
> well-versed in the "ar" literature, his belief about
> the wrongness of killing animals can't very well be
> said to be well-founded; to the extent he might be
> well-versed, he still is faced with fact that "ar" is
> far from a persuasive political/legal/ethical
> philosophy

Ipse dixit and false.

> and in fact is not accepted as the
> prevailing belief anywhere in the world.
>
Argumentun ad populum.

> Regardless of the degree to which the "vegan" is aware
> of and active in the "ar" movement, the *practice* of
> "veganism" is seen, upon examination, to be utterly
> inadequate as a route to reach the "vegan's" presumed
> goal, which is to "respect" the "right" of animals not
> to be harmed by humans. "veganism" is strictly a
> consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts, or
> things made from or by animals". This rule is, no
> matter how much some polemical "vegans" wish to deny
> it, based upon a logical fallacy:
>
> If I consume animal parts, I cause harm to animals.
>
This first premise is false since the consequent
isn't a necessary condition for the antecedent to
exist. Thus your conclusion will be false, too.

> I do not consume animal parts;
>
> therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
You false premise ruins your argument, making
your conclusion false.

<snip straw man>