On Dec 29, 7:30*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
> > wrote:
> >> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
> >> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
> >> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about
> >> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
> >> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
>
> >> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
> >> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
>
> > What's the fallacy in this argument?
>
> >http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20...
>
> The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling
> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
> meat consumption is immoral.
>

He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the
case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there
anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products
of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case
that I wanted to make.

> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
>

No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
criticise. It is an environmental argument. We went through the
distinction before. As I have made clear repeatedly you have done
nothing to cast doubt on the environmental argument. Making the
*purely* economic argument, which is the target you set yourself and
the only one to which your criticisms apply, is extremely rare.

> The sophistry of guys like this is simply staggering. *They have a
> position to which they've leapt, and then they try to backfill the
> yawning chasm behind them.

Just specify where the argument breaks down. Which of the premises are
wrong? Do you concede the case against factory farming, and if not,
why not? Or if you think the generalisation beyond factory farming is
unwarranted then address the remarks he makes about that and show why
the additional generalisation is "unwarranted".

Recall that my claim was that this paper offers compelling reasons for
boycotting *almost* all animal products. I don't think that the paper
is free of logical gaps, no, but I believe that it achieves something.

In any event, you have left by rebuttal of your endlessly-repeated
tirade about vegans being morally bankrupt unreplied to, so I take it
you agree that those remarks of mine are unanswerable and that you
were posting indefensible nonsense all those years? Of *course* you do
because despite strenuous efforts to give a contrary impression you
actually are at least a moderately intelligent person, in your best
moments at least.