On Dec 29, 10:59*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 2:45 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....
> >> Argument is unsound: *based on false premises.
>
> > Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false?
>
> Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to
> produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral.
>

That's not on his list of premises. He explicitly gives the list of
premises in an appendix for your convenience.

>
>
> > I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable?
>
> Junk philosophy.

I am not altogether heartbroken that you think that, because it is
extremely obvious to any person of good sense that you were talking
drivel, and I pointed out the reasons why in a rather cogent fashion.
You have declined to attempt to respond, so I'll take it as read that
you cannot give a satisfactory response.