On Dec 29, 11:06*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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,
>
> Unpersuasive.

That is not engaging with what he said.

> *He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
> farming".
>

Point out his factual errors then. Just specify which of his premises
is wrong. Is this really too hard for a "master of logic and
philosophy"?

> >> 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.
>
> Absolutely it does: *pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
> environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
> meat consumption is immoral:
>
> 1. *allegedly extremely energy intensive
> 2. *allegedly inefficient use of water
> 3. *alleged nutrient inefficiency
> 4. *soil erosion
> 5. *hazardous waste production
>

For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument you clueless
pointless clown. The reason those things are bad is because they
contribute to environmental degradation. That is made quite clear. You
explicitly conceded that your criticisms were not directed at the
environmental argument, as of course they can't be.

Sheesh. You *cannot* possibly be this stupid.

> *All* of these are offered as *further evidence* that meat consumption
> is immoral.
>

Because of their environmental consequences.

> The whole thing falls to pieces, because of economic and environmental
> illiteracy, along with the basic, inescapable fact that killing animals
> to eat them is not inherently immoral.

He explicitly concedes that *alleged* fact for the sake of argument
and sets out to make his case in that context. You have offered no
evidence of "economic or environmental illiteracy" and the
environmental argument is not necessary for his case anyway, it is an
additional argument.

If the whole thing falls to pieces then you ought to be able to
specify which one of his premises is wrong and why the argument is
invalid.