"Rupert" > wrote
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
> animal products.
> --------------->
>
> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to
> minimize
> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like,
> does
> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are
> not
> necessarily linked.

No such claim was made. The claim was that
------->

Whatever you did that one post to allow the insertion of carats is not
happening.

(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering
-------->

Nobody is denying that. That's the reasonable claim I mentioned earlier.

, and Ball has
done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is ****ing
OBVIOUS)
---------->

It's not morally bankrupt to avoid animal products, it isn't even a bad
idea, it is morally bankrupt to transpose moral conclusions about it from
the notion that animals must be liberated and project those conclusions onto
others.


[..]

Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is
a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans
inflict less suffering on nonhumans.
--------->

I think it is an absurd strategy. For one thing hominids have included
animal products as part of their survival strategy for millions of years,
for another thing, a lot of land is unsuited for plant agriculture. A
reasonable strategy would be to work towards much higher standards of
treatment for livestock animals, not rejecting AW as counter-productive as
some ARAs do. Very high standards of care would make costs rise and that
would decrease the number of animals *exploited* which is your underlying
goal.