On Dec 29, 1:05*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "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.
>

Jolly good. Actually, Ball *does* deny it. He replied to this very
same post to which you have just replied to and denied it. So you and
Ball differ. There it is.

But at least we have agreement on this point.

> , 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.
>

Did you have a look at the Mylan Engel Jr essay? I'd be interested in
your comment. I don't say that the essay is free of flaws but I don't
believe that simply putting forward the point of view is morally
bankrupt.

> [..]
>
> 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.

But the amount of land required for plant agriculture would be
enormously less...

> 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.

Well. That's the debate, isn't it.