On Dec 29, 3:57*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 11:32 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
> > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> It's enough.
>
> > No.
>
> It is.
>

Enough for what?

Enough to achieve whatever it is you get out of being here, no doubt,
but why would anyone care about that?

Enough to make a satisfactory response, obviously not.

Sheesh.

>
>
>
>
> >>>> *He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
> >>>> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
> >>>> farming".
> >>>>>> 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
> >> The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know
> >> what he's talking about. *For one thing, environmental degradation
> >> applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable
> >> agriculture. *For another, it is the economic cost of environmental
> >> degradation that is of concern. *No one with a brain wants to avoid any
> >> and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want
> >> to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social
> >> benefit. *There is going to be some environmental degradation involved
> >> in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production.
>
> > First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one
>
> It's another slender reed that won't support the bloated weight of what
> he wants to believe.

Why did you snip the rest of the paragraph?