On Dec 29, 7:12*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
> > wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> ....
> >>> On Dec 29, 11:01 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>> Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does
> >>>> not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the
> >>>> suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware
> >>>> that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously
> >>>> contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with
> >>>> my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one
> >>>> way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to
> >>>> disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no
> >>>> rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony.
> >>>> ---------->
> >>>> Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing
> >>>> animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking..
> >>>> Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse,
> >>>> conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern,
> >>>> like
> >>>> health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by
> >>>> avoiding
> >>>> that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you
> >>>> contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even
> >>>> though
> >>>> you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter"
> >>>> using
> >>>> animals *as end products*.
> >>> I'm not sure what your point is here,
> >>> ------>
> >>> I could hardly make it any clearer, *veganism*, the substitition of
> >>> products which do not contain animal parts, fulfils the principle of not
> >>> *exploiting animals as commodities* but does not elevate or deify the
> >>> vegan in any way more than the omnivore who also takes steps to reduce
> >>> his impact.
> >> Exactly. *The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce;
> >> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can
> >> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided
> >> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering
> >> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.)
>
> > You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary"
> > undefined.
>
> Not "undefined"; flexi-defined. *"Unnecessary", as you and your fellow
> sophists use it, is extremely supple. *It means whatever you need it to
> mean.
>

What's your evidence for that?

> > I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by
> > "little" animal suffering
>
> I'm happy to oblige. *An example might prove instructive and helpful to
> a clueless urbanite like you: *a single high-powered rifle slug through
> the heart of a 70 kg mule deer causes relatively little animal
> suffering. *An agricultural discing machine slicing through a dozen or
> so rabbits to prepare a hectare of land for some grain crop causes
> relatively much animal suffering.
>
> I hope that helps.
>

Well, that's totally awesome, although you'd still have in factor in
the ratios of how much food is produced.

You were referring to "commercially produced meat", you utterly
clueless clown. That was the context.

Sheesh.

> >>> Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in
> >>> this regard,
> >> But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory,
> >> comparative-ethics hypocrite.
>
> > No, it does not.
>
> It does.
>

What's that based on, Ball? Some kind of scientific research with
serious statistical methodology?

Exactly how many vegans have you run into in your time? Were the ones
with whom you discussed the matter in depth all on the Internet?

> >> Nothing could be more obvious: *"veganism", and the irrationally ardent
> >> defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of
> >> legitimate ethics. *
>
> > Nothing could be more obvious
>
> Right - that's what I said.
>

Lame.

> >> There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an
> >> "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan".
>
> > I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care*
> > about whether I am more ethical than you,
>
> Of course you do.
>

Please do me a favour and say that I didn't laugh out loud when I read
that. That was totally awesome.

There is no rational reason about why I would care about whether I am
more ethical than *you*, Ball. I really have no strong reason to think
that that would be any achievement to write home about in any case,
but however that may be there is no reason why I would care. I should
care about being as ethical as I can be. Comparing myself with you
would not be the issue. We can agree on that, yes?

So what exactly gave you the idea that comparing myself with you is
some kind of big issue?

Sorry, my friend David said I have to stop talking to you because I
have to go and talk to him and he says you're not worth spitting on.

> > I care about fulfilling my
> > moral obligations as best I can work out what they are,
>
> You don't do that. *Your moral obligations, if you took them seriously,
> demand that you do much more than you do to reduce the harm to animals
> that your consumption habits cause. *You refuse to do it.

Why do you think that, Ball? And why do the same remarks not equally
apply to you? Presumably because you don't really mean what you
actually said, you mean my obligations *as I conceive them*. Which
would have to be based on what I actually *wrote*.

Dear oh dear. There's just no hope for you, is there?