On Dec 30, 2:32*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Your statements.

Which ones? Sheesh. You talk about me wasting time.

This would be called "not answering the question", wouldn't it? I
don't know, it shouldn't be too much of a challenge to give some
indication of what the evidence is, should it? You claim that it's
within your power to do that but for whatever reason chose not to.
Well, you said in recent memory, "You just don't have an answer, do
you?", when I had in fact provided one. So it would seem that when I
have provided an answer that is compelling evidence that I don't have
one, but when you don't provide one you apparently expect people to
believe that you are capable of doing so. Not too sure if that makes a
lot of sense.