|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|
|
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 5:13 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> 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 engage what he said.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Pfffffffffffffffft.
You're a spastic in addition to being a psychotic.
|