On Dec 31, 3:57*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
> > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Dec 29, 5:18 pm, "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. Being a
> >>>> vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in this regard, but it
> >>>> carries the risk of turning the person into an anal-retentive nit who
> >>>> studies the small print on bottles of sauce in dimply-lit restaurants,
> >>>> sneers secretively at people in the meat aisle, and drops unsolicited
> >>>> insulting, not-very-subtle suggestions to others about how they should eat.
> >>> No, it doesn't carry those risks. The issue of whether veganism is
> >>> better than conscientious omnivorism
> >> Proof, as if any more were needed, that this is purely about an
> >> invidious, nasty, sanctimonious comparison.
>
> > We're talking about showing some concern for the well-being of
> > animals,
>
> No, we're not. *Refraining from consuming animal parts shows nothing of
> the kind. *What it shows is moral confusion: *thinking that following a
> rule that has *nothing* to do with ethical behavior somehow indicates
> abiding by a moral principle.
>
> There is no principle behind the rule.
>

You know what the principle behind the rule is. What bothers you is
that there is no non-arbitrary point at which other considerations
stop you from going even further. But your attempt to defend your own
lifestyle is unbelievably lame.

> > tempered by some concern for one's own personal interests,
>
> That selfish concern for your alleged "interests" is a total "get out of
> jail card" for "vegans". *

Which you use, too.

And, by the way, I am also appealling to the fact that I am availing
myself of opportunities to help others.

> It allows you to ignore any amount of
> slaughter involved in the provision of the goods you do consume. *

No. I do not ignore it, but I balance it against other considerations,
including opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways.

> It
> completely guts any possibility of claiming to be adhering to a principle..
>
> > yes, so I wouldn't say that the words "invidious", "nasty", and
> > "sanctimonious" were appropriate.
>
> You're wrong, of course - they're fully appropriate. *

Only in your twisted mind, while you lamely claim that you "haven't
got the time" to learn how to be a healthy vegan, when you spend half
your life on here arguing with people whom you despise.

> It's the
> comparison that's being made that is invidious, nasty and sanctimonious.
>
> *ALL* that's left to "vegans" is this filthy comparison. *

What's wrong with the comparison, Ball? Isn't it a comparison worth
making, considering what's at stake?

> There is no
> principle informing your "lifestyle"; there is no "cruelty-free"
> lifestyle being followed; there is no "minimization" being practiced.

Why not? How would you argue that? You would need to show that my
charitable contributions do not offset the suffering and death caused
by my participating in technological civilisation, bearing in mind
that I do *not* accept that all lives are of equal value. So how do
you plan on showing that?

> There is *NOTHING* but obedience of a stupid rule that doesn't result in
> "more ethical" behavior,

Why not? How would you argue that?

> but the lying, sanctimonious, hypocritical
> "vegan" makes the claim anyway.
>

You're boring.

> >> Once again, for the slow learners (among whom number all "vegans", by
> >> definition): *ethical behavior /never/ is determined by a comparison
> >> with the behavior of others. *
>
> > Indeed not.
>
> So, you agree that "vegans'" claim to be "more ethical" simply because
> they follow a silly rule is a false claim.
>

No. Any claim of mine to be good at mathematics would have nothing to
do with comparing myself to you. But that does not mean that it is
incorrect to say that I am better at mathematics than you.

>
>
> >> Ethical behavior consists solely in doing
> >> what is right, without regard to any others. *
>
> > Yep, fine.
>
> So, you agree "vegans" are not behaving ethically based on their own
> (dishonest) statements of belief about animals.
>

Based on what they say, probably not, no, but what I say is different.

>
>
> >> If your brother sodomizes
> >> the four-year-old neighbor boy twice a week, and you "only" sodomize the
> >> boy once a week, you are not "more ethical" than your brother; you are,
> >> in fact, entirely unethical. **Any* amount of sodomy committed against
> >> four-year-old boys makes you unethical - full stop.
>
> > Quite.
>
> "vegans" are still causing animals to die, knowingly, so they aren't
> ethical by their own standard.
>

Not by the standard that some of them advocate, no.

> > Obviously if you are going to try to defend buying any products
> > of commercial agriculture at all you would have to claim that there is
> > some kind of distinction between buying products whose production
> > caused some animal suffering and deliberately sodomising a four-year-
> > old child.
>
> No, no direct tie with sodomizing needs to be made. *It was an
> illustration of the principle that doing less of an immoral act, but
> still doing some of it, cannot be used as the basis for a claim of being
> "more ethical".
>

But some ethical obligations require to make a certain effort in one
direction, where the amount of effort required can be balanced by
other considerations.

> >> If causing "unnecessary" animal suffering and death is wrong, then it's
> >> wrong in any amount. *
>
> > No.
>
> Yes, absolutely.
>

Is blowtorching a stray dog wrong? Why would that be?

> > It could be that there is some kind of moral requirement to make
> > *some* effort to reduce your contribution to it but not every
> > *possible* effort.
>
> There is a requirement to reduce it to zero, if it has any meaning at all..
>

So you agree with Jan Narveson then? If you saw someone blowtorching a
stray dog, you wouldn't call the police?

> > Bit amazing that we constantly have to go over this ground year after
> > year, really...
>
> Not really - you cling to your sanctimonious self-flattery, so you keep
> making the same error.
>

It's not about self-flattery, Ball, it's about doing something
constructive. I am not here to prove myself a good person, if I wanted
to do that then I would be wasting my time around here. I am here to
point out what I take to be errors in your reasoning.

> >> It simply won't do to try to equivocate on the
> >> concept of necessity by appealing to one's own selfish wishes and wants
> >> - that is, one cannot simply define as "necessary" some suffering, the
> >> elimination of which would inconvenience you in the pursuit of purely
> >> selfish goals. *
>
> > We did go over this. That isn't what I did.
>
> It is precisely what you did and continue to do. *You justify your
> refusal to do everything possible to stop causing any animal death by
> your demand for academic glory, as well as comfort.
>

No. You should listen to what I actually say.

> >> If reducing the animal harm caused by your "lifestyle"
> >> would adversely affect your attainment of academic glory, then your
> >> attainment of academic glory will simply have to give way - that is, it
> >> will if there is any compelling reason in the first place to reduce harm
> >> to animals.
>
> > If academic glory were the only consideration,
>
> It and other inessential things like your comfort are, indeed, the
> consideration.
>

Why don't you pay attention to what I have explained to you countless
times?

> You are not behaving "more ethically" than a meat eater simply by
> refusing to consume animal parts - which is, of course, *all* you do.
> This is demonstrated.

No. You can't demonstrate anything because you don't listen to the
arguments your opponent makes.