"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Coleman" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> "John Coleman" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> >> "John Coleman" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my
crops,
> >> >> there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?
> >> >
> >> > no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it
is
> >> > cruel
> >> > and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture
> >>
> >> I don't know any vegans who "do agriculture" at all, they shop at the
> >> same
> >> markets I do. Judging from their actions, not your rather glib
> >> assurances,
> > I
> >> conclude that vegans do not have a problem with killing animals to
> >> protect
> >> crops (i.e. paying others to do it for them).
> >
> > Some do, some don't.
>
> Do you have any evidence that more vegans "do agriculture" than the rest
of
> the population? In fact many consumers of meat also patronize organic and
> freedom foods and other "friendly alternatives"

So what? It isn't a competition, I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
general don't care about collateral damage. We do.

> > Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive
> > agricultural practices of meatarians,
>
> It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you attack
> them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern
with
> vegans.

I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so they
ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible.

> That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of animals
> you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have.

I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one. The ending
of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000 animals
lives and suffering per hour.

>
> > If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you,
then
> > I
> > suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who
> > just
> > have to consume their fare.
>
> But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do
> minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy
and
> convenient.

Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting
animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the start.

>
> > Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect.
>
> I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so much
> time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no time
> or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions.

The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian
issue IMO.

>
> > With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the
> > population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan
> > cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more in
> > time.
>
> Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other products
> they consume before they can begin to criticize others.

This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When you
can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time for
vegans not to criticise. Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't
mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get it in
proportion.

> Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their claims
of
> personal ethical purity far outstrips reality.

Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure?

>
> > it is the global capitalist system that lets us down.
>
> Are you suggesting a global communist system might do better, or are you
> just using "global capitalist system " as a catch-phrase to avoid personal
> responsibility?

I am not "responsible" for global capitalism PERIOD

I am not suggesting any global system, or any centre of power of any kind.

>
> > Many vegans I know
> > are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love
to
> > buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well
> > into
> > producing on their own local allotments.
>
> And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you
and
> 99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time.

Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on
dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the vegan
movement back to nature is growing.

>
> >> I can understand and
> >> respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed
further
> >> you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally quite
> >> healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer
> >> animals
> >> than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough?
> >
> > That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality is
> > highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO.
>
> Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The condescending
> way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example.

Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a
spade.

> > I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have
a
> > buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the
supermarket.
>
> I don't advocate "poaching".

I don't advocate poaching either, I just don't deplore it. But do you think
less animals die when you buy potatoes at the supermarket?

> > I'm fine with that.
>
> I'm not.

What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering by
comparison?

>
> > However it is not a scalable solution to the food system
> > problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without
> > detrimentally
> > impacting the biosystems around them.
>
> This is a strawman, I never suggested that hunting (not poaching) was a
> scalable solution to any food system problem. What you need to argue
> convincingly is that veganism *is*. I have yet to hear a vegan argument
that
> does this in anything beyond simplistic terms as you do right below.

The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more land
is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far more
herbivores than carnivores.

> > While I have many concerns about
> > agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting -
> > agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing
less
> > animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?).
>
> That is categorically incorrect and very naive.

prove it

> > There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list,
they
> > always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of
> > veganism.
>
> It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally.

I'm discussing veganism rationally.

Despite your hollow
> protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all

No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas.

.. In fact
> veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a
completely
> unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right
now.

Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable?

> And just as I knew you would, you have failed to answer my original
> question.

Which I forgot long ago.

John