"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote

[..]
> I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
> general don't care about collateral damage. We do.

Bullshit, of the thousands of vegetarian websites and publications out
there, what proportion of the time do you suppose is spent dealing with the
issue? .0001% would be a generous estimate. 99.9999% of vegan effort is
aimed at interfering with the lifestyles and customs of other people.

>> > 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.

You lost track of the point, above, *you* blamed "meatarians" for the
"destructive agriculture practices" that support *vegan* diets. You attack
others not only for their choices but for your own.

>> 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.

You're splitting hairs, compassion is a moral principle.

> The ending
> of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000 animals
> lives and suffering per hour.

That's horseshit.

>> > 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.

You're spouting self-serving platitudes.

>> > 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.

Where did you get that figure? And if we are going use sweeping global
numbers, how many animals do you suppose are harmed by other forms of
agriculture? I know that I can raise a couple of animals and the meat from
them can feed several families for many months.

>> > 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.

That's bullshit John and I'm not fooled by it. This is not about "the
brutality of modern animal farming", it's about using animals for food *at
all*. The so-called "ethical vegan" opposes farming of animals even in the
most ideal of circumstances.

> 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.

Bad analogy. People who steal from electronics stores have no business
condemning people who rob liquor stores. We all cause unecessary death and
suffering of animals with our selfish choices. Vegans are no different,
except that because the victims are not visible on their plates or on their
feet, they pretend that they don't exist.

>> 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?

Vegan attacks on the lifestyles of others contain an implicit claim that
they inhabit a higher moral plane.

>> > 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.

Then explain why you used the term "global capitalist system" in such a
pjorative way.

>> > 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.

More self-serving blather.

>> >> 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.

Meatarian is *intended* as a slur, vegetarian isn't. People who use such
manufactured words are demonstrating that they just can't pass up an
opportunity to sling insults.

>> > 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 don't know what you mean.

>> > I'm fine with that.
>>
>> I'm not.
>
> What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering by
> comparison?

Instead of what?

>> > 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.

You're just restating the same false and simplistic formula. Not all land is
capable of supporting intensive argiculture, much of it is best used for
grazing or growing grasses. You are also ignoring the fact that a large
proportion of animal feeds are by-products of other processes. My own wheat
crop this year is destined to be livestock feed because of the bad weather
this past harvest. You would have the entire northern prairie ploughed
under.

>> > 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

Look at any tract of mountainous or semi-arid prairie land.

>> > 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.

No you're not, you're using sophistry, and you probably don't even know it.
The best example from this post was the use of the phrase "the brutality of
modern animal farming" when attempting to justify vegan attitudes towards
use of animals for meat.

> 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.

I doubt it.

> . 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?

Because a large proportion of the resources we use would not be available
unless processed first by animals. The vast majority of the plant matter on
the earth is inedible and useless to humans unless animals eat it and turn
into edible muscle mass. You advocate eliminating it all from our food
chain.

There also happens to be large market surplus of the foods you advocate
producing more of.

[..]