"John Coleman" > wrote in message >...
> "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?

So aren't you the one who said:

"vegans do "veganic" agriculture"?



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

Prove it.
>
> > > 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.

What responsibility do you take for the animals that die to feed
you?
>
> > 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.

Compassion isn't a moral position?


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.

Your use of the word "murder" is a silly appeal to emotion fallacy.
>
> >
> > > 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.

False. You are the one claiming it's unjust. Quit making
unsubstantiated claims and then weasel out by pretending it's your
opponenets responsibility to disprove them.


Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
> should not speak out.

You're being obtuse. It's quite obvious from this discussion that he
meant they can't criticize without revealing their own hypocrisy. Stop
looking for loopholes and make an honest response for once.


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.

Your analogy is illogical. He was comparing apples to apples (animal
deaths in meat production and animal deaths in plant production). You
are comparing apples and oranges (abuse vs. murder).
>
> > 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?

"More " ethically pure than those who disagree with them. Your
desperation is telling.
>
> >
> > > 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

Nobody said you were.
>
> I am not suggesting any global system, or any centre of power of any kind.

That's nice, now why don't you answer the question? Why don't you
actually answer *A* question? That would at least be an improvement.
>
> >
> > > 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"?

Because it's a non-existent word used only to demean your opponent.

Call a spade a
> spade.

OK; you're a dodging, non-responsive, illogical buffoon. Are you
happy now?



>
> > > 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.

True, but the world already produces more than enough food to feed
the entire human population. So, while what you've said is
"inescapable logic" it's also inescapably irrelevant.
>
> > > 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 you go again. You made the claim, you prove it. You are asking
someone to prove a negative.
>
> > > 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.

False, you are not really discussing it at all, you are merely
making unsupported claims and then acting as though it is your
opponents who bear the burden of proof.
>
> 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.


How convenient.
>
> John