View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ray
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering and
> death that results from their own food production. Their objections to
> animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat. They'd
> rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so they can
> bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain and other
> plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical because they
> assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at least "plus one" in
> the counting game.
>
> It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.
>
> Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
> animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
> single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
> their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The vegans
> and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.
>
> If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
> offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves were
> responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
> collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
> meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths number
> 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because they're
> uneaten.
>
> Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
> ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
> actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
> raise about animal cruelty.
>
> The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
> slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
> We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and to
> protect the public's safety.
>
> Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
> run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some croplands
> like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding from
> irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're wounded
> and left to die or for scavenging.
>
> If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and ARAs
> would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
> trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit as
> cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more candid
> that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
> which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
> causes many animals to die or become injured.
>
> Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
> however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
> claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
> self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
> objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
> result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come from
> the deaths of the first 1000.
>
> Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
> 1001st Death" proves it.




**** off you trolling bore.