"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
> in
>> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
>> > not,
>> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
>> > such
>> > practices
>>
>> Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
>> real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
>> based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.
>
> It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
> farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
> veganisms.

You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually
live, not the lifestyles we imagine. My kharma includes the lives of animals
in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that
spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely
painlessly.


>> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
>>
>> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not
> intend
>> to reflect a specific number of deaths.
>
> It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
> authoitative numerical facts.

You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in agriculture
that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I
consume no animal products=I harm no animals".

>> I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
>> of
>> animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
>> acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
>> synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.
>
> This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
> with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
> for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

That was obfuscation, you illustrated my point.

>> This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
>> flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
>> to
>> always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical
> or
>> possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the
> basic
>> rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself
> morally
>> upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
>> being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.
>
> Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
> indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.

People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a flaw
because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans.

> Veganism is inclusive

Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior club.

> and tries not to be too dogmatic

The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves
slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption.

<snips not noted>

>> It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
>> being high in collateral animal deaths.
>
> Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
> vegans.

You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and possible
NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and
possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet
vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and possible
NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the
hypocrisy?

> However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
> activity. Where possible it should be reduced.

"it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice"

> It is hard to establish
> numbers,

It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms.

> hence the lack of rules.

You don't know the number of pigs that die because I have a couple of strips
of bacon with my breakfast on the weekend, but you still have a rule against
it.

>> That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
>> sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.
>
> where are the numbers?

You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not
hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal
death. If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely
represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that goes
into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of soya
beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered.

>> Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
>> type
>> that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
>> guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.
>
> I agree, over eating is unvegan.

I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan
publication I know of.

> No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.

Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism?

>> Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.
>
> How?

A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is processed
through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion of
the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable, untended,
or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds
populations depends on raising animals.

>> 90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any
> other
>> way.
>
> Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

People can't eat trees.

>> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
> workable
>> solution to feeding the human population.
>
> There is no reason it would not work for most.

That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously.

>> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
>> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Exceptions mislead!

It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is
available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world.

>> animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
>> known
>> to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a
> rice/soy/carrot/pea
>> concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
>> choose the moose.
>
> This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death. Just because your
<gag> tempeh steak </gag> has no visible animal content does not mean it
does not carry a legacy of at least that small amount of animal death.

>> It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
>> avoidable.
>
> I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
> we
> should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
> carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.
>
>> In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.
>
> It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
> men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
> beings.

I think you are already living on the moon John.