> >>>Then people should just do the best they can.
> >>
> >>That's mush, and it completely guts the already faulty
> >>premise behind "veganism".
> >
> >
> > You may think it's mush but it's what I believe.
>
> Then you believe mush. It is not worthy of being
> called an ethical philosophy; it simply isn't one. It
> has no principle behind it, only a faulty rule that
> doesn't lead to a well-defined ethical result.

I don't care if you call it an ethical philosophy or
not. I'm not presenting it as such. The rule of
not eating animal parts is not faulty.

> > I'm not speaking on behalf of vegans everywhere.
>
> It wouldn't matter if you were.

Yes it would. If I was trying to speak on behalf of
all vegans, then it would certainly matter. I won't
assume things about vegans, nor do I feel that
there is a philosophy that absolutely must go with
being vegan (dietary-wise).

> > Everyone has their own personal beliefs and
> > reasons for being vegan
>
> Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
> it up as you go along.

I'm not making it up. Maybe you just don't want to
acknowledge that vegans aren't all alike.

> > and their own opinions about what being vegan involves.
>
> No doubt. That's why it's a worthless
> pseudo-"philosophy". It's purely about YOU and how you
> *feel* about yourself.

Where do you get that? You think being vegan is
worthless because they have their own opinions
about what being vegan involves? You put it down
for having your stereotype and you put it down
for NOT having your stereotype.

> >>>And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
> >>>times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
> >>>way to go.
> >>
> >>No, because your pseudo-"philosophy" doesn't contain
> >>anything in it to allow such a weaselly stopping rule.
> >
> >
> > What is my 'pseudo-philosophy' you're referring to?
>
> "Don't consume animal parts". It clearly isn't a
> philosophy, it's just a stupid rule, and it's a
> complete mystery why you get any satisfaction out of
> following it. You clearly have NOT thought this through.

Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not. The rule
is not stupid, and as a whole causes way less cds
than a meateating diet. The satisfaction I get out
of it is great health and happiness that I've done
the best I can animal-wise.

> > And what's this 'stopping rule' thing?
>
> In terms of trying to do what you claim is the right
> thing to do, you stop at not *consuming* animal parts.
> That does NOT mean you don't kill animals.

So what's your point? My point is better less cds
than more. Simple.

> It gets worse than that. You originally clung to a
> false belief that by not consuming animal parts, you
> were causing zero harm to animals (you are a classic
> case of the "vegan" believer in the classic Denying the
> Antecedent fallacy). You felt the result was absolute.
> Then, when shown that you still cause death and
> suffering to animals, you retreated to a relativistic
> position that entails only causing less harm than the
> typical person in some other group, whom you demonize.
> You have made your virtue contingent on the behavior
> of others. That can't be any virtue at all.

There's nothing wrong with taking a relativistic position.
We live relatively in this world. Obviously if you can't
cause 0 deaths, you go for as few as you can. Vegan
diets, even including things like rice and plantains
cause fewer cds than your average meat-based diets.

> Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
> than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,
> as you know you can't get the number down to zero.
> Let's say further that, for some reason, the typical
> omnivore's CD toll now doubles. Let's also say that
> your toll increases by 75%. You are *still* causing
> fewer than the typical omnivore - in fact, because his
> doubled and yours only increased by 75%, your ratio has
> improved - but you ALSO are causing more total CDs.
> This CANNOT be a good ethical result, but according to
> the ONLY standard you have, you would feel entitled to
> call it one.

The above what-if game is bonkers. Let's stick to
what-is.

> Your adoption of "veganism" as some kind of response to
> what you perceive as an ethical problem is clearly
> poorly thought out, and is in fact simply junk.

It's actually in response to both health and ethical
concerns. I don't care if you think it's junk. You're
free to think anything you want.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.