"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > 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.

There is no individual accountability in society accept for individual
actions. The food system is produced socially not individually, and highly
influenced by vested interests - buyers have little choice if they want
vegan friendly goods. If farmers choose to produce food in an unvegan way,
that is largely their responsibility, and partly societies.

> in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that
> spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely
> painlessly.

Sure.

> > 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".

So what, this issue is dealt with by veganic agriculture.

Let me put this to you. In pre slavery abolition America, even pro
abolitionists exploited black labour, heck even the slaves used things that
were the product of the exploitation of other slaves. Are you suggesting
that the abolitionists share the same burden of responsibility as the pro
slavers? In cases of "moral judgement" it is intent that counts, often more
so than consequences. That is why some vegans may consider themselves
morally superior.

> 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 about not intentionally exploiting animals - this is achievable,
vegans really do attempt to not exploit animals. If some vegans have a
"false sense" then that is an issue with them and not veganism. The idea of
cds and veganic agriculture probably were not included in the definition of
veganism because they should be patently obvious and probably because at the
time the society started going, were impractical for most, as indeed it
still is.

> > Veganism is inclusive
>
> Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior
club.

They exclude people who intentionally eat meat, but there are a range of
opinions on what else is eaten. Some include honey for example, I believe
this is incorrect. Some such as myself would see taking a roadkill as
acceptable, or also the use of second hand leather goods and so on. There
are no specifics on many such issues, it is up to the individual. The use of
animal products in medicine is also contentious.

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

Not true, see above. You cannot presume to speak for all vegans.

> > 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?

No, because cds in plant food production are incidental, they are not the
objective of plant food production, furthermore veganism is about
exploitation. Road traffic fatalities are an inneviable consequence of
driving cars, that does not make all car drivers the same as someone who
sets out to run people over. Intent is part of the moral equation. Of course
we can have endless fruitless discussions about morality and get nowhere.
The facts will remain that exploiting and causing intentional suffering to
animals should be avoided where practical and possible. That is the vegan
agenda.

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

Your point is absurd because all human activity involves CDs, one can say
the same of potato eating. However, if we really can say that rice
production causes less deaths than say potatoes, then vegans should pick
potatoes.

> It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms.

I agree, which is why we don't need veganism to be a science. Veganic
agriculture would produce the least exploitation and suffering.

> 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.

No it does not. A salmon is an omnivore and so itself consumes many other
animals to grow. When you eat up the food chain, energy efficiency is lost
and CDs rise geometrically.

> 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.

Even herbivores eat huge quantities of insects and are responsible for CDs.
No real numbers are available. If you have real numbers post them, or drop
this issue.

> > 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.

True, then perhaps it should be an issue.

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

A person who eat meat is not a vegan, so is not "in veganism". Some "vegans"
eat honey, they are frowned upon by some vegans, others are not so
concerned.

> 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.

So what? That desn't mean many people can't be more vegan, and I would has
at a guess most land could be productive on plant foods, apart from a few
extreme areas like Tibet. Personally I would migrate rather than kill
animals to live. But this is a side issue.

> People can't eat trees.

You can eat palm hearts, fruit and nuts, and some tree roots.

> > There is no reason it would not work for most.
>
> That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously.

There is substantial literature on reforestation.

> >> 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.

Where it is often detrimental to the environment and biodiversity. Free
range meat is not what is eaten on average, and may well not be affordable
to most people or productive enough for all to "enjoy".

> > 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

You may only be responsible for 1/3000 of the animals death, but you also
necessitated the deaths of all the animals it killed.

Actually I agree that meat eaters are collectively responsible for all the
animals they pay to be killed. In the US about 1 million animals are
slaughtered per hour (not all for meat) and therefore Americans meat eaters
are responsible for most those deaths collectively. If most people went
vegan, that whole food system and the slaughter would mostly cease.

> > 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.

I think you still have no case against veganism, just a desire to criticise
vegans on some subjective moral principles.

John