Jay Santos wrote:
> "If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> [consume only locally grown produce]."
>
> - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>
>
> The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> argument.
>
> All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in
> order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the
> rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this:
>
> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
> and death of animals.
>
> I do not consume animal parts;
>
> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
> of animals.
>
> This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the
> Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of
> animals by means other than consuming things made from
> animal parts. The most important way in which this
> occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral
> animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation,
> harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in
> particular causes suffering and death to animals on a
> massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is
> "necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods
> of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without
> any consideration whatever about how many animals were
> killed in the course of their production.
>
> When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
> to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
> life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
> consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
> to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
> doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
> quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
> crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
> of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
> animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
> extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
> lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
> to cause animal death.
>
> Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is
> untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest
> position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be
> utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm
> doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is
> false, as one can easily show that a meat-including
> diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan"
> diet. However, there is no further room for retreat,
> so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and
> either stick with the "I'm doing better than you"
> position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy
> of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to
> their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can."
>
> This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
> Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
> defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
> make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
> reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
> locally produced foods and spices (the implication
> being that local production somehow necessarily causes
> fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
> implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
> deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
> makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
> aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
> NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
> supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
> kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
> for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
>
> It can't.
>
> In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> revealing:
>
> You can't accept that I find an improvement good
> enough.
> You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that
> only
> you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which
> is good
> enough for me to be content.
>
> There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>
> In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.

You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.

It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.

That does not make me a killer. Even if more
of these life-forms die than an axe-wielding
murderer kills, still the axe-wielding murderer
is a killer, and I am not. If you don't see the
logic of that, you have no fundamental concept
of justice. I doubt that, though -- I think you
do have the necessary fundamental concepts, you
simply choose to hide them from yourself.

There is no "logic" in your position, it's merely
an extremely convoluted self-justification. Moreover,
it's clear that your position is deriving from your
desire to eat meat and reconcile yourself with
the guilt you feel about it. Your position is
not deriving from pure unbiased thought/logic.
Pretending strenuously is not going to make
it so. Sorry.