John Deere wrote:

> 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.

No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".