On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:10:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>>>>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>>>>>>>>they do NOT act as they say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The vegan does not kill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
>>>>>>vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
>>>>>>the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
>>>>>>moral agency than the meatarian.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, the vegan is a shitty buck-passer
>>>>
>>>>The vegan has no buck to pass, being that he doesn't
>>>>kill.
>>>
>>>Why can't the vegan eat meat or wear leather or fur from animals he
>>>doesn't kill?
>>
>> Some will argue that a vegan can.
>
>You've written in the past that
> My veganism is purely from an ethical point of view but
> allows me to scavenge meat from contented animals that
> have died from natural causes.
> Dreck, Nov 5 2003

If you were to include the rest of what I wrote
regarding this issue you'll see I wrote a lot more,
proving that despite the definition of veganism
given in http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html ,
many vegans, including myself, will allow meat
under certain circumstances if the animal hasn't
been exploited to get it. My argument with James
on this issue was to show that, while some will
argue that vegans can eat such meats, such fare
falls outside the more strict definition of veganism.

[start - Dutch to me]
> > "I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm and eat them."
> > Derek 03/11/03 13:14

To put the record straight on this. That quote of
mine has been dishonestly taken entirely out of
context. In fact, it only includes half a sentence
which begins with an "if" condition which has been
completely omitted;

"By partially accepting Harrison's argument, I'm
sticking my neck out as far as I can on this. *If
animals can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic
settings with vetinary care*, I see no reason why
we shouldn't continue to farm and eat them. It's the
abattoir and frequent abuses of their right to
freedoms that stops me agreeing with him fully."
*my emphasis*
Derek 03/11/03

My partial acceptance of Harrison's argument is well
documented.

"Our World is much richer because we have animals
to share it with. David has every reason to want more
and more animals to experience life. I do. But get rid
of the slaughter house if that's where they're destined."
firstoftwins 2001-09-28

> Far it be from me to support Derek Nash, but I believe his statment meant
> that assuming animals were allowed to live idyllic (happy) lives and die of
> old age or other natural causes, then he could see no ethical objection to
> such a system. I don't think that goes against a reasonable vegan point of
> view,

It doesn't go against my point of view or standard
of veganism. Consider a farm where all the livestock
are given every freedom, foodstuff and vetinary care
needed to live in complete contentment without an
abattoir sitting in the middle of it all. What possible
ethical objection could there be from ARists or
welfarists to shun such shelters?

> although it does violate the basic vegan so-called principle of "using
> animals for our benefit".

There is no such principle. Veganism does allow the
use of animals for our benefit as long as they aren't
exploited or violated. There's no rule that I'm aware
of which stops adherents from scavenging off
carcasses which have lived and died naturally.

There are at least two types of veganism.

[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
food, clothing or any other purpose.

In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing
with all animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry,
eggs, animal milks, honey, and their derivatives.

Abhorrence of the cruel practices inherent in dairy,
livestock and poultry farming is probably the single most
common reason for the adoption of veganism, but many
people are drawn to it for health, ecological, spiritual
and other reasons.]
http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

My veganism is purely from an ethical point of view but
allows me to scavenge meat from contented animals that
have died from natural causes, while "Usual Suspect's"
veganism, on the other hand, is from a dubious health
point of view which doesn't allow him to eat any meat at
all under any circumstances.
[end]
http://tinyurl.com/4cl6e

As you can see, while the given definition excludes all meat,
"My veganism is purely from an ethical point of view but
allows me to scavenge meat from contented animals that
have died from natural causes."

>> James Strutz argued
>> with me that a vegan could eat the meat from road kill,
>
>Given your quote above, why couldn't (or if you object to that, why
>SHOULDN'T) a vegan eat road kill in good conscience?

I believe he could, but that food wouldn't be regarded as
vegan fare in the strict sense of the word given in the
above definition, and that's what my argument with James
concerned itself with.

>Along the same
>lines, why do you consider any such scavenging acceptable -- whether
>from "natural causes" or "accidents," like the sliced fawn in the combine?

I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity
is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally
when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas.
Road kill is the closest you'll get to finding accidental deaths,
but even those incidents are open to debate in my view.