View Single Post
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rupert" > wrote

> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
>> > animals to lead miserable lives.

>>
>> That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
>> not only "factory farmed" meat.
>>

>
> It's not a lie.


Yes, it is.

> Most animal products are the product of factory farming.


And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed produce,
therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring.

> It is of
> course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products;


Thank you.

> my
> point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
> case for boycotting factory-farm produce.


Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and other "animal
products".

>That gets you to
> near-veganism. A lot of people do go further, yes, whether you accept
> the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the individual.


It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that boycotting
"animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death and suffering.

>> > The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
>> > products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.

>>
>> That's true, but meat can be obtained that requires little or
>> no plant supplementation. Vegans oppose all of it.

>
> True. See this article for one possible defence of that.
>
> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf


That article is a mess.

>> And the
>> implication of that position is that it's "plant production" at
>> the root of much of the animal killing in agriculture, a fact
>> which confounds the moral presumptions of veganism.
>>

>
> No, it doesn't.


Yes it does.

> The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
> best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. Nothing
> you have said disproves that.


If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal death by
supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even free-range
pastured meat.

>> > Animal products are an inefficient use of land,

>>
>> That depends on the land. A lot of land is not very arable
>> but ideal for pasture.
>>
>> > so their production
>> > will cause more death of wildlife than the production of plant products
>> > to be fed directly to human beings.

>>
>> Not using non-arable land as pasture and grasses and raw
>> grains as the foundation of the human food chain would mean
>> a lot more intensive, (i.e. "factory") farming of plants.
>>

>
> So what?


So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging to the
envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and suffering.

>> > As for the argument that ruminant-pasture food production causes fewer
>> > deaths than some forms of plant food production, the following article
>> > is worth a look:
>> >
>> > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

>>
>> It's worth a look but not much more, it's full of fallacies,
>> diversionary arguments and unsupported assertions.
>>

>
> Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?


I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in molasses to
pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication that you are
listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e if it appears
your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I have.

>> Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
>> go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.

>
> What nonsense?


The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher moral plane.

> Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
> best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.


You all do, and it's clearly not true.

> I don't
> see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I have, you can't hear.