Rupert wrote:

>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
> wrote
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
>>>>>rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
>>>>>mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?
>>>>
>>>>Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
>>
>>It carries much more baggage than that.
>>
>>
>>>It doesn't matter
>>>very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
>>>thought this was a correct application of the word.
>>
>>I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
>>farming".
>>
>>Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.
>>
>
>
> Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
> for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
> referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
> phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
> about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
> then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
> farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
> myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
> possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
> what he has to say on the matter.

You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
the Antecedent.

If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of
animals.

I don't eat meat;

therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of
animals.

This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
killing them to eat them. GIVEN that *all* you have
done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
check.


>>>Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
>>>intensive rearing of animals.

RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
raise animals and crops.


>>>Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
>>>more suffering than what he was referring to.
>>
>>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
>>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..
>>
>
>
> (1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
> (2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
>
> Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
> by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
> it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
> production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
> estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
> killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
> more.
>
>
>>>>>Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
>>>>>but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
>>>>>serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
>>>>>animal suffering then I would consider it.
>>>>
>>>>Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
>>>>of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
>>>>to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
>>>>are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
>>>production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
>>>don't think you can.
>>
>>I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
>>conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.
>>
>
>
> That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
> in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
> Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
> support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
> that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
> require veganism or near-veganism.

You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
standard for deciding what's reasonable.


> It's not altogether clear to me that
> it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture. That depends
> on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
> open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that "making
> every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting commercial
> agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should accept some
> more stringent moral principle, which would require me to stop
> supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it requires some
> argument.
>
>
>>>What I do think is that we should make every
>>>reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the suffering of
>>>animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
>>>way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some suggestions for how
>>>I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.
>>
>>A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and suffering
>>associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some carefully
>>selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their diet by hunting
>>or fishing for example.
>
>
> Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving of food.
> I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.
> And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
> some of them are just seriously maimed. So the amount of suffering and
> death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first.
> Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you suggest I
> buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
> the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?
>
>
>>Also a person who also grows much of their own food
>>*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that typical urban vegan.
>>
>
>
> Consumes what sort of meat?
>
> Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal. I'll consider
> that one.
>
>
>>Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things, I am just
>>asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.
>>
>
>
> Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
> suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to animal death
> and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.
>
>
>>>I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop supporting
>>>commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If you've got some
>>>ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as well.
>>
>>Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I would like you
>>to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for myself.
>
>
> There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
> reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
> feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
> agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
> to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.
>