"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "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.
>>
>
> No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
> said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.
> That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation behind
> veganism. And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who are you to
> tell me otherwise?
>
>> > Most animal products are the product of factory farming.
>>
>> And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed produce,
>
> I'm not convinced that using "factory farming" to cover monoculture
> crop production is a reasonable use of the term. If we decide that it
> is, substitute "animal products derived from intensively reared
> animals" for "factory farm produce". What does a word matter.
>
>> therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring.
>>
>
> Intensive rearing of animals *is* (the main part of) the issue.
>
>> > 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".
>>
>
> In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared animals.
> My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that
> there is a strong moral case for it.
>
>> >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.
>
> It depends on to what degree you accept that boycotting "animal
> products" *reduces* your contribution to animal suffering - and I
> haven't seen any reason to think otherwise yet.
>
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>
> Make a specific criticism of it.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>
> What's your evidence that that would lessen the toll of animal death?
>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>
> Yes, but animal food production for the most part entails more
> environmental damage and more animal 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.
>>
>
> I am being perfectly rational and open-minded. The only reason you have
> that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans. Anyway,
> when you've defended your criticism of the article with argument I'll
> take it seriously, but not before, obviously.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>
> Why is it nonsense to suppose that it is ethically better to reduce
> your contribution to animal suffering?
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> Why not?
>
>> > I don't
>> > see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.
>>
>> I have, you can't hear.
>
> No, you haven't. You've begun to gesture in the direction of an
> argument in this post by making some unsupported assertions that eating
> a small amount of meat, fish and game will further reduce the animal
> death toll. Just describe the diet which you think causes less
> suffering than a vegan diet, and *give evidence that it does*.
>

OK, think of it this way. The ONLY way to even come close to causing, or
contributing to, animal deaths is this: To live in the wilds somewhere, no
fire (possible forest fire), no electronics, liqueur, cigarettes, bug spray,
ad infinitum. The only thing you could eat would be some leaves, nuts,
berries etc., but not too much, animals compete for those same resources.
Maybe you could eat carrion, if you really wanted to.

Obviously, that is not feasible, as well as being pretty damn silly. So
your choice becomes: an industry that kills 1000s of animals per acre to
feed the minority, or an industry that kills dozens (tops) per acre for the
majority?

Now, you next main problem with the "suffering", vegan side or meat eater
side. You have no way to prove that all, or even a majority, of livestock,
suffer at all. By the same token, meat eaters use figures skewed or spun to
make their side look better. Terms like "up to" and "as many as". No
problem at all, the choice is an individuals to make. Preaching only makes
people dig their heels in.

You must admit crop production causes death and suffering, as any meat eater
will tell you some animals suffer because of their decisions. There is no
way to avoid it, from either side.

I have no problem with the "health vegan", that uses the diet for supposed
health benefits, they usually aren't preachy. It is the hippie vegans that
act like Jahova Witnesses and try to convert you using half the facts, and
half of those wrong, that make my ass pucker.