Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 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.

My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.

> 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.
>

I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
suffering.

>
> >>>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 DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable", and it's hard to avoid
using vague words altogether, language being what it is. For a moral
principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there
usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it.

I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
*some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.

>
> > 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.
> >