Rupert wrote:
>
> 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.

But you have no basis for that claim. Furthermore, it
is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan",
you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal
death or suffering.

The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain
from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you
NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but
the abstention is all you have.

For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all,
if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same
number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming
you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable
products have different collateral death tolls, and you
have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are
low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying
to find out.

Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not
consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that
you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency
is disgusting.

>
>
>>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 you happily, and desperately, grab at it.


> and it's hard to avoid
> using vague words altogether, language being what it is.

Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do
with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of
"veganism" that's the problem, not language.


> 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.

You can't say anything meaningful.