Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I do. I've been defending it.

> 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.
>

No, it's not. And, also, as far as I can tell it's irrelevant.

> 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.
>

No, I have the information I've read. It leads me to believe that by
being vegan I'm reducing my contribution to animal suffering. I'm
waiting for people to provide contrary evidence.

> 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.
>

Yes, I do.

> 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.
>

I don't assume it, I believe I have reasonable evidence for it. I'm
sorry if it disgusts you.

> >
> >
> >>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.
>

I quote his principle and say I believe in it. Is there a problem with
that?

>
> > 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.
>

I've yet to see any evidence for the philosophical incoherence of
ethical veganism.

>
> > 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.

Yes, I can and I do.