Rupert 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 -- that or else your definition of "vegan" is severely deficient.

> Most animal products are the product of factory farming.

So is most produce, and nearly all grains (save for maybe hand-harvested
wild rice).

> It is of
> course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products; my
> point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
> case for boycotting factory-farm produce.

That is NOT the "main part" of veganism. See previous post for
explanation of vegan history and what the word means.

> That gets you to
> near-veganism.

Not even close.

> A lot of people do go further, yes, whether you accept
> the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the individual.

You're spinning, and very uneffectively.

>>>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.

That's a weak defense for reasons mentioned in one of my previous
replies to you.

>>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. The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
> best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.

It's an unfounded claim. Veganism is based on a logical fallacy called
"denying the antecedent." In a nutshell, you claim that you're not
causing harm to animals because you don't eat meat. The truth, though,
is that your diet contains foods which are grown in a manner which does
kill animals, and in staggering numbers.

> Nothing you have said disproves that.

Nothing you've written has *proven* it, either, and that's where this
debate starts and ends.

>>>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 more animals would die. Do you consider a mouse's life to be as
sacred as a cow's?

>>>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 did so in a post to Derek earlier this morning, in reference to a few
of the points Matheny tries to make. The thread is "Ping Skanky: WHAT
valid arguments?"

>>Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
>>go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.
>
>
> What nonsense? Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
> best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.

On what basis, ignoring the harm done to animals in the production of
their food but which will never appear on their plates? That's not
exactly a solid basis for ethics, especially the absolutist ones made by
vegans.

> I don't see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.

Nor have you given anyone a reason to accept your peculiar belief.