"Rupert" > wrote
> Leslie wrote:
>> Found scrawled in the outhouse on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Rudy
>> Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Rupert wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Dutch wrote:
>> <snip for brevity>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> Rupert, I did submit a proposal requiring about 35 acres and quite a bit
>> of funding. It
>> would be *possible* for you to entirely do without grocery stores for
>> food; but it's not a
>> realistic probability because of the number of variables. For example,
>> the cow gets sick
>> and needs penicillin. There goes your milk supply for 30 days. You get an
>> early,
>> devastating frost and there goes your veggie garden. You get a wheat/oat
>> fungus and there
>> goes your feed for your livestock. To build your house and sheds you must
>> use lumber. How
>> many creatures are killed, maimed or done out of their nests in that
>> process?
>>
>> You see, you can't get entirely away from collateral damage or death in
>> the course of
>> trying to survive. It was never meant to be that black and white. You
>> can't count on the
>> vagaries of weather, disease and natural disasters like floods or
>> tornados. Accept your
>> role. Believe me, non-vegans will respect you for accepting your
>> responsibility. And you
>> can respect yourself for being honest.
>>
>> Fair warning: that will be my last effort to bring you into reality
>> nicely and reasonably.
>> Further stubborn adherence to the common vegan misconceptions about
>> contributory
>> destruction may trigger my less pleasant side.
>>
>
> I never suggested I could get away from collateral damage or death in
> the course of trying to survive.

The idea is rampant among vegans. Even if you now concede this point
"intellectually", the mindset you have embraced was formed without
considering this reality, and now it's firmly embedded in your
consciousness. Re-assessing these moral conclusions is going to take real
WORK on your part, involving digging deep and finding a reservoir of
strength of character.

> I do believe, however, that there is a
> moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to minimize one's
> contribution to animal suffering.

That's a very wishy-washy excuse for a moral principle. If you avoiding
harming humans with the same dedication you would have been locked up long
ago.

> It seems to me that avoiding animal
> products is a reasonable way of doing that.

It's a silly way, it's founded in a fallacy, it spawns all sorts of aberrant
and anti-social thinking, and a a diet of all vegan food is boring.

> If you have any other
> suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.

OK, get off this "vegan" bandwagon, remove the blinders from your eyes and
rejoin the human race.