"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:

[..]

>> One thing I know from experience speaking to vegans is that whatever I
>> say
>> you are going to resist it automatically and vehemently, such is the
>> nature
>> of this idea you have embraced. So I would just ask that you do one thing
>> that takes intellectual integrity, make an honest effort to consider the
>> possibility that what I say *may* be true, even it sounds wrong to you.
>> If
>> it is going to happen at all, your "liberation" is going to involve some
>> pain.
>>
>> It's difficult to know where to begin. I think veganism has it's roots in
>> the political emancipation movements, i.e. it *appears* logical on the
>> surface that the liberation of minorities, women, children and so on
>> should
>> be followed by the liberation of animals, but it isn't logical at all. In
>> order to view the world the way vegans do it is necessary to nominate a
>> few
>> species of animals as *worthy* of consideration and be totally blind to
>> all
>> other animals. I'll give you one example, I own a square mile farm on the
>> prairies, I just returned from the harvest. On the summer fallow portion
>> of
>> my land there is now a population of tiny frogs, I didn't count them, but
>> there must be millions of them. The tenant who farms the land is required
>> to
>> suppress the weedson that land before seeding in the spring so he will be
>> treating it with herbicide which will likely kill those frogs, along with
>> any bugs, rodents and anything that predates on them. This is part of the
>> legacy of wheat, i.e. bread. Mice are just as social and intelligent as
>> cattle, yet my farmer will be poisoning many of them to preserve the
>> grain
>> he is putting into bins this year. Where is the logic in the vegan ideal
>> that says that it is immoral to kill the cattle he keeps in pasture yet
>> remain mute about the million frogs on my grain field? I'll leave it at
>> that
>> for now to hear your reaction.
>
> Where to begin? First of all I should note that, unlike the vast
> majortity
> of vegans, I do make a qualitative distinciton between humans and
> animals
> and between different classes of animal.

Everyone does, vegans pretend either that such distinctions do not exist or
misconstrue them.

> I don't actually believe there is any sound logical reason to be
> morallly outraged by the cow killed for her meat while turning a blind
> eye to the
> rodent's killed in your grain field but the emotional response towards
> the
> two is somewhat different. When I think of eating a piece of beef, I
> kind
> of imagine myself ending the life of the cow and feel uncomfortable
> about
> destroying something of such value. When I think about vegetables being
> sprayed with chemicals, I know on a rational level that this will cause
> animal deaths which are entirely predictable and therefore can be
> considered
> deliberate but because the victims aren't targetted directly and aren't
> part of the bread I don't make the connection between their deaths
> and the bread on an emotional level. Please note the above is not a
> vindication of vegan ethics. It is simply an explaination of why I
> choose
> not to eat meat.

That all coincides with my belief that veganism is an emotional response
rather than a rational one. If you choose to allow your emotions to overrule
your reason that is your choice, but vegans have a habit of insisting that
others must to behave this way or else be considered some sort of ghoul.

> Ethically I do not claim a qualitative difference between vegan and
> non-vegan foods.

You're saying the words, but I question if you really believe that at this
point.

> I consider that all foods come with an associated
> moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
> the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
> animal suffering caused to produce the food.

Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must do to
obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that there is
no moral cost.

> organic vegetables
> hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
> factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
> much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
> the case.

You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in animal
deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is preached
and practiced.

> BTW is it absolutely necessary for your tenant to kill the mice
> to protect his grain?

Absolutely? Probably not.

> I mean, can't he store it somewhere the
> mice can't get to?

Practically? Yes. Farming is barely economically viable as it is.