"Dutch" > wrote in message
news:BLrff.529055$1i.323482@pd7tw2no...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?
>
> We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
> responsibility.

For what? How?

>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be
>> on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.
>
> I think that is a personal decision.

Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?

> Under the circumstances

What circumstances?

> I think it behooves us to be aware of and honest about the impact of our
> lifestyles. Vegans notoriously fail at this.

Maybe so, but is it so bad in the case of vegans? I mean, how do vegans hurt
you that you are so motivated to harass them?

>>The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude of
>>morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize animal
>>deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?
>>It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely different
>>matter to accuse them of being unethical.
>
> The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's nothing
> wrong with that.

Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...

> The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
> accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan golden
> rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing the token
> act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".

You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't value
any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they
over-value abstinence. Yes?

> The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
> this very apparent.

I haven't been following that thread.

> The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,

Thank you...

> is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
> consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
> inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.

So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value any
action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b) they
over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between consumers
and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?

First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
abstinence" that's immoral. So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral"
you are saying that vegans aren't saving the lives that they think they are,
or something like that. Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be
immoral for something that seems more a matter of ignorance at best? And
didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?

Oh yeah, and how does any of this create a moral dilemma between consumers
and non-consumers of meat products? Do you see picket lines of naked vegans
in front of your grocery store's meat counter or something?

> Those who place a high moral value on minimizing animal suffering need to
> abandon the misleading notion of abstaining from animal "products" and
> create new paradigm to express their ideal.

And that would be what???