"C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
>>
>> "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?

For the death toll behind our consumer lifestyles, by admitting it.

>>> 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?

I think you mean that you should be able to read a newsgroup on the ethics
of vegetarianism and not be subjected to ideas that shatter your illusions.

>> Under the circumstances
>
> What circumstances?

The circumstances are that our lifestyles are built on animal deaths, and
abstaining from animal "products" does not change that fact.

>> 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?

Yes, it appears to be.

> I mean, how do vegans hurt you that you are so motivated to harass them?

I don't. I would never harrass anyone because of their diet. I am
participating in a forum that everyone views of their free will. To call
expressing my opinion in this way "harrassment" is absurd.

>>>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"...

Yes, I do, but I disagree with the self-serving way vegans do it.

>> 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?

Yes, they undervalue efforts that violate 'the rule' and overrate efforts
that follow it.

>> The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
>> this very apparent.
>
> I haven't been following that thread.

Cotton (a vegan product) production is *deadly*.

>> 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?

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.

In my opinion it's a very bad practice.

> 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?

Are you claiming ignorance as your excuse? I can't see how you can.

> And didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?

Why should I tolerate ignorance? How does that help anyone?

> Oh yeah, and how does any of this create a moral dilemma between consumers
> and non-consumers of meat products?

In many ways, it causes social problems and cognitive difficulty for
followers of veganism. Essentially it's a gross misjudgment of one's fellow
man, how can that be healthy?

> Do you see picket lines of naked vegans in front of your grocery store's
> meat counter or something?

Now that would be funny... but unsanitary.

>> 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???

Place the emphasis on the animals that are harmed by humanity rather than
some inadequate rule that punishes (in your mind) others, while letting
yourself off the hook for massive transgressions of the principle, such as
wearing cotton clothes or eating bananas, just to name a couple of products
which are related to systemic animal deaths.