"Dutch" > wrote in message
news:uEvff.526208$oW2.490644@pd7tw1no...
>
> "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.

I presume you're talking about vegans. Yup, that's my whole point. :^)

>>>> 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.

Now why would you think that?

>>> 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.

Sure it changes it. The question is does it change it significantly? No, I
don't think anybody (including vegans) expects that it would.

>> 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.

Sorry, I'll just say that you and others, more or less, "express your
opinion" in an aggressive and arrogant manner, sometimes unnecessarily mean
spirited and condescending. The term "harassment" is not unjustified.

>>>>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.

Great way to straddle the fence...

>>> 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.

It's amazing how they all think alike. They kind of remind me of the
Borg....

>>> 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*.

How so? You mean vegans who wear cotton automatically condemn the deaths of
thousands of cute little faces? Do you wear cotton?

>>> 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.

Whew, I'm good!

>> 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.

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

I'm not making an excuse for myself. I'm asking YOU how you can judge
somebody as immoral for something they don't completely understand.

>> And didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?
>
> Why should I tolerate ignorance? How does that help anyone?

Well, now we all know what kind of person we're dealing with. End of
thread...