"C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
> "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. :^)

Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the death
toll, so are most non-vegans, but they already acknowledge that are
demanding the killing of animals on their behest. Just read the denial in
the comments of "mojo".

>>>>> 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?

You are claiming that what I am doing now is harrassment, what else could it
mean?

>>>> 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.

It may change the number and nature of the deaths, but it doesn't change the
fact.

>>> 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.

It is totally unjustified. Harrassment implies that you are not a willing
participant.
>
>>>>>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...

I just call it as I see it. Vegans place ultimate importance on the killing
of animals when the evidence ends up in the final product (on your dinner
plate) and ignore, deny, minimize or dismiss all the less obvious deaths
that don't, yet are still "unecessary" by any fair use of the word.

>>>> 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....

In this particular respect, that's quite true.

>>>> 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?

Depending on your definition of cute, but yes.

> Do you wear cotton?

Yes, why?

>>>> 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!

How so?

>>> 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?

Not really significantly immoral in my view, although some radicals behave
immorally. I think it's mostly silly and misguided.

>>> 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.

I don't.

>>> 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...

I'm a rational decent person who does not deserve the slings and arrows of
vegans of ARAs, directly of implied.