Karen, aka "degeneRAT," wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.
>
>>> false.
>
>> Ipse dixit.
>
> No more so than your ipse dixit. For one thing, you cannot
> speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any
> reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show
> they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute.

Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting
animal research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire
emergencies), or fur being fashionable.

>> You concede below that the list of examples I provided all constitute
>> "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for keeping pets.
>
> Yes.

Then why belabor those points, Karen?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>> Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths,
>>>> or cruel or non-cruel treatement.
>
>>> Some may not, but most do.
>
>> Name one vegan who doesn't.
>
> Me.

Are we talking about the mouse you filleted, drowned, killed; or are we
talking about accepting others' taste for meat, fur, etc.?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,
>
>>> False.
>
>> Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue.
>
> No...

Yes.

> Nor is death always the worst option for an
> animal.

It sure as hell wasn't the worst option for the mouse you skinned alive.

>> Case in point, the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon
>> themselves to kill cats and dogs intended for adoption programs.
>> Ingrid Newkirk has also admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.
>
> Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
> genuine mercy killing.

Newkirk killed deliberately and without mercy. Dittos for the assholes
in North Carolina who killed adoptable kittens.

> The question is whether death is
> more just for the animal than not, and if it is done strictly
> for the benefit of the animal, not for human convenience or
> profit.

PETA's track record shows they kill for convenience.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
>>> the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
>>> to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
>>> the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
>>> have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.
>
>> Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
>> most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?
>
> The above quote makes no mention of bestiality.

I was asking it with the broader context of knowing your approval of it.
You snipped some of the posts in which you gushed about people and
animals who benefit from trans-species ****ing:

Is it God's moral law, or a misunderstanding
by an ancient culture? Is there any *reason* behind the
prohibition? Is the behavior harmful? Why should it be seen as
wrong? Morality, especially God's morality, is not arbitrary.

...Bestiality is an iffy one for me: I think it is wrong if the
animal is injured, but I think the original prohibition was
based on the same definition of "unnatural" as homosexuality --
a confusion of roles.
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis," 11 May 2005

Why do we assume children and animals can express willingness or
unwillingness to engage in most other activities, but not decide
what gives them physical pleasure if, and only if, it is
connected with the sex organs of one or the other of the
partners? Why can a seventeen-year-old decide which college he
wants to attend, but not whether he wants a blow job or not?
Why can a dog decide whether he wants to fetch a ball or not,
but not whether or not he enjoys licking a human's penis?
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 20 June 1999

Since there are no social considerations for the non-humans
involved, it's even easier to offer a rational defense for
responsible zoophilia than for intergenerational sexual
activity, which has a major social stigma attached to it.
Animals don't care if the neighbors talk.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 30 April 2003

The animal, like the child, can only tell you whether he/she
enjoys the immediate physical [sexual] activity. You have to be
responsible for the rest.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 12 July 1999


Perhaps if you read some accounts by zoophiles, you might see
why some people feel some acts with some animals are not
harmful. You could then decide if you agree or not based on
knowledge. I would then be willing to give your opinion
consideration. One interesting thing is the strong condemnation
some zoophiles have for other zoophiles they think are not being
responsible. Zoophiles do indeed have ethics, and differ among
themselves on them. If you were to read some of those
discussions, you might understand more clearly what the issues
are for those who are actually dealing with them.
Karen Winter as "Rat": http://tinyurl.com/82w8j

Why do you not consider ****ing an animal to be an abusive situation,
but keeping it as a pet to be "complex" or using it to cure AIDS to be
exploitation?

>>>> They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
>>>> research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
>>>> production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and
>>>> want an end to humans having pets.
>
>>> All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
>>> is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
>>> food or in research or in production of fur and leather?
>
>> There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
>> used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the
>> research, but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal
>> research even when it bears fruit:
>
> They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
> subjects in research.

They make anthropomorphic projections and/or engage in sophistry about
moral patients.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?
>
>> I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected
>> by my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.
>
> But animal rights supporters have.

I suspect that extremists turn to animal rights from a lack of
the more worthwhile causes of the past, like nuclear
disarmament.
-- Stephen Hawking

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
>> following "factory" farms,
>
> Shall I post links to some of the examples of serious abuse of
> animals in factory farms? They are all over the web and in
> many books. Just look.

I posted links to pics of typical farms. You snipped them and dodged
invitations to respond to what you see. Did you even look, Karen?

>> or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
>> animals would face in the wild
>
> Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
> human treatment of animals only.

Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in nature?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
>>>>>> death.
>
>>> Yes, it is.
>
>> No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.
>
> But they often have objections to the *suffering* of animals
> in the process.

They put their objections aside when it comes to a good sale price.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
>>> there would be no factory-farmed meat.
>
>> Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
>> demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
>> business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep
>> consumer prices down while still maximizing profits.
>
> Absolutely true. Unfortunately.

There's nothing unfortunate about it. Why are you so upset about what
other people choose to consume? You haven't done much to better yourself
(washing stray cats, abandoning your family, etc.), so why try to change
others in a most meaningless manner?

>>> You cannot use the
>>> argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
>>> as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
>>> they use.
>
>> Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
>> don't have objections to dead animals.
>
> But many of them object to suffering animals.

They put their objections aside when chicken goes on sale.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.
>
>> For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
>> will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't
>> care if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one
>> costs more than the other.
>
> Absolutely true. Unfortunately. You make my point for me.

There's nothing unfortunate about it. That serves to show you that
people by and large are unaffected by the things that you've made your
life's cause. That doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with them --
they just don't share your peculiar priorities.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.
>
>>> Which all vegans do not do.
>
>> You sure as hell do.
>
> I do not.

You do, too. You have disdain and contempt for those whose values are
different from your own. And your vitriol extends far beyond animal
rights and diet -- you've expressed your hatred for the conservatives in
your church who didn't go looking for a fight (but you did), and you
consider anyone who disagrees with your radical views to be a
fundamentalist (and "fundamentalist Episcopalian" is an oxymoron).

>> You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend
>> to be more aware..."
>
> They do.

No. Ipse dixit.

> Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
> each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
> for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
> the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.

No. Non sequitur.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
>>> against.
>
>> I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard.
>
> You do not speak for all vegans, nor can you define "the *vegan*
> standard".

I've used their own standard.

>>> I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
>>> ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
>>> beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.
>
>> This is irrelevant.
>
> No, of course not.

It is entirely irrelevant. Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal
harm. They engage in certain behavior -- avoiding meat, dairy, eggs,
etc. They disregard the effects of their behavior -- whether or not it
reduces animal suffering or death. It's a pose. That's all.

>> The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
>> reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even
>> address the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends
>> consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead animals)
>> than existed when one still ate meat.
>
> Can, but does not have to.

It generally DOES cause more deaths. One deer provides many meals. One
bowl of rice and beans causes many more animal deaths.

> Veganism addresses the reality

No, veganism is a feeble attempt to avoid reality -- that more animals
die to produce a bowl of rice and beans than die from a successful
hunting trip.

>>>>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths
>>>>> of living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?
>
>>>> I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
>>>> washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the
>>>> course of their consumption and/or work.
>
>>> That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
>>> for an action does not justify the action.
>
>> It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
>> do that.
>
> According to you. Others may have a different opinion. No
> argument any vegan put forth would convince you.

You've not explained why anything is wrong, just that it is.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> The reasons some laws have been
>>> passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.
>
>> Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
>> legislators by a very small group of people.
>
> True of many issues. All reform measures begin in this way.

So do repeal measures.

>> Emotive appeal is also to blame for what I originally thought was a
>> decent measure in Florida a few years ago (voter initiative to ban
>> swine gestation pens in that state). There weren't many pork producers
>> in Florida in the first place (ranked 30th in pork production in the
>> US), and, perhaps most importantly, there were only *two* farmers at
>> the time the initiative passed who actually used those crates.
>
> Then it was good that those producers were eliminated, and
> no others encouraged to set up production.

They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the
amendment when it went into effect. Happy?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


You didn't look at the pictures of NORMAL farming conditions, Karen.
Come on, be a big girl. Tell me what you find objectionable about the
following:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3