usual suspect 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.

Why should they? Those are not all aspects of ethics. The one
you mention -- using animals for food in cases of dire
emergencies -- is indeed one example. Even you see that your
absolute claim on absolutes cannot be supported. I suggest
rereading Regan, Francione, Sapontzis, or Linsey. You will find
many other examples.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
>> genuine mercy killing.

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

>>> 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.

As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider using animals
in research without their consent as unethical are the same
reasons they consider the use of humans without their consent as
unethical. You agree with the principle.

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

>>>> 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

Why do you assume animal rights supporters never support or work
for nuclear disarmament?

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

No. I knew you would post links to situations which are not
typical of modern animal production.

>>> 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?

Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
obligations not to abuse it.

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

>>>>>>> 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.

Often true, and a shameful comment on humanity in general.
I cannot believe you make such attacks on humanity in general,
yet seem to see nothing wrong in such behavior. Surely such
people should be ashamed of themselves, and you ashamed of
them.

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

>>> 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.

If they made a conscious decision to avoid
products they were raised to use, they changed their behavior
for some reason. That means they were aware of alternatives,
considered them, and chose them for a reason. That means they
were more aware than others who simply continued what their
families had always done.

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal
> harm.

That is one goal. It is not *the* vegan standard.

>>> 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.

Ipse dixit.

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

You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
completely closed.

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> 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?

No. That created two wrongs instead of one. It was not the
fault of the law, but the fact that such producers see
animals only as economic units. That was what the law was
intended to address. It should also have addressed what
the producers had to do to place their animals in other homes
if they were unwilling to adopt ethical standards. Farm
Sanctuary or other similar groups would probably have been
glad to take the pigs, or the producers could have been
required to support them in humane conditions. That would
generally fall under standard animal welfare provisions
in most areas. I suspect appropriate laws were in effect
if they were applied. I do watch "Animal Cops Miami", which
has shown examples of legal actions against inhumane farmers
in Florida.

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