"Glorfindel" > wrote
> 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.

Why should it be? I quote your statement from below,

"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."

If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not in
ALL cases? I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,
or demand his liver if I need a transplant. I am morally obliged to get help
without harming another person, or die. The fact is, you DON'T hold humans
and animals in the same regard at all, that is pure rhetoric.

> 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.

AR writers are great at cooking sophistry, perfect food for a gullible mind.
The "exceptions" that ARAs "grant" themselves are almost always made out of
crass convenience, "there's no non-leather shoes in my area" etc etc ad
nauseum.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 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.

That principle is a complete absurdity. You don't believe it, you only think
you do. It is almost as absurd as believing in rights of plants. They can't
give consent either.

>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>> 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.

Yes they have, yet every tofu-burger carries a death toll of "sentient"
creatures harmed in the course of producing it. If you want to toss insects
in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle explaining your support for
commercial farming. I was willing to limit the discussion to animals larger
than your thumb. (sizeism anyone?)

>> 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?

Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..

>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> 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.

How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?

>>>> 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 power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every species
since the big bang has had 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.

Nobody is perfect, but vegans are very sanctimonious in the way they preach
and shed crocodile tears over animals to lay guilt at other people's feet,
while their own cosy lifestyles are built on a legacy of animal death,
whether they avoid animal products or not.

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

They are very unaware of the lethal nature of agriculture.

>> 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.

"the issues"?
>
>> 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.

People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded than
children of omnivores. That's not being aware", it's being brainwashed by
gory videos and shrill rhetoric.


>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal harm.
>
> That is one goal. It is not *the* vegan standard.

It certainly isn't, I'll agree with you there, even though the definition
says so.

>>>> 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.

That's incorrect, his mind is OPEN, yours is closed. He already knows all
the explantions that you are likely to come up with. He is a strict
vegetarian by the way, he's just not hypocrite about it.

>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 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.
>

Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy for,
but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue, they co-opt it,
usually for fund-raising from people who do not support their radical
agendas like elimination of working animals, pets, and food animals.