"Glorfindel" > parroted what he read somewhe

> 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.

They must however be based on a coherent principle and be consistent.
Veganism and AR are neither. The most common exceptions given are not
principled exceptions they are convenience-based.

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

You don't distinguish? Why not?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,
>
>>> False.
>
>> Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue.
>
> No, they agree that ethics in the real world cannot always
> be absolute.

They are not principled ethics if they are based on self-serving criteria
like, "the organic food store is too far away, I'll miss class"

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

How is that for you to say if you believe in self-determination for animals?
It's certainly not consistent with self-determination to base it on *your
state of starvation*.

>> 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. 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.

What if it happens that the animals will destroy your crops if you don't
kill them? That would be very inconvenient and unprofitable for me. It would
also cause vegans everywhere to starve.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> 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.
>
>>>> 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. A human cannot ethically be used in
> research without his consent, even if the research will benefit
> other humans. You know this.

You're deluding yourself but you're not fooling anyone here, would you deny
yourself or your family medical help in an emergency because the medical
system is based on medical research? It's lip service, you want your cake
and you want the cheap satisfaction of pointing your grubby finger at people
too.

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

Oh yes, ARAs have plenty of time to ponder how the nasty habits of others
are unjust and harmful to innocent critters. It is a very theraputic mantra
to indulge in. They have no time to think about their own dirty little
secrets though, they are too busy for that. Right? Irrelevant <SNIP> right?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> Not all keeping
>>> of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
>>> question that these things *are* exploitation,
>
>> I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.
>
> So I notice.

Exploitation, like discrimination are words that have gotten bad raps. It is
not necessarily a bad thing.

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

It's a popular topic for the media, blood and guts sells.

>> 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.

One of the problems with AR is that it artificially and irrationally removes
man from his place in nature. This approach will never, ever work.

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

Sure they do, so what? Vegans don't give a moment's thought to the suffering
of animals behind the products they consume, they are too obsessed with the
pointing of fingers at what others do.

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

The same is true of all agricultural products. I would love to remove every
little frog and beetle and mouse from my 640 acres before I spray or
harvest, but it's impossible.

>>> 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.

See above.

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

Vegans are more blind than most people, since they mostly assume that their
products are "death-free", and don't bother telling me they don't think this
because I know they do.

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

Do you know that some regular meat-eaters cause less animal death and
suffering than you?

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

You don't get to define what "the issues" are.

> Sometimes you get Rick.

Rick is a good example of what I was talking about.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> 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".

Veganism is very simple, the only variation is in how much slack each vegan
allows himself due to his own desire for convenience.

>>> 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.

I agree, but violations of basic principles can't be based on personal
convenience.


>> 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. Veganism addresses the reality of the
> specific problem it is intended to address. It is not a complete
> philosophy of life.

I does pretend to be a complete "lifestyle solution", but it contains
irreparable flaws, as I have already alluded to.

>>>>> 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.

That's a fallacy of poisoning the well. You're using it to avoid making a
coherent case.

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

AR as a basis for reform measures is an unmitigated disaster.

>> 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.

Animal Welfare is a reasonable, rational, and laudable motive for change.
Animal Rights is absurd in the context you are using it.