usual suspect wrote:

> pro-bestiality Karen Winter wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> It's easy to attack something when you make it up out of whole cloth.
>
>
> Then why do you continue doing that?
>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.
>>
>>
>> false.
>
>
> Ipse dixit. You concede below that the list of examples I provided all
> constitute "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for
> keeping pets. Note you avoided the subject of bestiality, which you
> glowingly approve:
>
> 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
>
> Etc.
>
>>> 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. I know that YOU do, Karen, because you
> concede as much below.
>
>>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,
>>
>>
>> False.
>
>
> Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue. 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.
>
> http://www.austinreview.com/archives...a_kills_1.html
> http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...155298&tref=po
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
> Etc.
>
>>> and that just about everything in a human:animal context is
>>> exploitation of the latter by the former.
>>
>>
>> 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?
>
>>> 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:
>
> Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be
> against it.
> Ingrid Newkirk, _Vogue_; September 1989.
>
> As for food and leather, I have no objections to what others eat. Nor to
> what other species eat. In your deluded fantasy world, a predator can
> eat prey but a human can't. I want to know why it's exploitation when a
> human eats beef or venison, but not exploitation when a cougar eats it.
>
>> 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.
>
>> The issue of companion animals is more complex.
>
>
> Why do you and the bitter old hag Sylvia keep pets if it's a complex issue?
>
>> 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.
>
>> even if you
>> believe humans are justified in this exploitation.
>
>
> I believe humans are justified in eating, wearing attire, and working to
> cure or prevent disease. You've failed to convince me that any of it is
> exploitation.
>
>>> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
>>> conditions for animals.
>>
>>
>> Not for the animals involved in factory-farm production of meat
>> and animal products.
>
>
> Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
> following "factory" farms, or how the conditions are inferior or more
> inhospitable to what those animals would face in the wild (where they
> would fight for territory and mating opportunities and face predators
> like wolves and cougars):
> 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
>
>>> They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and grains, like
>>> tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to meat do
>>> nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's diet
>>> and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
>>> synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from
>>> petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
>>> during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
>>> animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair
>>> of leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no
>>> safer for animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from
>>> grain crops with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards
>>> they're worse since crops like cotton are heavily treated with
>>> pesticides and defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for
>>> non-target species. See Rick's links.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
> They already accept that animals die in the course of food production.
> It's the silly vegan vendetta against nature that suggests killing
> animals is wrong, yet silly vegans do little to eliminate or reduce
> animal suffering from their own diets. It's the vegans whose principles
> are being violated (and by themselves), not meat eaters.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
>> equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face there.
>
>
> Tell me what's abominable 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
>
>> 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.
>
>>>>> It's on those who oppose people consuming meat
>>
>>
>> Usually because of those very abominable conditions.
>
>
> Tell me what's abominable 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
>
>>>>> and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.
>>
>>
>> Which all vegans do not do.
>
>
> You sure as hell do, Karen. You wrote in another post this morning,
> "Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware..." You're the kind of
> snobby elitist prig I was think about when I wrote that.
>
>>>>> When faced with the facts, they ultimately make the same argument
>>>>> you did and claim a virtue relative to the actions of others.
>>>>> They're not more ethical because others are ethically "worse" than
>>>>> they are (at least according to their capricious standard); they
>>>>> fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by their
>>>>> own standard.
>>
>>
>> It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
>> against.
>
>
> I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard. I briefly
> explained the norms in agriculture and synthetic textile manufacturing.
> I then demonstrated that vegans fall far short of 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, Karen. 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.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
>>> already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and
>>> images have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet
>>> to see credible evidence that research, livestock production,
>>> farming, etc., is a widespread abuse of animals.
>>
>>
>> Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
>> blind to the obvious evidence.
>
>
> Evidence like this?
> 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
And I suppose those look to you like traditional, healthy family farms.
Animals on concrete. Believe me, they only take their own self-serving
pictures in the best possible light.

As evidenced by my posting of your factory farmed turkeys versus what a
real turkey looks like. There is no comparison.


>
>> 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. 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. It was an irrational attempt to
> amend the Florida constitution and its passage has caused Florida's
> legislature to toughen the process of amending their constitution by
> initiative.


It was passed because some people do care about how animals are treated
and wanted to make that statement.