Seeker wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote

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

For the same reason it is true of humans.

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?

It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
cannot be used to define general, normal situations. Gary
Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
Rights:Your Child or The Dog_ The situations where human
interests genuinely conflict in life-or-death ways have
almost no relevance to the situation in everyday life, where
there are many other options. Asking "Which would you save if
your ship were sinking and you had to choose between a stranger
or your mother" is not really relevant to questions about how
you should treat either a stranger or your mother in everyday
situations.

I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,

But we do not judge members of the Donner Party in the same
way we judge Jeffrey Dahmer. There is a difference between
someone who violates general ethical norms in extreme
situations, and someone who deliberately kills others and
eats them when there are many other options available to him
living in the middle of normal human society. That is part of
why ethics are not absolute in the real world.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>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 think humans should be used in medical research even
without their consent?

>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> If you want to toss insects
> in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle explaining your support for
> commercial farming.

I don't support commercial farming at all.

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

> Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..

Oh, I'm sure activists can multi-task more than one cause
at a time.

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

A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal
observation, government data (always suspect).

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

Well, not true. But we are the only species capable of
domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping
them in large numbers to be killed at our convenience.
We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented
weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds.

>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded than
> children of omnivores.

They may begin so. I was speaking of people who grew up in
omnivore families and became vegan, which is more common.
Even so, vegan children usually become aware they are
different as soon as they get to know non-vegan children.
Then they must consider the basis of their veganism. If
they are omnivores surrounded by other omnivores, the issue
often does not come up at all.

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

>>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.

Bravo for him, if true. I commend him for that, and wish him
well in continuing.

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

> Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy for,
> but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue,

First, PETA is no longer a strictly animal *rights* group;
they are primarily a "hard welfare" group. Second, I did not
say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.
AR and non-AR groups can and do work together on specific
animal welfare issues, and that is good.

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