"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

It's not true of humans. I cannot (kill and) eat another human no matter how
hungry I am.

> 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.

YOU are the one who introduced the extreme situation. It did not help your
case.

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.

Stop hiding behind quotes from sophists and use your own reasoning.

> 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.

Actually there is a direct correlation between the two situations, the
difference is only in the extremity of the circumstances.

> 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.

The Donner Party is irrelevant, those people were already dead. I am talking
about killing another human to eat him if one is starving to death.

> 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.

So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and eat an
animal even if you were starving?

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

Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals
without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign concept
to an animal. You may as well say it's unethical to pick flowers 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.

Of course you do, you buy groceries don't you?

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

I am sure that their capacity to woolgather is boundless, as long as it
makes them feel good.

>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> 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).

As am I, and I conclude that mistreatment of animals is the rare exception,
not the rule.

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

Ipse dixit.

> But we are the only species capable of
> domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping
> them in large numbers

You have not given a coherent reason why that is necessarily immoral.

> to be killed at our convenience.

Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.

> We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented
> weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds.

Neither of those things change of the essential nature of what we do.

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

It comes up if they are exposed to vegan children, or veganism or AR are
reported in the media, as it often 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.
>
> Bravo for him, if true. I commend him for that, and wish him
> well in continuing.

Yes, Bravo for him indeed, he came here with the very same set of
misconceptions that you have, but he had the intellectual integrity to
listen and question his assumptions.

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

The basic philosophy of PeTA is AR/veganism, it's as clear as day on their
site. It is obvious however that welfare causes generate the most response
and hence the most donations, so they are heavily focused on those issues.

> Second, I did not
> say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.

I know you didn't, but the rhetoric of ARAs like you tends to assume
ownership of the issue, as if by mentioning welfare abuses in agriculture
you are advancing your own argument.

> AR and non-AR groups can and do work together on specific
> animal welfare issues, and that is good.

I would agree.