View Single Post
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Glorfindel 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?


I asked YOU to provide me an example showing a sense of their moral
flexibility, open-mindedness, or tolerance. Your attempt to dodge the
issue is noted. The authors you named do not make exceptions. For
example, Regan has written,
...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal
rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every
injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger,
cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used
in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional”
animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the
flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping,
but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html

Their ethical position (singular AR position -- for goodness sake, don't
start your usual hair-splitting sophistry to distinguish their inane
peculiarities from one another) is rigid and dogmatic. As a rule,
they're intolerant of opposing positions which allow for any use of
animals; in some cases, that even extends to keeping pets.

<...>
>>>> 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.

>
>> 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?


That's not the point. Dr Hawking's suggesting that AR is simply the
"next" bandwagon that the fringe have jumped upon -- or the next
windmill they're tilting at -- having given up on laudable issues that
would provide more benefits for the world.

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

>>
>> 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 wouldn't. Chickenshit.

> I knew you would post links to situations which are not
> typical of modern animal production.


They *are* typical. The grotesque images you and other ARAs perversely
seek and show are of isolated cases of abuse. In many instances, the
images and videos the ARAs peddle were used to prosecute abusive producers.

>> Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in
>> nature?

>
> Because we have unique power over other beings,


The lion has a "unique power" over wildebeasts, zebras, hares, etc. So
does the tiger. So does the hyena. Every predator has its prey.

> and ethical obligations not to abuse it.


*Artificial* obligations. You've yet to make a reasoned or reasonable
case that *all* use of other animals constitutes abuse. I'm not asking
you to condemn the horrible conditions shown in AR propaganda -- society
has already condemned it via animal welfare laws AND prosecution of such
abuses.

<...>
>>>> 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 don't think it's necessarily shameful that other people have their own
priorities in life. I sure as hell won't blame people for trying to save
money when they can.

> I cannot believe you make such attacks on humanity in general,


I don't. You're the misanthrope, Karen; you're the one with an axe to grind.

> yet seem to see nothing wrong in such behavior.


There's nothing wrong with being frugal. People enjoy meat. Why should I
be concerned when they choose to buy it at 99-cents a pound instead of
$1.99 a pound?

> Surely such people should be ashamed of themselves,


Why?

> and you ashamed of them.


Why?

<...>
> If they made a conscious decision to avoid
> products they were raised to use, they changed their behavior
> for some reason.


I disagree people are "raised" to use certain products. Familiarity
certainly plays a role in consumption, but someone can choose Miller
over Budweiser or Skip over Jiffy or Coke over Pepsi for far less than a
conscientious decision. That also applies to veganism. One can be
gullible enough to believe a set of distortions and lies, but that
doesn't make her conscientious or caring -- just gullible.

> That means they were aware of alternatives,
> considered them, and chose them for a reason.


And any such reason can be based on falsehoods, making any resulting
"gesture" as bogus as the underlying basis for it. Animals don't benefit
in the aggregate from people "going vegan." They continue to suffer and
die, and at higher rates depending on the choices made. It's specious
and disingenuous to claim that brazen lies peddled by ARAs create
consumer awareness.

> That means they
> were more aware than others who simply continued what their
> families had always done.


Non sequitur, as established above.

<...>
>> 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.


My mind is open, Karen. I'll hear you out. The question is, Can you hear
me out?

>>> 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 a direct consequence of the ridiculous measure.

> It was not the fault of the law,


It was the fault of the morons who devised that amendment, which wasn't
required because of rampant abuses in the jurisdiction where it passed.
Why did they not try to pass it in states with significant pork
production (Florida was 30th among states in pork production when the
measure went to voters) or where gestation crates were used more widely
(as opposed to being applicable to just two farms in Florida)?

Face it, that amendment was an empty gesture -- just like veganism is.
It's accomplished nothing of substance -- just like veganism. It had
undesired consequences at odds with the goals of its supporters -- just
like veganism and CDs.

> I do watch "Animal Cops Miami"


I don't care what you watch on television. I do care about your
extremist authoritarian agenda, whether we're discussing how you'd force
your views on people who eat meat or wear fur or leather or how you're
so openly willing to tear apart your church.

<...>