usual suspect 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?

> I asked YOU to provide me an example showing a sense of their moral
> flexibility, open-mindedness, or tolerance.

You already provided one above. There are others found in almost
all writers on AR, but moral flexibility and open- mindedness
do not depend on supporting the use of animals for food under
ordinary conditions or the killing of animals for fur under
ordinary conditions. "Flexibility" is not defined as "support's
Usual's anti-AR views".

Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on
the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God,
rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we
have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live
otherwise." _Animal Theology_

Regan notes: "It sometimes happens that animals are in conditions of
acute, untreatable suffering...To kill animals in these circumstances
would seem clearly to be in their interests, for there are fates worse
than death...."_Case for Animal Rights_

Sapontzis suggests that if hens are provided with all their needs and
treated with respect, it is not unethical to use their unfertilized
eggs. He also notes "...to have moral rights is not necessarily to have
the same set of rights with other rights-holders, extending moral rights
to those who have not enjoyed them before does not settle the matter of
how we are to treat them. Rather it opens the door to questions...."
_Morals, Reason, and Animals_

Even the generally uncompromising Francione says: "Moreover, humans have
so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal
exploitation completely...but the impossibility of avoiding all contact
with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most
obvious and serious forms of exploitation." _Introduction to Animal
Rights_.

I found these examples in ten minutes by opening the volumes almost
literally at random. Major writers on AR present a much more
nuanced analysis than you claim.


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)

There are several AR philosophies, based on several philosophical
positions, and this leads to a variety of conclusions in specific
cases. You might as well talk about a "singular philosophical
position" or a "singular religious position." There are certain
ideas which are fairly common, but none that is universal, not
even the idea that animals have rights _per se_.

> 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.

See Sapontzis above.

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

Yes, as in the case of the Silver Springs monkeys and the well-known
head-trauma studies, among others. PETA does have a number of
undercover people who take pictures and bring particularly egregious
cases of abuse to light, and Farm Sanctuary has been active in getting
laws passed to prevent sale of "downer" animals.

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

>>> 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.

That is not the same kind of power we have over domesticated animals.
The lion cannot pick out which prey animals should breed, or keep the
herd in his territory when they decides to migrate. Why do you think
lions lose so many cubs to starvation?

>> and ethical obligations not to abuse it.

> *Artificial* obligations.

Yes, ethics is artificial to some degree; it is not instinctive in
humans.

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

> 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?

You should if the dollar a pound is saved at the cost of extreme
suffering on the part of the animals who become it. That is
simply unethical and barbarous, and most people, even those who
are not animal rights supporters, consider it wrong on humane
grounds.

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

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

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

> And any such reason can be based on falsehoods

It *can*, but that is not the point. The point is that they
were *aware* of the option of choice and chose for some
reason. They made a conscious decision, instead of simply
going with the flow.

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

No, it was the *fault* of the producers who slaughtered the
pigs. This is a common tactic with you: try to avoid
blaming the obvious and direct actor, and instead blame some
other person who doesn't agree with you. It's just silly.
Don't blame the agribusiness producer who plows animals
under; blame the vegan consumer. Don't blame the man who
kills the pigs; blame the lawmakers who try to provide
humane living conditions for pigs. It is a deliberately
perverse approach and makes no sense.


>, 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)?

I don't know. Probably the voters in Florida were more open to the
idea than those in some other states. It's a start.

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