Karen Winter 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.
It wasn't exactly an example of open-mindedness or tolerance. Regan
advocates ending *all* farming, etc.:
...[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
Note "empty cages," "a complete end to all commerce in the flesh of dead
animals," "the total eradication of these barbarous practices."
> 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.
I asked for examples demonstrating some degree of *tolerance* for those
who disagree with ARAs. That request was based on what you said previously:
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.
I still want an example demonstrating some kind of ethical wiggle room
-- tolerance, open-mindedness, etc. -- on the part of ARAs since you
contend they're not absolutists.
> "Flexibility" is not defined as "support's
> Usual's anti-AR views".
Strawman: you know that was NOT my suggestion.
> Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism
There isn't one. Vegetarianism -- specifically, veganism and AR -- are
at odds with the Bible.
Jesus helped fishermen:
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into
deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."
Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't
caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the
nets."
When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish
that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners
in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and
filled both boats so full that they began to sink.
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go
away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his
companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had
taken...
Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account)
He fed fish to hungry followers:
Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion
for these people; they have already been with me three days and
have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or
they may collapse on the way."
His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this
remote place to feed such a crowd?"
"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.
"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."
He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the
seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he
broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to
the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the
disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were
left over.
-- Mathew 15:32-37
He ate fish himself:
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And
while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate
it in their presence.
-- Luke 24:40-43
Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Christ went out to
fish with them. He told them where and when to find fish. He fed fish to
others. He ate fish himself.
Consider the Passover seder:
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was
customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked
him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you
to eat the Passover?"
So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the
city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow
him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and
ready. Make preparations for us there."
The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as
Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
-- Mark 14:12-16
Did Jesus forbid the killing and eating the lamb? No, he and his
disciples partook in the custom of killing and eating a lamb on Pesach.
Jesus also commanded animal sacrifices:
A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If
you are willing, you can make me clean."
Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched
the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the
leprosy left him and he was cured.
Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you
don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest
and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your
cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 1:40-44
Mary and Joseph offered animal sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus.
Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the
animal rights or "vegan" position.
Furthermore, the OT is filled with examples of meat-eating and animal
sacrifices. Cain and Esau are described as hunters. The OT laws
prescribe methods of slaughter, rules for how meat should and shouldn't
be prepared, etc.
Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean,
but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended
the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who
think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following
rules nearly 2000 years later.
St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not
judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat;
he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain
foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge
people according to what they eat and command (or at least request)
others abstain from certain foods to be more ethical, holy, etc.
There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Vegetarianism --
particularly the AR/vegan zealotry kind you seek to infect the world
through proselytization -- is antithetical to the Bible.
> 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_
This is nothing but regurgitating and Biblicizing the lame argument that
people shouldn't eat meat because they don't have to. Worse, the Bible
doesn't split hairs between "have to kill to live" and "kill to eat
something." God allowed Cain and Esau to hunt, and he told Noah and his
sons after the flood, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for
you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you
shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." God didn't tell
them they could only eat it when in dire circumstances, like when they
ran out of tofu or wheat; that's YOUR and Linzey's command -- the
command of man.
> 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_
See Regan above. Your quotation pertains to mercy killing for the
animals' sake rather than instances where it benefits man.
> Sapontzis suggests that if hens are provided with all their needs and
> treated with respect, it is not unethical to use their unfertilized
> eggs.
Why would it be unethical to take fertilized eggs? And why would it be
"wrong" to consume a hen after she'd received such care?
> 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_
That quote fails to address the issue I raised.
> 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_.
Also fails to address the issue.
> 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.
No, Karen, you've given me examples that don't address the issue I asked
you about. Any "nuance" these writes have is overshadowed by the fact
that as a rule they oppose people eating animals, wearing fur or
leather, or conducting research that uses animals as subjects in
experiments.
>> 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,
The idea that animals shouldn't be owned, be food, be worn, or be
experimented upon is universal in AR and veganism.
<...>
>> 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.
Are you suggesting he's an exception to that rule?
>> 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
Read this and we can discuss it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw...0402100912.asp
> and the well-known head-trauma studies, among others.
Edward Taub was fully vindicated in the Silver Springs example you
raised, which more than anything shows us the despicable tactics of
PETA. So have others involved in head-trauma studies.
> PETA does have a number of
> undercover people who take pictures and bring particularly egregious
> cases of abuse to light,
Even when they're personally responsible for making the cases egregious, eh.
<...>
>>> and ethical obligations not to abuse it.
>
>> *Artificial* obligations.
>
> Yes, ethics is artificial to some degree
In general; specifically, veganism and AR are artificial.
<...>
>> 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.
Non sequitur. You cannot demonstrate that the extra dollar buys
protection for animals, nor can you demonstrate an association between
costs and cruelty. It comes from your desire to compare apples and
oranges -- "factory farms" which you deem as all bad to "family farms"
which you deem as all good (or inherently better).
> That is simply unethical and barbarous, and most people, even those who
> are not animal rights supporters, consider it wrong on humane
> grounds.
Ipse dixit.
>>> 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.
It *IS* the point.
> The point is that they
> were *aware* of the option of choice and chose for some
> reason.
Awareness based on a lie is still false awareness.
> They made a conscious decision, instead of simply
> going with the flow.
They're only changing streams -- they still flow. Veganism is all about
conformity. Vegans go with a different, marginal flow; it has nothing to
do with awareness, but with marginal identification.
>>>> 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,
Yes. It was an empty, meaningless gesture.
>> , 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.
I do: because vegans and ARAs are gutless cowards who pretend they're
making a difference in the world.
> Probably the voters in Florida were more open to the
> idea than those in some other states.
Then so much for your suggestion that consumers are universally appalled
by "inhumane" conditions -- particularly in the places where such
"inhumane" conditions are more likely to prevail.
> It's a start.
A start of what? It did nothing substantive or relevant to the issue it
addresses in the jurisdiction where it passed.