usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel:
>> 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.
There is tolerance for those who disagree with ARAs as people.
You cannot expect ARAs to be tolerant of ideas which violate
the basic ethical principles of animal rights. You have no
tolerance for some ideas. Does that make you an absolutist?
> 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.
I have given you several quotes which demonstrate that. There
is tolerance, open-mindedness, a clear statement that ethics are not
absolute.
>> "Flexibility" is not defined as "supports
>> Usual's anti-AR views".
> Strawman: you know that was NOT my suggestion.
It certainly appears to be your definition of flexibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 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.
A good, valid argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>> 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.
Yes. It shows Regan does not support an absolute prohibition of
killing animals under all circumstances.
>> 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?
Some vegans might consider that killing an animal, just
as some "pro-life" people consider not allowing the
fertilized egg to implant to be killing a human. It is
a very absolutist position which Sapontzis is opposing.
( I agree with him on this one).
> And why would it be
> "wrong" to consume a hen after she'd received such care?
That *would* be killing an animal.
>> 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.
I answers it.
>> 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.
Likewise; it answers it.
>> 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, 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.
Yes, they certainly do. That does not make the ethical absolutists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 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.
Indeed it is, under ordinary circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Yes, as in the case of the Silver Springs monkeys
> Read this and we can discuss it.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw...0402100912.asp
I've read a lot about the case.
>>> 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.
To the point, and you know it. It is what we have been talking about.
> 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).
Factory farms are indeed all bad, but family farms can be good or
bad, depending on the individual farm. Some "family farms" are
pretty horrible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> 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
I didn't say they were *universally* appalled.
> -- particularly in the places where such
> "inhumane" conditions are more likely to prevail.
It's always harder to reform areas where people have a major
economic interest in unethical practices.
>> 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.
It's still a start. It shows other states that voters do see
a value in humane treatment of animals, even when those
animals are "food" animals instead of companion animals. It
will also show that inhumane methods are not necessary.