View Single Post
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Derek wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths
>> argument
>> against veganism is a fallacy.

>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> Yes, that is true, for several reasons.

===================
It's false, for many more reasons, killer...

>
> Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively )
> may
> involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and
> marketing
> animals for food *certainly* do, and always will.

============================
Your veggies are transported far greater distances than my meats
are fool. There is barely any transportation for the beef I eat.
The fruits I eat, and you eat, are transported across tha country
and the world. You eat far more imported veggies.


The question of
> which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a
> black-and-white
> basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated
> independently.

============================
ROTFLMAO Which the human dreck you're responding to will naver
address. He want's to focus on a fairy-tale.



> However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet
> will
> always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given
> the
> same parameters in each case.

===============================
You do have proof, right killer?


An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
> involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
> diet would involve at least some animal deaths. As Derek has
> noted,
> the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real
> world,
> so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
> world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept,
> and
> in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.

================================
Ah, you too intend on focusing on fairy-tales. I see that you,
like human drecks, can't discuss real-world diets.


>
> Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal
> liberation,
> is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down.

==============================
ROTFLMAO No it does not. And on top of that YOU continue to
prove that animals have no rights, and that YOU don't believe
they do with your constant posting to usenet, hypocrite.


Even a diet of hunted
> meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
> its death at human hands.

========================
Animals have no rights, and even your prove they do not, killer.


An equivalent diet of gathering need not
> involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at
> all.
> If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals'
> rights
> are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
> them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
> again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths
> in
> the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve,
> at the
> most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the
> animals'
> rights in "pest control."

========================
fair-tales...


>
> There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as
> more
> just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same
> criteria are
> applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing
> vastly
> different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any
> diet
> including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian
> basis.
> This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.

=============================
No fool, the dishonesty is from vegans. They cannot compare
real-world diets to each other. But then, that's not news
because they don't even compare the foods they do eat to each
other and make choices that cause n0/fewer/less deaths of
animals. You follow only a simply rule for your simple mind, eat
no meat. You focus only on what you think others are doing so
that you can ignore your own bloody footprints.
The truth is that the typical usenet vegan does nothing to
alleviate animal death and suffering. You could reduce your
impact without any major changes in lifestyle/convenience by
replacing 100s of 1000s of veggie calories with the death of one
animal. Those meat choices are readily available while your
fairy-tale gathering is, well, just a fairy-tale.
Another proof of your relying on your simple rule for your simple
mind is your focus on meat. A product that you claim not to eat,
and totally ignoring any comparisons of the foods you do eat. If
animal death and suffering were of any real concern to vegans
there would be a list of veggies and the cost in animal deaths
that each cause. I know that there is no concern for this as
vegan food groups/recipes/foods always talk about bananas. A
product that has caused the destruction of millions and millions
of acres of rain-forests, and depends on massive use of
pesticides and transportation.


>
> BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the
> issue of
> animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are
> interested.
>