Karen Winter lied:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:
>
>
>>> You are the one determined not to see any option other than the one
>>> you prefer.
>
>
>> Not true at all, and you must know it. There is no doubt about it,
>> plant foods in most cases have a lesser impact than meat. I have no
>> reason to dispute that fact.
>
>
> Then you have no reason to dispute that a plant-only diet *can* be the
> least-harm diet available.

You have no valid reason to claim that your plant-only
diet or any other such diet *IS* the least-harm diet
available.


>
>>>> The point is that most people *could* reduce their current impact
>>>> with non-vegan choices.
>
>
>>> Absolutely -- but most people could *also* reduce their current
>>> impact with vegan or vegetarian or gathered/scavenged choices --

Then why don't you do it?


>>> and that those choices would be less harmful than the
>>> equivalent killed-animal choices.
>
>
>> There is no such thing as "equivalent killed-animal choices", there
>> are simply choices.
>
>
> *shrug*

Whiff-off noted.


>
>>>> Saying that we must not compare the worst of vegan foods to the best
>>>> of non-vegan foods
>
>
>>> Go right ahead. Just compare the best of vegan foods with the
>>> worst of non-vegan foods as well.
>
>
>> Of course, plant-based foods will usually win this comparison whenever
>> animals are supplemented to any degree with cultivated feed.
>
>
> Yes.

But meaningless in practice.


>
>>> It is very possible to
>>> create a vegan diet which beats (non-scavenged) animal-based
>>> diets in health, price, and amount of harm caused.

Then why don't you do it?


>
>
>>> But you ignore that option.
>
>
>> I do not ignore it in theory, I ignore in reality because I do not
>> choose to follow a vegan diet.
>
>
> Then you have no reason to criticize those who state that a vegan diet
> *can* be a least-harm diet.

No self-congratulating "vegan" - you, for instance -
claims virtue because of what a "vegan" diet *can* be;
you sanctimoniously claim virtue by the unsubstantiated
implication that *your* diet is least-harm, when you
have taken NO steps to ensure that it is.


> You can only criticize choices made by
> vegans *within* available plant foods. Vegans can also criticize other
> vegans for choices made within plant-based food, and do.

No, they don't. That's simply false. In fact,
virtually all "vegans" who have participated here
pointedly refuse to make such comparisons, because they
view group solidarity as more important that
intellectual and moral consistency. "vegans" all
subscribe to the demonstrably false notion that not
consuming animal parts is all one need do to claim
moral superiority.



> A vegan can
> create a diet which satisfies both his ethics and yours.

No, a "vegan" can't do that, because her so-called
ethics requires that *no* animals die.


>> I also dispute the notion that there is any valid moral distinction
>> between meat and vegetables per se.
>
>
> I do not, if the meat is not scavenged from already-dead animals.

You can't coherently explain or justify the
distinction, except to fall back on rubbish philosophy
by published sophists.



> So -- we have established that your only real ethical argument with
> vegans is that they do not always choose the least harmful vegan
> options. You can have no criticism of veganism _per se_ on ethical
> grounds.

Yes, of course there is. It embodies a grotesque
logical fallacy. It is neither proposed nor followed
as an attempted *least* harm basis; lurking underneath
it is always the false belief that it is a ZERO harm
practice. In addition is the unsupportable belief that
one *ought* to practice, or strive for, a zero-harm
"lifestyle". You have never demonstrated there is
moral harm done by killing animals to consume them.