Leif Erikson wrote:
> I wrote,
>
> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw [denying the
> antecedent] most frequently fall back on an equally
> defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least
> harm" practice.
>
> To this, Karen replied, "No, that veganism *can*
> represent a least-harm practice."
>
> The potential of a practice is morally meaningless.
> There only is meaning to what one *does*, not what one
> *might* do but doesn't.
>
> Karen continued:
>
> The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that
> it is "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis,
> but that it is a more -- not *absolutely*, but
> *more* -- just practice because it better respects
> animals.
>
> Karen seems to want to take a cafeteria approach to
> utilitarianism and deontology. (For those not familiar
> with her, Karen - "glorfindel", bleaghh - historically
> has leaned toward deontology, believing that animals
> should hold "rights".) She wants to try to cadge as
> much prestige as she can from utilitarian beliefs
> without really adopting them. But there is *no*
> improvement, in utility or otherwise, from adopting a
> belief system, and some half measures based on it, that
> don't actually reduce the level of harm one causes.
>
> By trying to make much of her belief that "veganism"
> has more potential to reduce harm, but not actually
> *doing* things to reduce harm, Karen is demonstrating
> once again that "veganism" is almost entirely about
> symbolic gestures.



~jonnie~?....................why do you wear your underpants on the
outside of your clothing?