[please be sure to remove misc.rural and alt.food if
you reply to ****wit David Harrison ('dh@.')]


Marc Frisch wrote:
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>
>
> What's your point? Every vegans knows that. The fact that
> you can't avoid causing suffering is not a very good excuse
> to cause as much as you want.

Most "vegans" start out NOT knowing it, because most
"vegans" choose that belief due to an embrace of a
logical fallacy:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I don't eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


This is an example of denying the antecedent, one of
the classic fallacies. ALL "vegans" start out by
believing it: that's why they choose "veganism", in
order not to cause animals to suffer and die. But the
things they *do* consume do, in fact, cause uncounted
animal deaths and much suffering. "vegans" seem
oblivious to this - merely not putting animal parts in
their mouths, and not directly using animal parts for
other purposes, seems to make "vegans" feel good about
themselves. It's a phony, sanctimonious, hypocritical
stance.


>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>slaughters,
>
>
> In your opinion, is the use of a condom morally inferior to
> giving birth to an unwanted child, torturing it for a couple of
> years and then kill it?

The person to whom you're directing your question,
****wit David Harrison, will simply wave that away as a
"different" situation. ****wit is stridently but
stupidly and illogically anti-"vegan". His whole silly
story is that when animals come into existence - in his
words, "get to experience life" - they are receiving an
incomparable "benefit", and "vegans" want to "deny"
this benefit to livestock animals; unethically, in
****wit's opinion.

NO other anti-"vegan" omnivores - NOT ONE - in the
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup agree with
****wit about life being a "benefit" to farm animals.
their opposition to "veganism" is on other, logically
solid grounds.

****wit *does* have to believe that bringing the child
into the world and then killing it is a "benefit" to
the child, but he tries unsuccessfully to deny it.


>>Due to the influence of farm
>>machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>>draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>>likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>>derived from grass raised animals.
>
>
> The livestock on earth consumes far more soy products than
> would be necessary to feed all mankind. Your right that agriculture
> causes death, directly as well as indirectly through pollution. The
> best way to limit it is to avoid animal products (whose productions
> wastes far more resources than the production of plant-based food).

The resources are not "wasted". It's how people choose
to use them. Your moral judgment that the resources
"ought" to go to some other use is unfounded.


>>Grass raised animal products
>>contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
>
> I disagree. Overgrazing is one of the major causes of
> desertification and therefore a huge threat to the environment.
>
> Best regards,
> Marc
>