Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> The "some animals" in that statement refers not to some miniscule
> >> >> statistical number, but massive and systematic harm. In that sense the
> >> >> statement is entirely correct. The AR/vegan idealism only holds
> >> >> together
> >> >> if
> >> >> veganism by it's nature eliminates all but statisically small amounts
> >> >> of
> >> >> animal harm. It does not do that.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> To paraphrase that stupidity;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to
> >> >> >> *some* [humans] is acceptable, then the theoretical
> >> >> >> concept of "[human] rights" collapses utterly and
> >> >> >> must be discarded in favor of a more logical world-
> >> >> >> view."
> >> >> >> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human"
> >> >> > makes no difference to the logic here.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes it absolutely does make a difference. Derek slyly removed the
> >> >> first
> >> >> sentence from the paragraph which changes the context. The entire
> >> >> paragraph
> >> >> is...
> >> >>
> >> >> <----start------>
> >> >> Under normal circumstances we always can avoid harm to humans.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a
> >> > result
> >> > of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global
> >> > warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances".
> >>
> >> You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference
> >> between
> >> doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something
> >> that
> >> kills outright.
> >
> > Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
> > collateral and intentional animal deaths?
>
> Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk
> of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
> populations.

Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
kind. Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
"statistical" deaths.
>
> > There is little doubt that
> > human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
> > warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
> > floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
> > of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
> > a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.
>
> It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to the
> treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied subdivisions with
> giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.

If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
entirely of degree. If you wish to make distinctions based on how
"direct"
,for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no reason to
deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the head and
undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.
>
> >> >> We don't
> >> >> continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans.
> >> >
> >> > Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but it
> >> > is still there.
> >>
> >> On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear accidents,
> >> not
> >> on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.
> >
> > Granted.
>
> That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some* harm
> always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.

That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
style. By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
harm principle" quite pertinent.

> >> >> If we
> >> >> are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
> >> >> acceptable,
> >> >> then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and
> >> >> must
> >> >> be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.
> >> >
> >> > Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths that
> >> > are
> >> > an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
> >> > activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of yet
> >> > more
> >> > animals.
> >>
> >> It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place it
> >> into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products
> >> actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think,
> >> then
> >> that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die either
> >> way,
> >
> > Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
> > simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.
>
> The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
> production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
> produced.

Of course.

> >> so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad dichotomy
> >> between farming animals and not doing so,
> >
> > Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
> > between,...
>
> If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
> collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by non-vegan
> foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.

Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
rather harder to establish.

> >> provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly.
> >
> > Yes. That's a very important qualification.
> >
> >> >> <----end----->
> >> >>
> >> >> The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet"
> >> >> status
> >> >> that vegans like to pretend to is a sham.
> >> >
> >> > Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim that
> >> > it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous.
> >>
> >> I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating,
> >> misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done
> >> with
> >> honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable.
> >>
> >> >> Animals are killed in large
> >> >> numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy
> >> >> in
> >> >> that light is an outright lie.
> >> >
> >> > This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather more
> >> > convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed but
> >> > it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve
> >> > fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant
> >> > foods.
> >>
> >> That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view.
> >
> > The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock
> > farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt
> > that some day.
>
> Read this. http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/...malsplace.html

Thanks for that. There was one particular fragment of the article that
made an impression on me: " a human morality based on individual
rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world.
This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human
culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good
for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an
adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric
to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature?"

It makes a certain pragmatic sense to adopt a moral duality; a system
of thought to guide our conduct within the "human realm" and a seperate

system to guide our conduct within the "natural realm".

> >> >
> >> >> It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it
> >> >> must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive.
> >> >