Dave wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>>"Dave" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dave" > wrote in message
legroups.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.

The difference in numbers is several orders of
magnitude, dummy. A difference that large tells you
there is some *underlying* difference in kind.

What do you suppose it is, davey "pesco-vegan"? Let's
see, below...


> 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.

davey, *why* do you suppose there is no mitigation in
place for those things, except in cases of endangered
species? That is, apart from species that are
threatened or endangered, no mitigation is required for
the use of the technologies you mentioned in order to
prevent animal deaths. Our concern is not with
individual animals, who have no right nor expectation
of not being harmed, but rather with species that we
don't want to see become extinct.

But it's different with humans. Technology use must be
done in such a way that the threat to *individual*
humans is minimized. Not only that, but mitigation
efforts are ongoing and constant: cars, appliances,
airplanes, etc. are safer today than they were in 1996,
and they were safer in 1996 than they were in 1986, and
so on.

What do you suppose the difference in kind is, davey,
you ****wit?


>>>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.

See above, "pesco-vegan", you ****wit. These are not
"merely statistical" differences. There is an
underlying difference in kind that LEADS TO the
orders-of-magnitude difference.


>>>>>>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,

The likelihood of a nuclear accident is extremely
small. Worrying about perishing in a nuclear accident,
or an airplane crash, is a great example of focusing on
the wrong probability.

The wrong probability to which people pay too much
attention, and therefore worry needlessly, is the
conditional probability: *given* that the airplane in
which I'm traveling crashes - that's the condition -
*then* what is the probability that I'll die? That
conditional probability is obviously quite high,
approaching 1, but it's the wrong one on which to focus.

The correct probability is the joint probability: what
is the probability that the plane on which I'm
traveling crashes *and* that I die in the crash? The
probability of the plane crash is extremely small, so
the joint probability also is small. The same holds
for nuclear accidents. If you live near a nuke plant,
and it has a major Chernobyl-scale accident, then the
probability of dying is very high; but the probability
of the accident happening in the first place is
extremely low.


>>>>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.

The probability that *some* animals will die every time
a piece of heavy farm machinery ventures into a field
is extremely high; probably nearly 1. By contrast, the
probability that a human will die, other than the
equipment operator himself, is virtually zero. The
probability that humans will die even in the course of
a major urban construction project is extremely low.
One must distinguish between workers who may be killed
or injured in the course of their work, and innocent
bystanders or passers-by. The animals killed
collaterally in agriculture are not like construction
workers or factory workers; they are like a pedestrian
walking along the sidewalk next to a construction
project, and a brick or chunk of metal falls on him and
kills him. The workers know the risks, and they are
compensated for them. *Even so*, we still attempt to
minimize the risks both for the human participants and
the passers-by. No such effort is made for wildlife
living in farm fields.


>>>>>>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.

It's childishly simple.


>>>>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.
>>>>>
>