On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's
> > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational
> > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's
> > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on
> > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless
> > one reasonable step to take.
>
> Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as that,
> but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with hard-core
> Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view. It's a
> huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying,
> blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat as
> disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely "suggesting
> veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the case for the
> mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione.

No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the basis
of arguments other than the environmental argument.

> Not you
> either, based on everything you've said.

Why not?

> If you have decided to accept AR
> ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be tolerant, it
> would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas interesting,
> but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you have
> chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many questions
> about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the very
> least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as skeptical as you
> would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection of an
> angle or something, without providing hard evidence.

The trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not really
saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual. I see a problem with
discriminating on the basis of species alone. I acknowledge that it is
a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You think
it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I think
your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what constitutes
discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say that
if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
is definitely incorrect. That definitely shows you've got a long way
to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing this
out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping you
to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you need
to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
wrong.