Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Mar 2, 6:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Feb 29, 5:34 am, wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 3:34 pm, Buxqi > wrote:

>
> > I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> > have the right to limit another's freedom?

>
> My approach to ethics never asks "why should I be
> allowed to do X" unless a reason why I shouldn't has
> been given. What freedoms are denied when a dog is
> trained towards some useful to human's purpose or
> when a hen's unfertilized eggs are eaten by us?
> Why are such freedoms important?

I honestly don't know how to answer that. No offense, but the question
seem absurd to me.
>
> > I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> > intentional harm and unintentional harm

>
> Sure. If we were talking between the difference between harm
> caused out of ignorance or stupidity and harm caused out
> of malice, I wouldn't even have raised the issue. However,
> given that it is somewhat predictable that in the course of
> commercial crop production, wildlife will be harmed it is
> harder to show that the difference has practical significance.
>
> Indeed some of the harm is quite deliberate. Spraying crops
> to kill insect pests, introducing myxomatosis into the wild
> rabbit population and the use of mousetraps are good
> examples of that.

I do the best I can with what I know, and I learn as much as I can
along the way.
I'm not satisfied with the way most crops are cultivated, and I think
those practices should change. It is not necessary to kill animals in
order to grow food-- I've done it.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Mar 2, 7:23 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:17 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 1:41 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:> On Feb 28, 9:34 pm, wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 27, 3:34 pm, Buxqi > wrote:

>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 5:35 pm, wrote:

>
> > > > > > On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

>
> > > > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

>
> > > > > > > > > > > I do not eat meat;

>
> > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

>
> > > > > > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

>
> > > > > > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.

>
> > > > > > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

>
> > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.

>
> > > > > > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > > > > > *still* accept it.

>
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

>
> > > > > > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > > > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > > > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > > > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > > > > > > > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > > > > > > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
> > > > > > > > > sure the
> > > > > > > > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > > > > > > > greater
> > > > > > > > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > > > > > > > refuse to eat
> > > > > > > > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > > > > > > > meat, or
> > > > > > > > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > > > > > > > ethics -
> > > > > > > > > I kid you not!

>
> > > > > > > > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > > > > > > > have become
> > > > > > > > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > > > > > > > sight of the
> > > > > > > > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > > > > > > > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > > > > > > > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.

>
> > > > > > > Very true.

>
> > > > > > > > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > > > > > > > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > > > > > > > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > > > > > > > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > > > > > > > support itself with religious rhetoric.

>
> > > > > > > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > > > > > > dream
> > > > > > > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > > > > > > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > > > > > > for our benefit.

>
> > > > > > Dictionary.com:
> > > > > > subjugate--
> > > > > > 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> > > > > > 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.

>
> > > > > > I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> > > > > > word "subjugate".

>
> > > > > I wasn't suprised that he objected. People
> > > > > tend to object when those on the other side
> > > > > of the debate use "loaded" terms. I don't have a
> > > > > problem with it though. Nor do I consider it
> > > > > inaccurate.

>
> > > > > > Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> > > > > > Anyway...
> > > > > > I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> > > > > > not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
> > > > > > what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> > > > > > worms in your compost pile? (joke)- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > > Well the least controversial example I can think of
> > > > > would be working dogs, trained to follow orders. I
> > > > > know it is a minority fringe within the vegan community
> > > > > but I have seen objection, even to pets on the grounds
> > > > > that is technically a master-slave relationship as
> > > > > the owner owns the pet. A working dog would also
> > > > > be made to work for the owner but would normally
> > > > > be quite content with its lot and I don't see the
> > > > > problem.

>
> > > > > A more controversial would be a laying hen reared
> > > > > in a compassionate free range style. You can take
> > > > > keep the hen and take the unfertilized eggs without
> > > > > infringing upon the hens freedom. The difference is that
> > > > > the hen's status is likely to be more like
> > > > > "economic resource" than companion and therefore
> > > > > her needs will most likely be given less weight.
> > > > > If nothing else she is likely to be killed when she
> > > > > ceases to be "economically viable".

>
> > > > > The most controversial situation I would accept
> > > > > is the raising animals for meat or killing game animals.
> > > > > I can see why this is very hard to justify in light of my
> > > > > previous comments. Taking a life is the ultimate
> > > > > "rights infringement" and example of placing the
> > > > > animal's needs subservient to ones own.

>
> > > > > However I prefer to look at it from another angle.
> > > > > Predation, I have been led to believe is not merely
> > > > > an undesirable reality but a way of keeping wild
> > > > > animal populations in balance. Without a population
> > > > > of natural predators and in the absense of human
> > > > > intervention, the numbers of the species would
> > > > > increase till they deplete their natural resources
> > > > > and start dying off of starvation. If you can accept
> > > > > that predation is for the greater good then why
> > > > > does it matter if the predator is human or not?

>
> > > > > The collateral deaths argument much touted on
> > > > > here also seems quite strong to me. Granted there is
> > > > > a difference between lives deliberately taken and
> > > > > lives lost as an incidental, unintended consequence
> > > > > but is this a difference of practical significance or
> > > > > is it only relevant to "ivory towers" ethics?

>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > > > I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> > > > have the right to limit another's freedom?

>
> > > That depends. You're using more vague, imprecise, and - yes! -
> > > deliberately inflammatory language.

>
> > > Freedom to do what? Do I have the right to limit your "freedom" to
> > > break into my house, take my stuff, inflict violence on me and my
> > > family? Yes, I most certainly do have that right.

>
> > > What "freedom" do you imagine domestic livestock have, or ought to
> > > have?

>
> > On what moral or ethical grounds do you base your opinion that it is
> > justifiable to raise animals for food?

>
> No, you're still trying to shift the argument to my beliefs, but it is
> yours that are in question here. You need to elaborate a coherent
> argument that it *isn't* justifiable to do so, because you're the one
> trying to overturn the status quo.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That's you.
>
> > > > I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> > > >intentional harm and unintentional harm.
> > >Not much. If I behave with recklessness or wanton disregard for the
> > >safety of other people, and someone experiences serious physical harm
> > >as a result, I am liable for criminal prosecution, in addition to
> > >potential civil damages, even though I didn't intend the harm.

>
> > But if you had intended to cause harm you would have committed a
> > distinctly different crime and would likely suffer a more severe
> > penalty.

>
> It isn't a distinctly different crime; it's a matter of degree. First
> degree murder is worse than second degree, which is worse than
> voluntary manslaughter, which is worse than involuntary manslaughter.
> They're all homicides, a crime, and the fact you didn't intend to kill
> someone, and so perhaps are prosecuted for second degree murder or
> voluntary manslaughter, won't get you off the criminal hook for an
> unlawful homicide.
>
> > >The lack of intent to cause harm does not get "vegans" off the moral
> > >hook for actual harm to animals that the fulfillment of their demands
> > >for goods and services actually causes.

>
> > Please explain what you mean by "the fulfillment of their demands for
> > goods and services".

>
> You want food and other goods and services. The provision of those
> things by farmers and other merchants does result in the death and
> injury of animals. You may not intend those deaths and injuries to
> occur, but they do occur, and they occur in the fulfillment of your
> demand.

I make no such demand. In fact, it is not necessary to kill an animal
in order to grow a plant.
But I take your point, and I will learn more about various farming
methods and buy from companies that are more in-line with my
convictions.
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Mar 2, 7:37 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:19 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 12:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 28, 10:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, wrote:

>
> > > > > > On Feb 26, 12:37 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

>
> > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

>
> > > > > > > > > I do not eat meat;

>
> > > > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

>
> > > > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

>
> > > > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.

>
> > > > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

>
> > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.

>
> > > > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > > > *still* accept it.

>
> > > > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

>
> > > > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong.

>
> > > > > > > No, it isn't. It is completely accurate. All "vegans" *do* start by
> > > > > > > believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> > > > > > > cause no animal suffering and death. And that's false - they *do*
> > > > > > > cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. Most
> > > > > > > "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. Those who
> > > > > > > do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> > > > > > > equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> > > > > > > all:

>
> > > > > > > 1. They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> > > > > > > 2. They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> > > > > > > 3. They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.

>
> > > > > > > *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.

>
> > > > > > > > I am a vegan and I'd like

>
> > > > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.

>
> > > > > > > I have. I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> > > > > > > morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. All
> > > > > > > they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> > > > > > > thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> > > > > > > those who do consume animal parts.

>
> > > > > > > >You only

>
> > > > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > > > argument.

>
> > > > > > > It is.

>
> > > > > > > > It's you against your straw man.

>
> > > > > > > No, there's no straw man. I have accurately described the very
> > > > > > > essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > > > > > You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
> > > > > > 'veganism'", as you called it.

>
> > > > > No, I have *absolutely* described the essence of "veganism". The
> > > > > empty, symbolic gesture of refusing to consume animal parts is all
> > > > > there is to it. It has no moral substance to it at all. *ALL* of the
> > > > > conclusions "vegans" wish to draw from this purely symbolic and
> > > > > *passive* act are completely false. We've been through this already:
> > > > > they're not causing zero deaths; they're not causing minimal deaths;
> > > > > they're not "doing the best they can"; they're not doing *ANYTHING* of
> > > > > any moral substance. The only thing they're doing is flattering their
> > > > > egos.

>
> > > > > > But like I keep telling you,

>
> > > > > No, as you keep falsely claiming.

>
> > > > > > it's not your job to tell me what my position is, anyway.

>
> > > > > Yet, I know what it is all the same! I know *exactly* what your
> > > > > position is. Your position is that you falsely believe being "vegan"
> > > > > somehow is morally meaningful, and I have shown you that it is not.
> > > > > It is nothing but posturing, and it's really disgusting, because you
> > > > > continue to delude yourself into thinking there's moral substance to
> > > > > it, and there isn't.

>
> > > > > > Let's see how you
> > > > > > like it:
> > > > > > Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
> > > > > > that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings,

>
> > > > > No, I've never advanced any such argument; your conclusion is false.

>
> > > > > > but only for food, clothing, health, etc.

>
> > > > > > Is that about right?

>
> > > > > No - not because it doesn't incorporate some of what I believe,but
> > > > > because I have not advanced *any* argument about what I believe. I
> > > > > have only pointed out that "veganism" isn't what its adherents believe
> > > > > it to be; and that, in fact, it ("veganism") isn't *any* kind of
> > > > > coherent moral belief.

>
> > > > You only need to point out your own beliefs.

>
> > > This isn't about my beliefs in any way, kid. It's about yours, and
> > > the extravagant and false claims you make based on your beliefs. I
> > > have shown complete incoherence in your beliefs and claims, and you're
> > > trying to weasel out of addressing the problems by trying to shift the
> > > discussion to me. The discussion is about "veganism", and that's what
> > > the discussion will continue to be about.

>
> > I don't have a problem with that at all; it's one of my favorite
> > topics. But you do not begin a debate by defining your opponent's
> > position.

>
> But I *do* know your position. I don't see what problem you have with
> me indicating that I know what it is.


This is what you stated:
Quote:
All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by subscribing to a
logically fallacious argument:
If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals. I do not eat meat; Therefore,
I do not cause harm to animals.
This is not my belief.
This is not how I began my belief.
This is simply YOUR belief about what "all vegans" believe.
It is a very clear and obvious STRAW-MAN.
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Mar 3, 4:54*am, wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:> On Feb 29, 5:34 am, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 3:34 pm, Buxqi > wrote:

>
> > > I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> > > have the right to limit another's freedom?

>
> > My approach to ethics never asks "why should I be
> > allowed to do X" unless a reason why I shouldn't has
> > been given. What freedoms are denied when a dog is
> > trained towards some useful to human's purpose or
> > when a hen's unfertilized eggs are eaten by us?
> > Why are such freedoms important?

>
> I honestly don't know how to answer that. No offense, but the question
> seem absurd to me.


No offense taken. Sorry if it seems so obvious to you that you
don't know how to answer. If you like, imagine you are explaining
it to a small child. In order to train and use a working dog what is
it necessary to force the dog to do or prevent the dog from doing?
In order to collect and eat a hen's egg what is it necessary to
prevent or force the hen to do?

> > > I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> > > intentional harm and unintentional harm

>
> > Sure. If we were talking between the difference between harm
> > caused out of ignorance or stupidity and harm caused out
> > of malice, I wouldn't even have raised the issue. However,
> > given that it is somewhat predictable that in the course of
> > commercial crop production, wildlife will be harmed it is
> > harder to show that the difference has practical significance.

>
> > Indeed some of the harm is quite deliberate. Spraying crops
> > to kill insect pests, introducing myxomatosis into the wild
> > rabbit population and the use of mousetraps are good
> > examples of that.

>
> I do the best I can with what I know, and I learn as much as I can
> along the way.
> I'm not satisfied with the way most crops are cultivated, and I think
> those practices should change. It is not necessary to kill animals in
> order to grow food-- I've done it.


Sure. It is not necessary but it happens whenever crops
are grown on a commercial scale. I don't want to labour
this point any more though. At best the argument is that
if you have to buy your own food in, animal rights will
be violated whether vegan or not. It certainly doesn't
justify raising animals for meat and it doesn't mean
one shouldn't be discerning what foods one eats either.

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Mar 2, 9:56 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 2, 7:23 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:> On Mar 1, 11:17 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 1:41 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:> On Feb 28, 9:34 pm, wrote:

>


[...]
> > > > > I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> > > > > have the right to limit another's freedom?

>
> > > > That depends. You're using more vague, imprecise, and - yes! -
> > > > deliberately inflammatory language.

>
> > > > Freedom to do what? Do I have the right to limit your "freedom" to
> > > > break into my house, take my stuff, inflict violence on me and my
> > > > family? Yes, I most certainly do have that right.

>
> > > > What "freedom" do you imagine domestic livestock have, or ought to
> > > > have?

>
> > > On what moral or ethical grounds do you base your opinion that it is
> > > justifiable to raise animals for food?

>
> > No, you're still trying to shift the argument to my beliefs, but it is
> > yours that are in question here. You need to elaborate a coherent
> > argument that it *isn't* justifiable to do so, because you're the one
> > trying to overturn the status quo.

>
> The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That's you.


No. I haven't made a claim; *you* have. I have challenged your
claims, both implicit and explicit, and you keep trying to shift the
debate to my beliefs, which are not at issue. I keep kicking the ball
back into your court, where it belongs.

You are the one who claims, without support, that refusing to eat
animal parts makes some kind of moral difference. I have shown that
it does not. The burden is still on you, and you aren't meeting it.


>
> > > > > I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> > > > >intentional harm and unintentional harm.
> > > >Not much. If I behave with recklessness or wanton disregard for the
> > > >safety of other people, and someone experiences serious physical harm
> > > >as a result, I am liable for criminal prosecution, in addition to
> > > >potential civil damages, even though I didn't intend the harm.

>
> > > But if you had intended to cause harm you would have committed a
> > > distinctly different crime and would likely suffer a more severe
> > > penalty.

>
> > It isn't a distinctly different crime; it's a matter of degree. First
> > degree murder is worse than second degree, which is worse than
> > voluntary manslaughter, which is worse than involuntary manslaughter.
> > They're all homicides, a crime, and the fact you didn't intend to kill
> > someone, and so perhaps are prosecuted for second degree murder or
> > voluntary manslaughter, won't get you off the criminal hook for an
> > unlawful homicide.

>
> > > >The lack of intent to cause harm does not get "vegans" off the moral
> > > >hook for actual harm to animals that the fulfillment of their demands
> > > >for goods and services actually causes.

>
> > > Please explain what you mean by "the fulfillment of their demands for
> > > goods and services".

>
> > You want food and other goods and services. The provision of those
> > things by farmers and other merchants does result in the death and
> > injury of animals. You may not intend those deaths and injuries to
> > occur, but they do occur, and they occur in the fulfillment of your
> > demand.

>
> I make no such demand.


Yes, you certainly do. "Demand" refers to your wish to buy goods in
markets, goods that you didn't produce yourself. In the case of your
food, particularly, animals are slaughtered to produce the goods you
demand.

> In fact, it is not necessary to kill an animal
> in order to grow a plant.


Right - it isn't. And yet it happens, on a monumental scale. And you
do *nothing* to try to lessen it.


> But I take your point, and I will learn more about various farming
> methods and buy from companies that are more in-line with my
> convictions.


No, you won't.


  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Mar 2, 10:17 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 2, 7:37 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 10:19 pm, wrote:

>
> > > On Mar 1, 12:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, wrote:

>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 10:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > > > On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, wrote:

>
> > > > > > > On Feb 26, 12:37 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

>
> > > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

>
> > > > > > > > > > I do not eat meat;

>
> > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

>
> > > > > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

>
> > > > > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.

>
> > > > > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

>
> > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.

>
> > > > > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > > > > *still* accept it.

>
> > > > > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

>
> > > > > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong.

>
> > > > > > > > No, it isn't. It is completely accurate. All "vegans" *do* start by
> > > > > > > > believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> > > > > > > > cause no animal suffering and death. And that's false - they *do*
> > > > > > > > cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. Most
> > > > > > > > "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. Those who
> > > > > > > > do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> > > > > > > > equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> > > > > > > > all:

>
> > > > > > > > 1. They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> > > > > > > > 2. They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> > > > > > > > 3. They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.

>
> > > > > > > > *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.

>
> > > > > > > > > I am a vegan and I'd like

>
> > > > > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.

>
> > > > > > > > I have. I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> > > > > > > > morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. All
> > > > > > > > they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> > > > > > > > thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> > > > > > > > those who do consume animal parts.

>
> > > > > > > > >You only

>
> > > > > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > > > > argument.

>
> > > > > > > > It is.

>
> > > > > > > > > It's you against your straw man.

>
> > > > > > > > No, there's no straw man. I have accurately described the very
> > > > > > > > essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > > > > > > You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
> > > > > > > 'veganism'", as you called it.

>
> > > > > > No, I have *absolutely* described the essence of "veganism". The
> > > > > > empty, symbolic gesture of refusing to consume animal parts is all
> > > > > > there is to it. It has no moral substance to it at all. *ALL* of the
> > > > > > conclusions "vegans" wish to draw from this purely symbolic and
> > > > > > *passive* act are completely false. We've been through this already:
> > > > > > they're not causing zero deaths; they're not causing minimal deaths;
> > > > > > they're not "doing the best they can"; they're not doing *ANYTHING* of
> > > > > > any moral substance. The only thing they're doing is flattering their
> > > > > > egos.

>
> > > > > > > But like I keep telling you,

>
> > > > > > No, as you keep falsely claiming.

>
> > > > > > > it's not your job to tell me what my position is, anyway.

>
> > > > > > Yet, I know what it is all the same! I know *exactly* what your
> > > > > > position is. Your position is that you falsely believe being "vegan"
> > > > > > somehow is morally meaningful, and I have shown you that it is not.
> > > > > > It is nothing but posturing, and it's really disgusting, because you
> > > > > > continue to delude yourself into thinking there's moral substance to
> > > > > > it, and there isn't.

>
> > > > > > > Let's see how you
> > > > > > > like it:
> > > > > > > Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
> > > > > > > that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings,

>
> > > > > > No, I've never advanced any such argument; your conclusion is false.

>
> > > > > > > but only for food, clothing, health, etc.

>
> > > > > > > Is that about right?

>
> > > > > > No - not because it doesn't incorporate some of what I believe,but
> > > > > > because I have not advanced *any* argument about what I believe. I
> > > > > > have only pointed out that "veganism" isn't what its adherents believe
> > > > > > it to be; and that, in fact, it ("veganism") isn't *any* kind of
> > > > > > coherent moral belief.

>
> > > > > You only need to point out your own beliefs.

>
> > > > This isn't about my beliefs in any way, kid. It's about yours, and
> > > > the extravagant and false claims you make based on your beliefs. I
> > > > have shown complete incoherence in your beliefs and claims, and you're
> > > > trying to weasel out of addressing the problems by trying to shift the
> > > > discussion to me. The discussion is about "veganism", and that's what
> > > > the discussion will continue to be about.

>
> > > I don't have a problem with that at all; it's one of my favorite
> > > topics. But you do not begin a debate by defining your opponent's
> > > position.

>
> > But I *do* know your position. I don't see what problem you have with
> > me indicating that I know what it is.

>
> This is what you stated:
>
Quote:
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by subscribing to a
> logically fallacious argument:
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals. I do not eat meat; Therefore,
> I do not cause harm to animals.
>
>
> This is not my belief.


Perhaps not now. But you still have some kind of irrational belief
that not putting animal parts in your mouth somehow makes a moral
difference. It does not.


> This is not how I began my belief.


Yes, it was.
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Mar 2, 8:54 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:> On Feb 29, 5:34 am, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 3:34 pm, Buxqi > wrote:

>
> > > I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> > > have the right to limit another's freedom?

>
> > My approach to ethics never asks "why should I be
> > allowed to do X" unless a reason why I shouldn't has
> > been given. What freedoms are denied when a dog is
> > trained towards some useful to human's purpose or
> > when a hen's unfertilized eggs are eaten by us?
> > Why are such freedoms important?

>
> I honestly don't know how to answer that. No offense, but the question
> seem absurd to me.


It's the necessarily implied question of "aras" and "vegans", you
twit. When "aras" say that we shouldn't eat animal parts, or even
have domesticated animals at all, they are doing so out of a misguided
belief that some "freedom" is denied to the animals so used. Unless
and until they can coherently and persuasively state what those
freedoms are, they have no case.


>
> > > I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> > > intentional harm and unintentional harm

>
> > Sure. If we were talking between the difference between harm
> > caused out of ignorance or stupidity and harm caused out
> > of malice, I wouldn't even have raised the issue. However,
> > given that it is somewhat predictable that in the course of
> > commercial crop production, wildlife will be harmed it is
> > harder to show that the difference has practical significance.

>
> > Indeed some of the harm is quite deliberate. Spraying crops
> > to kill insect pests, introducing myxomatosis into the wild
> > rabbit population and the use of mousetraps are good
> > examples of that.

>
> I do the best I can with what I know,


No, you don't. You absolutely do *NOT* do the best you can, and you
don't seek to expand what you know as a first step to make
improvement.

"You, sir, are an animal rights passivist!" - Brian L. O'Connor

You're completely passive in this; that's one of the vilest things
about "veganism".


> and I learn as much as I can
> along the way.
> I'm not satisfied with the way most crops are cultivated, and I think
> those practices should change.


But *YOU* aren't doing anything, not a damned thing, to effect such a
change. Wringing your hands and lamenting in usenet is worthless.

> It is not necessary to kill animals in
> order to grow food-- I've done it.


It also isn't necessary for you to buy food from farmers who *do* kill
animals in the course of growing food - yet you continue to do it.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism George Plimpton Vegan 42 02-10-2013 09:23 PM
Drive against animal slaughter by animal welfare groups dh@. Vegan 0 18-11-2011 01:27 AM
repost: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' usual suspect Vegan 153 14-01-2005 07:49 AM
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Jonathan Ball Vegan 60 27-06-2004 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"