 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Bill wrote: > >> Rat & Swan wrote: > > >>> Dutch wrote: > > >>> <snip> > > >>>> Veganism *means* that meat-eating is immoral. > > >>> That does not mean meat-EATERS are immoral. > > >> Implied. You believe it, too. > > > No, I don't, Yes, you do. .... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > >>They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their > >>self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do > >>not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. > > > > Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans think > > they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle will > > eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. > > http://www.johnkinsella.org/conversations/vegan.html > http://www.veganforlife.org/ethics.htm > http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php > http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/dynamic.htm > http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/crueltyfree.htm > http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/vegan_life.htm > http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocac...yofethics.html > http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm > > I didn't even look at PETA, PCRM, or any of the other better-known > sites. They, too, make a lot of statements about the moral and ethical > superiority of a vegan diet and lifestyle. They also allege, as a couple > of the quotes I offered (but you snipped), a vegan diet is free of > cruelty and animal suffering. Shame on you for failing to note their > remarks, and even more shame for continuing to say that vegans don't > make claims of moral superiority. *That* is why I mentioned something > about clinging to your orthodoxy, holding fast to your disputable dogma, > in light of proof to the contrary. Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of number of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is that veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. I've given reasons for my position but I can't prove it with hard numbers. You can't prove your position with hard numbers either. Why can't you accept that neither of us really know *unequivocally* which is morally superior? > > I have never set myself up as being any more righteous than anyone else. > > You claimed that a diet which you allege "minimizes" animal casualties > is more ethical than a diet containing meat. Just because I think that veg*n diet wins in our dispute doesn't mean that I am more or less righteous than anyone else. A vegetarian lifestyle is a personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it. > No, I'm not frustrated; I also think my points have been sufficient to > convince *reasonable* persons. I remain both reasonable and unconvinced. > How many meals, at a reasonable serving size of a quarter pound, can you > get from a deer which dresses at 100 pounds? I see 400 meals per deer. > Pennsylvania allows one antlered and one unantlered deer per archery > season. That's 800 meals if you use both tags. Add more if you also hunt > with muzzleloader and/or rifle. If that's not enough, hunt other game as > well. How much meat do you need? I don't need any! :^) > > You have no more verifiable facts than I do. > > Wait, what verifiable facts did you offer? None, neither have you. > > Yet you persist in coming off > > as some know-all, be-all intellect with all the answers. You are even more > > righteous and sanctimonious than than the vegans you accuse of the same. You > > are a hypocrite without equal. > > Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me. I don't hate you at all. > > Avoiding meat contributes to the betterment of the world in other ways > > beyond morality. > > Please explain and justify this sentiment. I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many people, is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of food, and contributes to various forms of pollution. I just think it's a better way of life. > It was obvious that you're playing without much more than your feelings > about things even before you mentioned your "sense." It's all you really have too. > I feel very good but it has nothing to do with you. Get some facts that > we can discuss and debate. Your "sense" can be fodder for discussion, > but your feelings aren't germane to the discussion. Debating with you is like beating my head against the wall. I haven't convinced you of anything and you haven't convinced me of anything. Why can't we just understand each other and you can go off to battle the vegans and I'll go walk in the woods somewhere. > > You can play emphasis games all you want, but in the end > > your argument has no more substance than anyone else's. > > It has more than yours. No it doesn't. > > I'm out of this thread... > > Wuss. I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm aching to be outside. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"LordSnooty" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:37:49 -0000, "Derek" > wrote: > > > > >"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > >> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > >> > C. James Putz wrote: > >> > >> > They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their > >> > self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do > >> > not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. > >> > >> Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans think > >> they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle will > >> eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. And this coming from a vegan, > >> sheesh! You need to rethink a lot of things. > >> > >He has done, but that confused him and us even more. > > > >"I am vegan" > >usual suspect 2002-05-09 > > > >"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan." > >usual suspect 2003-06-10 > > > >"No thanks, I'm a vegan." > >usual suspect 2003-08-14 > > > >"You'll find my views have been consistent." > >usual suspect 2003-09-05 > > Lol. Yes, that conclusively shows how confused jonathan is. > I would like to agree with you on this point but I can't because this doesn't show Jon's confusion *conclusively* at all. Rather, it merely scratches the surface of it. He's not schizophrenic, but he did try to become one once and asked his doctor for some pills to help him. When his doctor asked why he wanted so many different personalities, Jon replied that he wanted them so his wanking would become full-on orgies. > > > 'You can't win 'em all.' > Lord Haw Haw. > > Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities > Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities > I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. > There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me > > If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 > richest person in the world. > > And I'm keeping the bloody lot. > > So sue me. > > http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>>>They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their >>>>self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do >>>>not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. >>> >>>Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans think >>>they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle will >>>eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. >> >>http://www.johnkinsella.org/conversations/vegan.html >>http://www.veganforlife.org/ethics.htm >>http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php >>http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/dynamic.htm >>http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/crueltyfree.htm >>http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/vegan_life.htm >>http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocac...yofethics.html >>http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm >> >>I didn't even look at PETA, PCRM, or any of the other better-known >>sites. They, too, make a lot of statements about the moral and ethical >>superiority of a vegan diet and lifestyle. They also allege, as a couple >>of the quotes I offered (but you snipped), a vegan diet is free of >>cruelty and animal suffering. Shame on you for failing to note their >>remarks, and even more shame for continuing to say that vegans don't >>make claims of moral superiority. *That* is why I mentioned something >>about clinging to your orthodoxy, holding fast to your disputable dogma, >>in light of proof to the contrary. > > > Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of number > of animal deaths. No, WE aren't, See-jimmy. YOU are attempting to do so, but only after seeing that the bogus initial "vegan" position is untenable, based as it is on a classical logical fallacy. The chronology is this, See-jimmy: 1. "vegans" all begin by engaging in the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent: If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. I do not eat meat; Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. This argument is fallacious, and its conclusion is false: "vegans" DO cause animals to suffer and die. 2. "vegans" then fall back to a fatuous counting game that makes virtue relative to others' behavior. The counting game is morally indefensible, See-jimmy. If you butt**** the 6 year old boy living next door weekly, while your brother butt****s the 6 year old boy living next door to him daily, you both are monsters, and equally so. Don't you see the problem, See-jimmy? Say the starting point is, you only butt****ed the 6 year old boy living next door to you every other week, and your brother butt****ed his 6 year old neighbor boy weekly. Then, if your filthy brother increases his sodomization of his 6 year old neighbor to a daily occurrence, you could increase yours to an every-other-day rate, and *still* consider yourself "more ethical". But you would not be ethical AT ALL, See-jimmy. Sodomizing 6 year old boys is unethical PER SE: the rate is irrelevant. > By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is that > veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. And it is morally meaningless, See-jimmy. The "vegan" STILL is causing casual, consequence-free animal deaths that the "vegan" - but NOT the omnivore - claims to be wrong. > I've given reasons for my > position but I can't prove it with hard numbers. It wouldn't matter if you could, See-jimmy. You are up a blind alley. Better than being up the ass of your 6 year old neighbor boy, I suppose. > You can't prove your > position with hard numbers either. Why can't you accept that neither of us > really know *unequivocally* which is morally superior? See-jimmy: the very BELIEF that this can be reduced to a vulgar counting game is immoral PER SE. > > >>>I have never set myself up as being any more righteous than anyone else. >> >>You claimed that a diet which you allege "minimizes" animal casualties >>is more ethical than a diet containing meat. > > > Just because I think that veg*n diet wins in our dispute doesn't mean that I > am more or less righteous than anyone else. A vegetarian lifestyle is a > personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it. You can't explain why you're vegetarian AT ALL, let alone why you AREN'T "vegan". > > >>No, I'm not frustrated; I also think my points have been sufficient to >>convince *reasonable* persons. > > > I remain both reasonable and unconvinced. Your reliance on a vulgar counting game PROVES that you are not reasonable. > > >>How many meals, at a reasonable serving size of a quarter pound, can you >>get from a deer which dresses at 100 pounds? I see 400 meals per deer. >>Pennsylvania allows one antlered and one unantlered deer per archery >>season. That's 800 meals if you use both tags. Add more if you also hunt >>with muzzleloader and/or rifle. If that's not enough, hunt other game as >>well. How much meat do you need? > > > I don't need any! :^) What you seem to need is a false, sanctimonious belief in your "superior" virtue. > > >>>You have no more verifiable facts than I do. >> >>Wait, what verifiable facts did you offer? > > > None, neither have you. You have offered only sophistry and appalling moral confusion. > > >>>Yet you persist in coming off >>>as some know-all, be-all intellect with all the answers. You are even more >>>righteous and sanctimonious than than the vegans you accuse of the same. >>> >>>You are a hypocrite without equal. >> >>Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me. > > > I don't hate you at all. You are not persuasive. > > >>>Avoiding meat contributes to the betterment of the world in other ways >>>beyond morality. >> >>Please explain and justify this sentiment. > > > I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many people, Don't attempt to impose your ignorance of health on others. > is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of food, You can't give a rigorous and meaningful definition to "inefficient". > and contributes to various forms of pollution. So does vegetable crop cultivation, harvesting and distribution. You don't believe in a zero-pollution outcome, and as with your refusal to explain why you're not "vegan", you have no rigorous way of saying how much pollution is optimal. > I just think it's a better way of life. This is an aesthetic value judgment of yours, not an ethical judgment. > > >>It was obvious that you're playing without much more than your feelings >>about things even before you mentioned your "sense." > > > It's all you really have too. No. I have logically examined your supposed ethics, and shown that it is anything but. > > >>I feel very good but it has nothing to do with you. Get some facts that >>we can discuss and debate. Your "sense" can be fodder for discussion, >>but your feelings aren't germane to the discussion. > > > Debating with you is like beating my head against the wall. I haven't > convinced you of anything and you haven't convinced me of anything. You have no justification for continuing to believe that ethics can be based on a vulgar counting game. > Why can't we just understand each other and you can go off to battle the > vegans and I'll go walk in the woods somewhere. Because you remain here, trying to defend "veganism" as an ethical choice, when it clearly isn't one. Doing so is an implied attack on those who eat meat. You are saying they are bad people, and the implication of saying that people are bad is that they should stop doing whatever it is that makes them bad, and that if they don't stop on their own, they will be made to stop, by force. "veganism" is, inherently, an advocacy of totalitarianism. > > >>>You can play emphasis games all you want, but in the end >>>your argument has no more substance than anyone else's. >> >>It has more than yours. > > > No it doesn't. Yes, it certainly does. > > >>>I'm out of this thread... >> >>Wuss. > > > I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm aching to > be outside. You should never come back to this particular discussion. If you do, that is *additional* unethical behavior, because your position has been demolished. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian; Karen Winter wants to be a sanctimoniousliar
rick etter wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > ... > >> >>usual suspect wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims >>>of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of >>>the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet >>>causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is >>>at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly >>>everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of >>>agriculture. >> >> Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The >> ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about >> such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, > > ==================== > LOL, you just don't care about them in practice. OR in principle, either. > I see, so as long as you > 'philosophical' care, it doesn't matter what you practice. > You really are a hoot! What we see is that she doesn't really care about the deaths at all, either as a matter of principle OR practice. She cannot justify, based on any moral principle, her engagement in one utterly symbolic gesture and her refusal to engage in another equally symbolic gesture. "veganism" is not based on principle. > > > > >> and until their point of view bcomes more common, there will be no >> reason for those who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods. > > ===================== > No, their won't, especially since you continue to *reward* them for > providing you with the cheapest, most conveninet veggies, killer. The above is Karen's blaming HER failure to abide by a principle in which she claims to believe on the moral failings of others. She is saying she can't be held to a principled standard of behavior until others have changed their ways. She wants to claim she isn't saying that, but it clearly IS her position. > >> I am convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it >> rejects such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is >> accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness >> of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until >> a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production >> of food and other products is seen as unacceptable. Then society can >> and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well. > > ================= > What a dodge. So, you're saying that you don't have to worry about the > animals *you* cause to die until we start worrying about the animals we > cause to die? That is exactly what she is saying, so her later claim that she isn't saying it is plainly a lie. > Nice little scam of a philosophy you gat going there hypocrite. It makes a mockery of the word philosophy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > 1. "vegans" all begin by engaging in the fallacy of > Denying the Antecedent: > No, they don't. We all know animals die during crop production. You're lashing out at a straw man. > If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. > This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die). A necessary condition for an event is something which is absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur. Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat. A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or accident, then I am still able to eat meat. A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q," which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition. http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm Jane 2003-10-25 > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer > and die. > > This argument is fallacious, and its conclusion is > false: "vegans" DO cause animals to suffer and die. > No, they don't; farmers cause them. > 2. "vegans" then fall back to a fatuous counting game > that makes virtue relative to others' behavior. > "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing feed for the animals you eat. The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22 Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed collaterally during the production of food are morally obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's the best ethical solution in reducing them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Derek wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > > >>1. "vegans" all begin by engaging in the fallacy of >> Denying the Antecedent: >> > > No, they don't. Yes, they do. > We all know animals die during crop > production. Not when you *first* pompously announce that you're "vegan". You don't learn it until you begin running your mouth in places like this newsgroup, and then omnivores - smarter than you - tell you about CDs. > You're lashing out at a straw man. Nope. > > >> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. >> > > This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always > assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die). Nope. > > >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer >> and die. >> >> This argument is fallacious, and its conclusion is >> false: "vegans" DO cause animals to suffer and die. >> > > No, they don't; farmers cause them. You are morally complicit. > > >>2. "vegans" then fall back to a fatuous counting game >> that makes virtue relative to others' behavior. >> > > "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll > lose. I don't play a counting game. It's ethically bankrupt. One isn't ethically superior if one does less of an immoral activity, unless one does zero of it. > > Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed > collaterally during the production of food are morally > obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, If you really care, you must do far more than follow a "vegan" diet. > because it's the best ethical solution in reducing them. It is not. It isn't based on any principle, merely on a fatuous consumption rule. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > Derek wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > > > >>1. "vegans" all begin by engaging in the fallacy of > >> Denying the Antecedent: > > > > No, they don't. > > Yes, they do. > Evidence please. > > We all know animals die during crop > > production. > > Not when you *first* pompously announce that you're > "vegan". We all know, Jon. You can't base your argument on an alleged mass ignorance of something as obvious as collateral deaths and harms in crop production. This kind of thing is taught to schoolchildren. > > You're lashing out at a straw man. > > Nope. > You are, and no one is fooled by your whimpering denials. > > > >> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. > > > > This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always > > assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die). > > Nope. > A necessary condition for an event is something which is absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur. Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat. A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or accident, then I am still able to eat meat. A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q," which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition. http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm Jane 2003-10-25 > >> I do not eat meat; > >> > >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer > >> and die. > >> > >> This argument is fallacious, and its conclusion is > >> false: "vegans" DO cause animals to suffer and die. > >> > > > > No, they don't; farmers cause them. > > You are morally complicit. > Only according to those who want to pass the buck. > > > >>2. "vegans" then fall back to a fatuous counting game > >> that makes virtue relative to others' behavior. > > > > "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll > > lose. > > I don't play a counting game. It's ethically bankrupt. > One isn't ethically superior if one does less of an > immoral activity, unless one does zero of it. > I'm not claiming to be causing less, because I don't cause any to begin with, but you already knew that. > > > > Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed > > collaterally during the production of food are morally > > obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, > > If you really care, you must do far more than follow a > "vegan" diet. > Why? > > because it's the best ethical solution in reducing them. > > It is not. It isn't based on any principle, merely on > a fatuous consumption rule. > My choice to abstain from farmed meat is testament to my belief that farmed animals have a right not to be farmed. It's not merely a consumption rule. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Derek wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... >>> >>> >>>>1. "vegans" all begin by engaging in the fallacy of >>>> Denying the Antecedent: >>> >>>No, they don't. >> >>Yes, they do. >> > > Evidence please. You've been shown it befo http://tinyurl.com/t6n6 > > >>>We all know animals die during crop >>>production. >> >>Not when you *first* pompously announce that you're >>"vegan". > > > We all know, Jon. You do not. You act as if you still don't. > > >>>You're lashing out at a straw man. >> >>Nope. >> > > You are Nope. > >>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>> >>>This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always >>>assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die). >> >>Nope. >> > > >>>> I do not eat meat; >>>> >>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer >>>> and die. >>>> >>>> This argument is fallacious, and its conclusion is >>>> false: "vegans" DO cause animals to suffer and die. >>>> >>> >>>No, they don't; farmers cause them. >> >>You are morally complicit. >> > > Only according to those who want to pass the buck. No. YOU are passing the buck in order to pretend you aren't morally complicit. You are morally complicit. It has been shown. > >>>>2. "vegans" then fall back to a fatuous counting game >>>> that makes virtue relative to others' behavior. >>> >>>"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll >>>lose. >> >>I don't play a counting game. It's ethically bankrupt. >> One isn't ethically superior if one does less of an >>immoral activity, unless one does zero of it. >> > > I'm not claiming to be causing less, because I don't cause > any to begin with, but you already knew that. Your claim is false. You are integral to animal CDs. This is established. > >>>Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed >>>collaterally during the production of food are morally >>>obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, >> >>If you really care, you must do far more than follow a >>"vegan" diet. >> > > Why? You already know why. > > >>>because it's the best ethical solution in reducing them. >> >>It is not. It isn't based on any principle, merely on >>a fatuous consumption rule. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"C. James Strutz" > wrote
[..] > Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of number > of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is that > veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet? (humans don't have "carnivorous" diets). Lots of meat-included diets cause less animal death than lots of vegan diets. Your error is in categorizing diets by whether or not they include meat, that does not accurately reflect how many animal deaths the diet causes. Your "sense" is motivated by a desire to see yourself as a compassionate person, not by any objective measure. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Please see my response to Jonnie/Bill elsewhere Rat |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "C. James Strutz" > wrote > > [..] > > Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of number > > of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is that > > veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. > > Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet? If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian diet always includes at least one. Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed his livestock. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > Please see my response to Jonnie/Bill elsewhere It was crap: just your usual evasive crap. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Derek" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote > > > > [..] > > > Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of number > > > of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is that > > > veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. > > > > Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet? > > If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > diet always includes at least one. I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > his livestock. I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. It also wins in many other less extreme cases, in fact it probably wins in most cases. But that's not enough, for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of animal products that veganism preaches to be truly based on empathy for the suffering of animals, it must win ALWAYS. Since it doesn't, the correct rule would be more like, prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed meat, prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat, prefer fresh caught fish or pastured/hunted animals over factory farmed vegetables, prefer hand picked rice over machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of rule system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of all animals. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote > >>"Dutch" > wrote >> >>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote >>> >>>[..] >>> >>>>Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of > > number > >>>>of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is > > that > >>>>veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. >>> >>>Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet? >> >>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the >>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian >>diet always includes at least one. > > > I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very small animals, > which is itself "sizesim"). > > >>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are >>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet >>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths >>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed >>his livestock. > > > I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. The counting game is irrelevant, and it is a mistake for opponents of "ar" to get caught up in it. The "win" for a "vegan" diet does not in any way establish the ethical superiority of "veganism", for two among several reasons: 1. "veganism" does not begin by comparing death tolls between diets; that's a fallback position for "vegans". 2. virtue is not established by comparison to others' behavior, and in fact, trying to make virtue comparative is immoral per se. > It also wins in many > other less extreme cases, in fact it probably wins in most cases. But that's > not enough, It is ZERO. It counts for nothing. > for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of animal > products that veganism preaches to be truly based on empathy for the > suffering of animals, it must win ALWAYS. Since it doesn't, the correct rule > would be more like, prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed > meat, prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat, prefer fresh caught > fish or pastured/hunted animals over factory farmed vegetables, prefer hand > picked rice over machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of rule > system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of all animals. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net... > Dutch wrote: > > > "Derek" > wrote > > > >>"Dutch" > wrote > >> > >>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote > >>> > >>>[..] > >>> > >>>>Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of > > > > number > > > >>>>of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is > > > > that > > > >>>>veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. > >>> > >>>Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet? > >> > >>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > >>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > >>diet always includes at least one. > > > > > > I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very small animals, > > which is itself "sizesim"). > > > > > >>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > >>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > >>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > >>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > >>his livestock. > > > > > > I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > > The counting game is irrelevant, and it is a mistake > for opponents of "ar" to get caught up in it. I'm making the point that even the counting (or rather estimating) of animal deaths does NOT arrive at a conclusion of veganism, unless one stacks the deck specifically in advance as Dreck did. The > "win" for a "vegan" diet does not in any way establish > the ethical superiority of "veganism", for two among > several reasons: > > 1. "veganism" does not begin by comparing death tolls > between diets; that's a fallback position for > "vegans". > > 2. virtue is not established by comparison to others' > behavior, and in fact, trying to make virtue > comparative > is immoral per se. > > > It also wins in many > > other less extreme cases, in fact it probably wins in most cases. But that's > > not enough, > > It is ZERO. It counts for nothing. > > for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of animal > > products that veganism preaches to be truly based on empathy for the > > suffering of animals, it must win ALWAYS. Since it doesn't, the correct rule > > would be more like, prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed > > meat, prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat, prefer fresh caught > > fish or pastured/hunted animals over factory farmed vegetables, prefer hand > > picked rice over machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of rule > > system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of all animals. > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Derek" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote > > > > > > > Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral > > > > superiority" in terms of number of animal deaths. > > > > By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) > > > > is that veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. > > > > > > Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet? > > > > If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > > vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > > diet always includes at least one. > > I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very > small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > > > Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > > housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > > wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > > caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > > his livestock. > > I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > It also wins in many other less extreme cases, in fact it > probably wins in most cases. But that's not enough It is to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates the least, so you ought to take Jon's advice and quit this counting game before you even start it. > for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of > animal products that veganism preaches to be truly > based on empathy for the suffering of animals, it must > win ALWAYS. I don't think it does preach an **absolute** rule for the consumption of animal products, and this can be shown in their literature on breast feeding. [ From the International Vegetarian Union: Is breastfeeding vegan? Don't be silly! Of course it is.] http://www.ivu.org/faq/ On another page from their site they define veganism as; [VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives. Abhorrence of the cruel practices inherent in dairy, livestock and poultry farming is probably the single most common reason for the adoption of veganism, but many people are drawn to it for health, ecological, spiritual and other reasons.] *my emphasis* http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html So, as you can see for yourself, their official views on milk are ambiguous, but then again, so are mine when it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in a shot. The only reason I don't eat meat is because I cannot sanction the deaths of animals who I believe have a right not to be killed for my benefit. If they happen to die from natural causes I would eat them. My veganism is purely from an ethical point of view but allows me to scavenge meat from contented animals that have died from natural causes, while "Usual Suspect's" veganism, on the other hand, is from a health point of view which doesn't allow him to eat any meat at all under any circumstances. Veganism has at least two flavours to it. > Since it doesn't, the correct rule would be more like, > prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed meat, > prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat, > prefer fresh caught fish or pastured/hunted animals over > factory farmed vegetables, prefer hand picked rice over > machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of rule > system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of > all animals. > I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead. If animal farms were run in a way that allowed complete contentment and old age for its charges, then I would be in favour of Harrison's argument, but, as things are with that dirty great abattoir standing in the middle of it all, I'm for the abolishment of all livestock farming. Maybe I ought to move to Ohio where the road kills Ma Bishop boasts about might supply me in venison all year round. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > Dutch wrote: > > "Derek" > wrote > >> > >>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > >>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > >>diet always includes at least one. > > > > I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of > > very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > > > >>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > >>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > >>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > >>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > >>his livestock. > > > > I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > > The counting game is irrelevant Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates the least, it isn't, so you ought to quit this counting game before you even start it because it leaves the way clear for any ARist to claim that following the least harm principle is a glowing testament to his views on animal rights. > and it is a mistake for opponents of "ar" to get caught up > in it. That's good advice. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
C. James Wuss wrote:
>>>>They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their >>>>self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do >>>>not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. >>> >>>Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans > think >>>they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle > will >>>eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. >> >>http://www.johnkinsella.org/conversations/vegan.html >>http://www.veganforlife.org/ethics.htm >>http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php >>http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/dynamic.htm >>http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/crueltyfree.htm >>http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/vegan_life.htm >>http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocac...yofethics.html >>http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm >> >>I didn't even look at PETA, PCRM, or any of the other better-known >>sites. They, too, make a lot of statements about the moral and ethical >>superiority of a vegan diet and lifestyle. They also allege, as a couple >>of the quotes I offered (but you snipped), a vegan diet is free of >>cruelty and animal suffering. Shame on you for failing to note their >>remarks, and even more shame for continuing to say that vegans don't >>make claims of moral superiority. *That* is why I mentioned something >>about clinging to your orthodoxy, holding fast to your disputable dogma, >>in light of proof to the contrary. > > Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of number > of animal deaths. Compare this to your statement that I'm "over the top." I really want you to re-consider how morally superior it is to accept a few less animal casualties either way. Would you suggest that Jeffrey Dahmer was more ethical than or "morally superior" to John Wayne Gacy simply because he raped and killed fewer young men? If both sides being compared cause the *same* kind of 'harm,' perhaps neither is more ethical than the other. There really is no qualitative distinction to be made; yet the veg-n side continues to make such distinctions (as noted in the links I provided above). You will not accept such a premise that both sides are even because deep down inside you continue to cling to the false notion that no animals die since you don't eat their flesh. You are wrong. > By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is that > veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. In terms of morality and ethics, both are on the same level since both diets result in a similar number of animal casualties. All your moral posturing does is make you a hypocrite: you claim to loathe animal suffering and death, yet you continue to benefit from farming practices which cause the same. > I've given reasons for my > position but I can't prove it with hard numbers. You can't prove your > position with hard numbers either. Why can't you accept that neither of us > really know *unequivocally* which is morally superior? I seriously think you should pose that question to the vegan activists (and yourself) rather than me. I'm not the one making claims of moral superiority; I'm debunking those. I'm not the one who suggests one kind of food is unethical for reasons of animal suffering and death; I'm debunking such claims. Your argument boils down to claims you can't support; your claims are still based on denying the antecedent ("no or fewer animals die because I don't eat them"); and you use a very relative scale of morality to give your position some kind of moral footing it doesn't really deserve. The very fact that your claims are still hung up on a counting game *PROVES* that your position is neither moral nor ethical. >>>I have never set myself up as being any more righteous than anyone else. >> >>You claimed that a diet which you allege "minimizes" animal casualties >>is more ethical than a diet containing meat. > > Just because I think that veg*n diet wins in our dispute doesn't mean that I > am more or less righteous than anyone else. Righteous, no. Self-righteous, yes. > A vegetarian lifestyle is a > personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it. Seriously, why is your diet a "lifestyle"? >>No, I'm not frustrated; I also think my points have been sufficient to >>convince *reasonable* persons. > > I remain both reasonable and unconvinced. Is it reasonable to get all hung up on the counting game? >>How many meals, at a reasonable serving size of a quarter pound, can you >>get from a deer which dresses at 100 pounds? I see 400 meals per deer. >>Pennsylvania allows one antlered and one unantlered deer per archery >>season. That's 800 meals if you use both tags. Add more if you also hunt >>with muzzleloader and/or rifle. If that's not enough, hunt other game as >>well. How much meat do you need? > > I don't need any! :^) You'd have 800 meals' worth from two decent-size deer with no other animal injuries involved. Time for you to address the issue honestly. How many animals die or are injured producing 800 meals of rice, wheat, oats, barley, or other grains? >>>You have no more verifiable facts than I do. >> >>Wait, what verifiable facts did you offer? > > None, neither have you. Davis' study counts (no pun intended). >>>Yet you persist in coming off >>>as some know-all, be-all intellect with all the answers. You are even > more >>>righteous and sanctimonious than than the vegans you accuse of the same. > You >>>are a hypocrite without equal. >> >>Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me. > > I don't hate you at all. I remain unconvinced. >>>Avoiding meat contributes to the betterment of the world in other ways >>>beyond morality. >> >>Please explain and justify this sentiment. > > I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many people, All meat consumption or over-consumption? How "many" people? Please support this with citations (preferably not from PETA or PCRM type activist sites). > is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of food, How inefficient? > and contributes to various forms of pollution. So does crop agriculture, from tilling to irrigation to pesticide/herbicide use to harvest to processing to transportation. > I just think it's a better way of life. That's a nice sentiment of your "sense," but it's not an ethical assessment. >>It was obvious that you're playing without much more than your feelings >>about things even before you mentioned your "sense." > > It's all you really have too. If the issue is morality and ethics, you don't have much going for you. If an omnivorous diet is inherently immoral or unethical because it causes animal death, then your diet is equally immoral or unethical because yours causes animal death as well. You're caught up in the old counting game: Gacy versus Dahmer, beating once a week versus once a day. IOW, you'd rather count the apples than compare them to each other. >>I feel very good but it has nothing to do with you. Get some facts that >>we can discuss and debate. Your "sense" can be fodder for discussion, >>but your feelings aren't germane to the discussion. > > Debating with you is like beating my head against the wall. I haven't > convinced you of anything and you haven't convinced me of anything. Why > can't we just understand each other and you can go off to battle the vegans > and I'll go walk in the woods somewhere. Try comparing the apples rather than counting them. If you do that, then either diet is the same: each causes animal casualties. I'm not keeping you from walking in the woods somewhere. You're still trying to make a case that veganism is inherently morally superior. You've not supported such a claim to date. >>>You can play emphasis games all you want, but in the end >>>your argument has no more substance than anyone else's. >> >>It has more than yours. > > No it doesn't. It absolutely does. >>>I'm out of this thread... >> >>Wuss. > > I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm aching to > be outside. You'll be back, and you'll continue to try to defend your untenable, unsupported, and unsupportable assertions. I'll be ready to hit you over the head with your "sense" again, too. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Derek wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > >>Dutch wrote: >> >>>"Derek" > wrote >>> >>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the >>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian >>>>diet always includes at least one. >>> >>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of >>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). >>> >>> >>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are >>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet >>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths >>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed >>>>his livestock. >>> >>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. >> >>The counting game is irrelevant > > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > the least, it isn't, It is: 1. They have never counted 2. They aren't causing the least Thanks for the admission that you are causative to animal deaths. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news  > Derek wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > >>Dutch wrote: > >>>"Derek" > wrote > >>> > >>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > >>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > >>>>diet always includes at least one. > >>> > >>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of > >>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > >>> > >>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > >>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > >>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > >>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > >>>>his livestock. > >>> > >>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > >> > >>The counting game is irrelevant > > > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > > the least, it isn't, > > It is: > > 1. They have never counted They don't need to count them, and neither did you before acknowledging; "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing feed for the animals you eat. The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22 > 2. They aren't causing the least > You've already admitted that they are. > Thanks for the admission that you are causative to > animal deaths. > I haven't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Gender-confused Dreck wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news
>>>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... >>> >>>>Dutch wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Gender-confused Dreck" > wrote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the >>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian >>>>>>diet always includes at least one. >>>>> >>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of >>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are >>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet >>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths >>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed >>>>>>his livestock. >>>>> >>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. >>>> >>>>The counting game is irrelevant >>> >>>Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates >>>the least, it isn't, >> >>It is: >> >>1. They have never counted > > > They don't need to count them, They DO need to count them if they're going to play a counting game, moron. > >>2. They aren't causing the least >> > > You've already admitted that they are. > > >>Thanks for the admission that you are causative to >>animal deaths. >> > > I haven't. You just did. You don't know you did, because you're stupid. You did admit it, all the same. For $100, payable in advance, I'll explain it to you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > Gender-confused Dreck wrote: > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news
> >> >>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: > >> > >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > >>> > >>>>Dutch wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>"Gender-confused Dreck" > wrote > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > >>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > >>>>>>diet always includes at least one. > >>>>> > >>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of > >>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > >>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > >>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > >>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > >>>>>>his livestock. > >>>>> > >>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > >>>> > >>>>The counting game is irrelevant > >>> > >>>Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > >>>the least, it isn't, > >> > >>It is: > >> > >>1. They have never counted > > > > They don't need to count them, > > They DO need to count them if they're going to play a > counting game, moron. > You didn't count them before acknowledging; "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing feed for the animals you eat. The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22 And so neither do I or anyone before reaching the same conclusion. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Derek wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news
>>>>>> >>>>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Dutch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Gender-confused Dreck" > wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the >>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian >>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of >>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are >>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet >>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths >>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed >>>>>>>>his livestock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. >>>>>> >>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant >>>>> >>>>>Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates >>>>>the least, it isn't, >>>> >>>>It is: >>>> >>>>1. They have never counted >>> >>>They don't need to count them, >> >>They DO need to count them if they're going to play a >>counting game, moron. >> > > You didn't count them I never *will* count them, either, because the counting game is illegitimate. Your continued obsession with it indicates your claims are illegitimate, too. Restore the part you unethically snipped out: >> The counting game is irrelevant > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that > accumulates the least, it isn't, It is: 1. They have never counted 2. They aren't causing the least Thanks for the admission that you are causative to animal deaths. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > >>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > >>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of > >>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > >>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > >>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > >>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > >>>>>>>>his livestock. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant > >>>>> > >>>>>Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > >>>>>the least, it isn't, > >>>> > >>>>It is: > >>>> > >>>>1. They have never counted > >>> > >>>They don't need to count them, > >> > >>They DO need to count them if they're going to play a > >>counting game, moron. > > > > You didn't count them > > I never *will* count them. No one needs to count them before realising; "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing feed for the animals you eat. The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Derek wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Derek wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the >>>>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian >>>>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of >>>>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are >>>>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet >>>>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths >>>>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed >>>>>>>>>>his livestock. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates >>>>>>>the least, it isn't, >>>>>> >>>>>>It is: >>>>>> >>>>>>1. They have never counted >>>>> >>>>>They don't need to count them, >>>> >>>>They DO need to count them if they're going to play a >>>>counting game, moron. >>> >>>You didn't count them >> >>I never *will* count them. > > > No one needs to count them One MUST count them, if one is going to play the counting game. Restore the part you unethically snipped out: >> The counting game is irrelevant > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that > accumulates the least, it isn't, It is: 1. They have never counted 2. They aren't causing the least Thanks for the admission that you are causative to animal deaths. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > Derek wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Derek wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > >>>>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > >>>>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of > >>>>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > >>>>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > >>>>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > >>>>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > >>>>>>>>>>his livestock. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > >>>>>>>the least, it isn't, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It is: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>1. They have never counted > >>>>> > >>>>>They don't need to count them, > >>>> > >>>>They DO need to count them if they're going to play a > >>>>counting game, moron. > >>> > >>>You didn't count them > >> > >>I never *will* count them. > > > > No one needs to count them > > One MUST count them, if one is going to play the > counting game. > No one needs to count them before realising; "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing feed for the animals you eat. The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian
You're a repetitious, unintelligent ****.
Gender-confused Dreck wrote: > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... >>> >>>>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the >>>>>>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian >>>>>>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of >>>>>>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are >>>>>>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet >>>>>>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths >>>>>>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed >>>>>>>>>>>>his livestock. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates >>>>>>>>>the least, it isn't, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It is: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1. They have never counted >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They don't need to count them, >>>>>> >>>>>>They DO need to count them if they're going to play a >>>>>>counting game, moron. >>>>> >>>>>You didn't count them >>>> >>>>I never *will* count them. >>> >>>No one needs to count them >> >>One MUST count them, if one is going to play the >>counting game. >> > > No one needs to count them One MUST count them, if one is going to play the counting game. Restore the part you unethically snipped out: >> The counting game is irrelevant > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that > accumulates the least, it isn't, It is: 1. They have never counted 2. They aren't causing the least Thanks for the admission that you are causative to animal deaths. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message . net... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > >>>>>>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of > >>>>>>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > >>>>>>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > >>>>>>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > >>>>>>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > >>>>>>>>>>>>his livestock. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant > >>>>>>>>> Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates the least, it isn't, so you ought to quit this counting game before you even start it because it leaves the way clear for any ARist to claim that following the least harm principle is a glowing testament to his views on animal rights. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian, admits his integralrole in causing animal death
Gender-confused Dreck wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message . net... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of >>>>>>>>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>his livestock. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant >>>>>>>>>>> > Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > the least, it isn't, They haven't counted, so apparently it's irrelevant to them, too. One MUST count them, if one is going to play the counting game. Restore the part you unethically snipped out: >> The counting game is irrelevant > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that > accumulates the least, it isn't, It is: 1. They have never counted 2. They aren't causing the least Thanks for the admission that you are causative to animal deaths. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian, admits his integral role in causing animal death
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > "Derek" wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message . net... > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>his livestock. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant > >>>>>>>>>>> > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > > the least, it isn't, > > They haven't counted, No one needs to count them before realising; "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing feed for the animals you eat. The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian, admits his integralrole in causing animal death
Gender-confused Dreck wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message . net... >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diet always includes at least one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>very small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>his livestock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The counting game is irrelevant >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates >>>the least, it isn't, >> >>They haven't counted, > > > No one needs to count them One MUST count them, if one is going to play the counting game. Restore the part you unethically snipped out: >> The counting game is irrelevant > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that > accumulates the least, it isn't, It is: 1. They have never counted 2. They aren't causing the least Thanks for the admission that you are causative to animal deaths. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism
"Derek" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote > > "Derek" > wrote > > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote > > > > > > > > > Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral > > > > > superiority" in terms of number of animal deaths. > > > > > By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) > > > > > is that veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet. > > > > > > > > Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet? > > > > > > If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the > > > vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian > > > diet always includes at least one. > > > > I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very > > small animals, which is itself "sizesim"). > > > > > Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are > > > housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet > > > wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths > > > caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed > > > his livestock. > > > > I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. > > It also wins in many other less extreme cases, in fact it > > probably wins in most cases. But that's not enough > > It is to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > the least, That's false, almost any vegan diet would accumulate fewer animal deaths by substituting some pastured meat or freshly caught fish for some of the commercially (factory farmed) vegetables and grain. > so you ought to take Jon's advice and quit this > counting game before you even start it. I didn't start it, I'm merely being accomodating and demonstrating that veganism loses at it. > > for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of > > animal products that veganism preaches to be truly > > based on empathy for the suffering of animals, it must > > win ALWAYS. > > I don't think it does preach an **absolute** rule for the > consumption of animal products, Bullshit, veganism means NO consumption of animal products. It says as much below in the quote you included, "In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives." > and this can be shown > in their literature on breast feeding. > > [ From the International Vegetarian Union: > Is breastfeeding vegan? > Don't be silly! Of course it is.] > http://www.ivu.org/faq/ Oh get stuffed with breastfeeding.. > On another page from their site they define veganism as; > > [VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which > seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all > forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for > food, clothing or any other purpose. And I think it's quite practical to substitute some fish for some factory farmed plant-based products.. > In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing > with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, > eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives. That contradicts the principle of reducing harm to animals as much as is practical or possible. > Abhorrence of the cruel practices inherent in dairy, > livestock and poultry farming is probably the single most > common reason for the adoption of veganism, but many > people are drawn to it for health, ecological, spiritual > and other reasons.] *my emphasis* > http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html > > So, as you can see for yourself, their official views on > milk are ambiguous, They're more than that, they're self-contradictory. > but then again, so are mine when > it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I > consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had > a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died > from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in > a shot. What's ambiguous about that? If you eat pork you aren't a vegan. > The only reason I don't eat meat is because I > cannot sanction the deaths of animals who I believe have > a right not to be killed for my benefit. Every time you purchase packaged foods at the market you're sanctioning the extermination of animals. Your statement of belief as stated is nothing but lip service, literally. > If they happen to > die from natural causes I would eat them. My veganism > is purely from an ethical point of view but allows me to > scavenge meat from contented animals that have died > from natural causes, If you eat pork ribs you aren't a vegan according the definition you provided. "In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives." (not my emphasis) . What you are doing is creating a dietary exception for yourself from veganism based on an assessment of the particular situation. That's exactly what I am doing in theory by inclusion of freshly caught fish and pastured meats. > while "Usual Suspect's" veganism, > on the other hand, is from a health point of view which > doesn't allow him to eat any meat at all under any > circumstances. Veganism has at least two flavours to it. Veganism: "In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives." > > Since it doesn't, the correct rule would be more like, > > prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed meat, > > prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat, > > prefer fresh caught fish or pastured/hunted animals over > > factory farmed vegetables, prefer hand picked rice over > > machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of rule > > system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of > > all animals. > > > I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal > for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who > believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead. You or vegans don't uphold any such lofty sounding principle, consumption of factory farmed plant foods proves that conclusively. AR/vegan thinking is based on being against the *use* of animals for human benefit, not on the harming of animals. Vegans gleefully *ignore* the harming of animals in every aspect of life, *except* when humans are specifically *using* the animals, after all this time you don't grasp the basis of your own irrational beliefs.. > If animal farms were run in a way that allowed complete > contentment and old age for its charges, then I would be in > favour of Harrison's argument, but, as things are with that > dirty great abattoir standing in the middle of it all, I'm for > the abolishment of all livestock farming. Maybe I ought to > move to Ohio where the road kills Ma Bishop boasts about > might supply me in venison all year round. You're babbling incoherently. What you should do is go down to the market and buy some ribs and cook them up and enjoy them while you still have a chance, instead of someday laying on your death bed wishing you hadn't forgone all the good things of life based on some screwed up principle that you don't follow anyway. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Derek" > wrote
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote [..] > > The counting game is irrelevant > > Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates > the least, That's false, veganism *prevents* me from choosing options that cause less animal death and suffering. > it isn't, so you ought to quit this counting game > before you even start it because it leaves the way clear > for any ARist to claim that following the least harm > principle is a glowing testament to his views on animal > rights. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! > > > and it is a mistake for opponents of "ar" to get caught up > > in it. > > That's good advice. You think so because you know that veganism loses at it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Derek" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote > > "Derek" > wrote > > > > > Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed > > > collaterally during the production of food are morally > > > obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's > > > the best ethical solution in reducing them. > > > > Actually the reverse is true > > No, it isn't. > "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll > lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike > have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of > grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you > eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more > deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the > CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing > feed for the animals you eat. > > The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by > meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and > the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he > hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." > Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22 The rule of veganism is fatally flawed, since it prohibits me from consuming foods which could lessen the impact of my diet. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote: > > > "frlpwr" > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally > > > > hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely > > > > Proof? > > > Denial? > > I accept that death by direct poisoning is always "gruesome". I do not > accept that death by farm machinery is always "gruesome" or even usually > "gruesome". It could be gruesome in certain crop fields under certain > kinds of cultivation methods at certain times of the year. > > Find me testimony of wildlife rehabilitators describing routine wounds > from farm machinery. Direct me to records of collection and disposal of > the huge number of carcasses laying in our fields. Let me read the > necropsy reports of animals caught under the blades, in the screens, > under the wheels. Why? You already agree that deaths in farming are sometimes gruesome. > Give me something besides a guess that some burrowing mammal might not > tunnel deep enough, fast enough, to avoid the plow or that eggs (keep in > mind I'm not concerned about the unborn) I won't forget. The same questionable judgement that allows you to dismiss the lives of unborn children leads you to exhort the inviolability of animals. or chicks might get squashed if > they are > unlucky enough to be nest-bound when machines are in the fields. I know > chicks die quickly, they blow out of the trees in my backyard and die as > soon as they hit the ground. Chicks don't always die immediately when they hit the ground, I've tried putting them back in the nest when I find them before the cats do. > > Chickens, turkeys and other birds are mechanically slaughtered without > > > > any requirement for pre-slaughter stunning. > > > I never denied that livestock are killed, sometimes gruesomely, but thanks > > for reminding me. > > These gruesome deaths are entirely avoidable because they are > systematically contrived and carried out by human design. Doesn't it > make sense to fix the intentional harm first and then work on the > accidental? I'm completely convinced that harm is inevitable in any case, there are just too many animals around for it to be otherwise. Therefore to me it makes more sense to work on all fronts simultaneously. > Do you eat poultry? Do you know where and how the birds are killed? > > > > http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/turkey1.htm I'm disturbed by the trend towards factory farms just as you're disturbed by the trend towards monoculture farming. > > > > and in large numbers > > > > Proof? > > > Nobody gathers statistics, but talk to any old-timer from the midwest, ask > > him about wildlife on the prairies. Look at the number of songbird species > > that exist there now compared to 60 years ago. > > The reason for the decline of songbirds and other prairie species is > complex. Most biologists agree that the primary causes are habitat > conversion, fragmentation of breeding gounds and pesticide use. > > Monoculture sucks on every level except short-term profitability. > Anyone who cares about any aspect of the environment should avoid buying > industrial agricultural products, but let's not forget that most > monocultural tracts are feed grains. > > > > 9 billion birds were slaughtered in the US in 2001. > > > For good reason, people have to eat. > > People don't have to eat birds. But birds are killed by herbicides and pesticides anyway, so the net result is not that different, the main difference being, we get to eat something very nutritious and delicious. > > > > in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables, > > > > Which vegetables? I harvested greens from my garden plots last night; > > > they're in my refrigerator and I plan on giving several bunches to my > > > neighbors. > > > > What's the death toll for these? > > > Not relevant. > > Entirely relevant. You made a blanket statement that "large numbers" of > animals die "gruesome" deaths in the course of growing, storing and > distributing vegetables. You're wrong and my garden plots prove you're > wrong. It's a fallacy, you are responding to a general claim with a specific example. > > Animals don't suffer on "The Polyface Farm" either, but my > > food doesn't come from there. > > Now you've switched from death to suffering. Both are equally important are they not? > No animals die, let alone > suffer, so I can eat vegetables from my garden. Polyface Farm animals > might not suffer, but they _must_ die for me to eat them. The point I was making is that a person who lives off the produce of the Salatin Farm can say that litttle sufffering and maybe even some net good (nod to Harrison and Singer) came of it. Most vegans can NOT say that about their diets. That, to me, says all that needs to be said about veganism, it's singular rule against *use* of animals makes little sense when viewed in the broad picture. > > > I bought a bag of organic walnuts and grapes at Rainbow Co-op > > > yesterday. What's the death toll for these? > > > don't know, do you? > > Then how can you rightfully claim that "large numbers" of animals die > "gruesome" deaths to grow, store and distribute my food? Not every morsel of you food, the claim is a general one. [..] > > > No, it goes like this: > > > > If I eat meat, I cause food animals to suffer and die. > > > > I do not eat meat; > > > > Therefore, I do not cause food animals to suffer and die. > > > That would be like saying I only rob liquor stores therefore I have the > > moral authority to condemn people who rob convenience stores. > > This analogy isn't detailed enough to understand degrees of > culpability. On the way to rob a liquor store, you hit a child that > runs in front of your car. That's a field death. While robbing a > convenience store, you shoot the owner. That's livestock > production. That analogy fails also. It's too unlikely, unpredictable, and rare for a child to run in front of a getaway car. Animal casualties are a regular and predictable occurrence in large scale farming. > > > How is that a bizarre rant? > > > > "Bizzare" is too strong a word for an ordinary, little man like Bawl. > > > > However, his mistaken idea about vegan beliefs has a stranglehold on > > > him and that is... well, peculiar. > > > His ideas about vegan beliefs are quite correct. > > No, they're not. That's obvious from his stupid claim that vegans > believe by simply not eating animals they cause no suffering and no > deaths of animals. That's idiotic because everyone knows that many > animals suffer and die without having anything to do with food > production. The context of the claims mean they are *about* collateral harm in food production. Rick Etter diverts frequently to talk about power plants, etc.. but Jonathan doesn't. > > > > You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the > > > > following rhetorical question.. > > > > Is that any worse than replying with vaccuous claims about "large > > > numbers' and "gruesome deaths". > > > Denial. > > Damn right. I am absolutely, positively sure that it's possible to > "grow, store and distribute" vegetables without killing animals. I've > been doing it four seasons a year for the past 8 years. I even relocate > the hated weevils instead of squishing them like I want to. I agree that it's possible, but my claim is that it's rare, and most vegans who attack omnis are not doing it. I'm not disputing that animals die and suffer to feed me, it's true. I just wish vegans would ponder their own selfish choices a little more before pointing the fingers at others. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism
Dutch wrote: <snip> > That's false, almost any vegan diet would accumulate fewer animal deaths by > substituting some pastured meat or freshly caught fish for some of the > commercially (factory farmed) vegetables and grain. And, equally, almost any omnivorous diet would accumulate fewer animal deaths by substituting hot-house vegetables raised without lethal pest controls for slaughtered animals. <snip> > Bullshit, veganism means NO consumption of animal products. That's one definition, but not the only one. Ethical veganism means not buying, using, consuming animal-derived products which are unethically produced. It is not a rule; it is based on a logical reason and a reasonable philosophical basis. > It says as much > below in the quote you included, "In dietary terms it refers to the practice > of dispensing with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, > eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives." >>and this can be shown >>in their literature on breast feeding. >>[ From the International Vegetarian Union: >> Is breastfeeding vegan? >> Don't be silly! Of course it is.] >> http://www.ivu.org/faq/ > Oh get stuffed with breastfeeding.. Breastfeeding is a good example, because breat milk is unquestionably an animal product, but breastfeeding one's own child, or willingly breatfeeding others' children, is a voluntary act which involves no injustice. It is vegan in ethical terms, if not literally. It adheres to the principle on which veganism is based. >>On another page from their site they define veganism as; >>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which >> seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all >> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for >> food, clothing or any other purpose. Not an absolute, but a principle. It is Antis who wish to define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then attack. Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods. Even the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human. <snip> >>but then again, so are mine when >>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I >>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had >>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died >>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in >>a shot. I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds. > What's ambiguous about that? If you eat pork you aren't a vegan. You may be in ethical terms. <snip> >>I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal >>for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who >>believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead. Agreed. Slaughtering an animal, hunting one for sport, is always wrong. <snip> > You or vegans don't uphold any such lofty sounding principle, consumption of > factory farmed plant foods proves that conclusively. AR/vegan thinking is > based on being against the *use* of animals for human benefit, not on the > harming of animals. AR is opposed to use of animal products acquired in unethical ways. It has no ethical objection to the use of animal products not acquired in unethical ways. I would have no hesitation in using (examples I gave earlier) moulted feathers, dropped antlers, animal dung for fertilizer, infertile bird eggs, scavenged roadkill or meat from animals dead of natural causes. > Vegans gleefully *ignore* the harming of animals in > every aspect of life, *except* when humans are specifically *using* the > animals, Certainly not true. It is a generalization which cannot be supported in the case of any vegan I have ever met in person or online. All vegans express concern for harming on animals in many ways not related to their use by humans. > after all this time you don't grasp the basis of your own > irrational beliefs.. He's not the one who doesn't grasp the basis of veganism.... >>If animal farms were run in a way that allowed complete >>contentment and old age for its charges, then I would be in >>favour of Harrison's argument, but, as things are with that >>dirty great abattoir standing in the middle of it all, I'm for >>the abolishment of all livestock farming. In the short run, I agree, although not as a final goal. <snip> Rat |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism
Dutch wrote:
> > <snip> > > > That's false, almost any vegan diet would accumulate fewer animal deaths by > > substituting some pastured meat or freshly caught fish for some of the > > commercially (factory farmed) vegetables and grain. > > And, equally, almost any omnivorous diet would accumulate fewer > animal deaths by substituting hot-house vegetables raised without > lethal pest controls for slaughtered animals. So what? I'm not arguing against hothouse vegetables. The fact remains, virtually ALL the diets followed by and advocated by vegans could be improved by substituting some carefully chosen meat into the diet in place of some of the vegan approved food that's there now. That alone demolishes the claims made by vegans. If vegans were true animal advocates they would approve of this substitution, but they aren't, they're idealogues. They're rule-bound lemmings. <snip> > > > Bullshit, veganism means NO consumption of animal products. > > That's one definition, but not the only one. Bullshit!! veganism MEANS NO consumption of animal products. > Ethical veganism > means not buying, using, consuming animal-derived products which > are unethically produced. Road-kill again? That's a diversionary argument. We've been down this raod before. > It is not a rule; it is based on > a logical reason and a reasonable philosophical basis. It's a hard and fast RULE which adherents pretend exists to benefit animals, but my argument right above PROVES that is false. The rule is an aesthetic, quasi-political rule. > > > It says as much > > below in the quote you included, "In dietary terms it refers to the practice > > of dispensing with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, > > eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives." > > >>and this can be shown > >>in their literature on breast feeding. > > >>[ From the International Vegetarian Union: > >> Is breastfeeding vegan? > >> Don't be silly! Of course it is.] > >> http://www.ivu.org/faq/ > > > Oh get stuffed with breastfeeding.. > > Breastfeeding is a good example, because breat milk is > unquestionably an animal product, but breastfeeding one's > own child, or willingly breatfeeding others' children, is > a voluntary act which involves no injustice. It is vegan > in ethical terms, if not literally. It adheres to the > principle on which veganism is based. Breast-feeding is another diversionary argument, it has no relevance to the *use of* or *consumption of* ANIMALS. > >>On another page from their site they define veganism as; > > >>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which > >> seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all > >> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for > >> food, clothing or any other purpose. > > Not an absolute, but a principle. If it's not an absolute, then why can't I call myself a vegan? I don't eat veal. > It is Antis who wish to > define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then > attack. Veganism IS an absolute RULE. To the extent any vegan consumes animal products they are failing to live by the vegan RULE and are failing be a vegan in that specific way. Every vegan who does consume some animal product knows he is failing to be a vegan in that respect. Ask Zakhar, or frlpwr. You're just attempting to create a moving target, it won't work. > Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical > ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods. > Even > the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the > goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not > even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human. We're not talking about failing in some small way to achieve a principle, we're talking about massive and fundamental misrepresentation of a rule as a principle. Entire classes of animals are disregarded by vegans in the normal course of their lives, while they insist that exempting a small subset of animals is mandatory for ethical living. > <snip> > >>but then again, so are mine when > >>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I > >>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had > >>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died > >>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in > >>a shot. > > I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds. > > > What's ambiguous about that? If you eat pork you aren't a vegan. > > You may be in ethical terms. tap tap tap... > <snip> > >>I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal > >>for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who > >>believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead. > > Agreed. Slaughtering an animal, hunting one for sport, is always > wrong. Animals are slaughtered by the million daily, but not consumed. Vegans have nothing to say about them. You'll say "oh yes we care about them all", but your actions belie those words, you ONLY target those specific classes of animals outlined in AR doctrine. > <snip> > > You or vegans don't uphold any such lofty sounding principle, consumption of > > factory farmed plant foods proves that conclusively. AR/vegan thinking is > > based on being against the *use* of animals for human benefit, not on the > > harming of animals. > > AR is opposed to use of animal products acquired in unethical ways. It > has no ethical objection to the use of animal products not acquired in > unethical ways. I would have no hesitation in using (examples I gave > earlier) moulted feathers, dropped antlers, animal dung for > fertilizer, infertile bird eggs, scavenged roadkill or meat from > animals dead of natural causes. That means nothing, you're begging the question. I don't view the slaughter of animals for food as unethical therefore I guess I'm an AR and a vegan too. > > Vegans gleefully *ignore* the harming of animals in > > every aspect of life, *except* when humans are specifically *using* the > > animals, > > Certainly not true. It is a generalization which cannot be supported > in the case of any vegan I have ever met in person or online. All > vegans express concern for harming on animals in many ways not related > to their use by humans. Lip service. I have never been attacked by an ARA/vegan for consuming commercial vegetables. > > after all this time you don't grasp the basis of your own > > irrational beliefs.. > > He's not the one who doesn't grasp the basis of veganism.... He's completely ignorant. He doesn't realize that veganism is about humans treating animals as objects. > >>If animal farms were run in a way that allowed complete > >>contentment and old age for its charges, then I would be in > >>favour of Harrison's argument, but, as things are with that > >>dirty great abattoir standing in the middle of it all, I'm for > >>the abolishment of all livestock farming. > > In the short run, I agree, although not as a final goal. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Dutch wrote: > > <snip> > > > That's false, almost any vegan diet would accumulate fewer animal deaths by > > substituting some pastured meat or freshly caught fish for some of the > > commercially (factory farmed) vegetables and grain. > > And, equally, almost any omnivorous diet would accumulate fewer > animal deaths by substituting hot-house vegetables raised without > lethal pest controls for slaughtered animals. ====================== To turn a phrase, 'but can you feed the world on hot-house veggies'? > > <snip> > > > Bullshit, veganism means NO consumption of animal products. > > That's one definition, but not the only one. ======================= You can make up any number you want, but the real term was defined by the guy who made up the word... "Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals " Ethical veganism > means not buying, using, consuming animal-derived products which > are unethically produced. It is not a rule; it is based on > a logical reason and a reasonable philosophical basis. ==================== Unethical isn't in there, is it? that's added by you just to make it easy on your conscience. The real wording is "excludes all forms of exploitation " and that m'dear is something you fail at in spades. Each of your ignorant usenet posts proves that. snippage.. > >>I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal > >>for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who > >>believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead. > > Agreed. Slaughtering an animal, hunting one for sport, is always > wrong. ========================== Yet poisoning it for your cheap, convenient veggies is not? causing their deaths and suffering just for your entertainment by posting to usenet isn't wrong either, eh killer? You really are too much, hypocrite! > > <snip> > > You or vegans don't uphold any such lofty sounding principle, consumption of > > factory farmed plant foods proves that conclusively. AR/vegan thinking is > > based on being against the *use* of animals for human benefit, not on the > > harming of animals. > > AR is opposed to use of animal products acquired in unethical ways. ===================== No, you've just made that up on your own as an 'out' for all the massive death and suffering you cause. It > has no ethical objection to the use of animal products not acquired in > unethical ways. I would have no hesitation in using (examples I gave > earlier) moulted feathers, dropped antlers, animal dung for > fertilizer, infertile bird eggs, scavenged roadkill or meat from > animals dead of natural causes. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yet you continue to live off animals that are killed in what you call unethical ways. > > > Vegans gleefully *ignore* the harming of animals in > > every aspect of life, *except* when humans are specifically *using* the > > animals, > > Certainly not true. It is a generalization which cannot be supported > in the case of any vegan I have ever met in person or online. All > vegans express concern for harming on animals in many ways not related > to their use by humans. ============================ Expressing 'concern' and them ignoring your impact are two seperate things, killer. You express your 'concerns' all the time, yet your actions are that you don't care one whit. Each of your frivolous, ignorant posts to usenet prove that, hypocrite. > > > after all this time you don't grasp the basis of your own > > irrational beliefs.. > > He's not the one who doesn't grasp the basis of veganism.... > > >>If animal farms were run in a way that allowed complete > >>contentment and old age for its charges, then I would be in > >>favour of Harrison's argument, but, as things are with that > >>dirty great abattoir standing in the middle of it all, I'm for > >>the abolishment of all livestock farming. > > In the short run, I agree, although not as a final goal. > > <snip> > > Rat > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism
Dutch wrote: >> <snip> >>>That's false, almost any vegan diet would accumulate fewer animal deaths > by >>>substituting some pastured meat or freshly caught fish for some of the >>>commercially (factory farmed) vegetables and grain. >> And, equally, almost any omnivorous diet would accumulate fewer >> animal deaths by substituting hot-house vegetables raised without >> lethal pest controls for slaughtered animals. > So what? I'm not arguing against hothouse vegetables. The fact remains, > virtually ALL the diets followed by and advocated by vegans could be > improved by substituting some carefully chosen meat into the diet in place > of some of the vegan approved food that's there now. Or -- by substituting hothouse vegetables. There is no way that a diet containing meat can EVER involve fewer deaths than a vegan diet chosen to include vegetables produced with few or no CDs. The vegan diet will always win in the "counting game" if the playing field is leveled to include the same considerations in the case of both meat and vegetable sources. > That alone demolishes > the claims made by vegans. Nonsense, and you know it. You have even admitted as much earlier in this very thread. > If vegans were true animal advocates they would > approve of this substitution, but they aren't, they're idealogues. They're > rule-bound lemmings. If one is a true animal advocate, one cannot advocate the deliberate killing of healthy, normal animals when equally good non-animal alternatives are available. You have even said so yourself. > <snip> >>>Bullshit, veganism means NO consumption of animal products. >> That's one definition, but not the only one. > Bullshit!! veganism MEANS NO consumption of animal products. >> Ethical veganism >> means not buying, using, consuming animal-derived products which >> are unethically produced. > Road-kill again? That's a diversionary argument. We've been down this raod > before. And you've never demonstrated your ethical opposition to roadkill. >> It is not a rule; it is based on >> a logical reason and a reasonable philosophical basis. > It's a hard and fast RULE which adherents pretend exists to benefit animals, > but my argument right above PROVES that is false. The rule is an aesthetic, > quasi-political rule. No, because most people who become vegans for ethical reasons agree with the "roadkill argument" in ethical terms. Some feel that even using animal products obtained in ethical ways demeans animals, but IMO that is definitely a minority view among ethical vegetarians, vegans, and ARAs. >>>It says as much >>>below in the quote you included, "In dietary terms it refers to the > practice >>>of dispensing with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, >>>eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives." >>>>and this can be shown >>>>in their literature on breast feeding. >>>>[ From the International Vegetarian Union: >>>> Is breastfeeding vegan? >>>> Don't be silly! Of course it is.] >>>> http://www.ivu.org/faq/ >>>Oh get stuffed with breastfeeding.. >> Breastfeeding is a good example, because breat milk is >> unquestionably an animal product, but breastfeeding one's >> own child, or willingly breatfeeding others' children, is >> a voluntary act which involves no injustice. It is vegan >> in ethical terms, if not literally. It adheres to the >> principle on which veganism is based. > Breast-feeding is another diversionary argument, it has no relevance to the > *use of* or *consumption of* ANIMALS. Well, it uses human animals and involves consumption of animal products produced by humans. You see with the example of breastfeeding given by vegans themselves, that it is not the rule which is significant, but the spirit. >>>>On another page from their site they define veganism as; >>>>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which >>>> seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all >>>> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for >>>> food, clothing or any other purpose. >> Not an absolute, but a principle. > If it's not an absolute, then why can't I call myself a vegan? I don't eat > veal. Veal is not the only exploitative animal product. >> It is Antis who wish to >> define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then >> attack. > Veganism IS an absolute RULE. To the extent any vegan consumes animal > products they are failing to live by the vegan RULE and are failing be a > vegan in that specific way. Every vegan who does consume some animal product > knows he is failing to be a vegan in that respect. Ask Zakhar, or frlpwr. > You're just attempting to create a moving target, it won't work. >> Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical >> ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods. >> Even >> the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the >> goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not >> even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human. > We're not talking about failing in some small way to achieve a principle, > we're talking about massive and fundamental misrepresentation of a rule as a > principle. Entire classes of animals are disregarded by vegans in the normal > course of their lives, while they insist that exempting a small subset of > animals is mandatory for ethical living. "Vegans" are not a undifferentiated block of identical people. Entire classes are not "disregarded" at all. >> <snip> >>>>but then again, so are mine when >>>>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I >>>>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had >>>>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died >>>>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in >>>>a shot. >> I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds. >>>What's ambiguous about that? If you eat pork you aren't a vegan. >> You may be in ethical terms. > tap tap tap... >> <snip> >>>>I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal >>>>for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who >>>>believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead. >> Agreed. Slaughtering an animal, hunting one for sport, is always >> wrong. > Animals are slaughtered by the million daily, but not consumed. Vegans have > nothing to say about them. You'll say "oh yes we care about them all", but > your actions belie those words, you ONLY target those specific classes of > animals outlined in AR doctrine. You know that's not true. >> <snip> >>>You or vegans don't uphold any such lofty sounding principle, > consumption of >>>factory farmed plant foods proves that conclusively. AR/vegan thinking > is >>>based on being against the *use* of animals for human benefit, not on > the >>>harming of animals. >> AR is opposed to use of animal products acquired in unethical ways. It >> has no ethical objection to the use of animal products not acquired in >> unethical ways. I would have no hesitation in using (examples I gave >> earlier) moulted feathers, dropped antlers, animal dung for >> fertilizer, infertile bird eggs, scavenged roadkill or meat from >> animals dead of natural causes. > That means nothing, you're begging the question. No, I'm showing why ethical veganism is based on principle, not rule. > I don't view the slaughter > of animals for food as unethical therefore I guess I'm an AR and a vegan > too. No, no AR would regard the slaughter of animals for food as ethical. >>>Vegans gleefully *ignore* the harming of animals in >>>every aspect of life, *except* when humans are specifically *using* the >>>animals, >> Certainly not true. It is a generalization which cannot be supported >> in the case of any vegan I have ever met in person or online. All >> vegans express concern for harming animals in many ways not related >> to their use by humans. > Lip service. I have never been attacked by an ARA/vegan for consuming > commercial vegetables. >>>after all this time you don't grasp the basis of your own >>>irrational beliefs.. >> He's not the one who doesn't grasp the basis of veganism.... > He's completely ignorant. He doesn't realize that veganism is about humans > treating animals as objects. Which does not mean not using any animal-derived products which do not involve treating animals as objects. Would making rope out of human hair voluntarily cut, or pulled out of a brush, be a violation of human rights? <snip> Rat |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
| I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
| Vegetarian low fat | Recipes | |||
| Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan | Vegan | |||
| FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
