"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
> > Dutch wrote:
> [..]
> > >>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.

> Which is why I strenuously oppose the claim that
> veganism is merely a dietary rule, or even based on
> a dietary rule. I see that an objection to the use of
> animals for food, clothing and human models is an
> extension to a belief system which insists they have
> a right not to be used in such a way. Nothing could
> be simpler, or so I thought.

If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have the
right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you have
instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

> > >>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.
> >
> To counter their nonsense on insisting we must remain
> infallible lest we imperil our claim that animals deserve
> rights against us, I've tried to show that though children
> are used as slaves for our benefit, unwittingly buying
> goods from their slavers doesn't show a contempt for
> human rights, but rather the impossible position faced
> by consumers duped into believing the goods they buy
> are produced ethically. To escape this counter, to date,
> every anti I've put this to has refused to accept the
> existence of child slave labour.

I never denied it, I don't know how you're defining "it" nor to what extent
exists in it's various forms. To be sure, unfair labour practises and
exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish your
tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children deliberately
and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned. Nowhere
are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance. More to
the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with so-called
"animal rights".

<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.
> >
> That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
> weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
> it?

Not at all, you're both lying. No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.

> > > What's ambiguous about that? If you eat pork you aren't a vegan.
> >
> > You may be in ethical terms.
> >
> Perfect!

Perfect crap.

> > <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.
> >
> Especially when pleasure is taken from it as in "Usual
> Suspect's" description of bow hunting. Anyone can
> hunt with weapons. Absolutely anyone.
>
> [..]
> > >>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.
> >
> By partially accepting Harrison's argument, I'm sticking
> my neck out as far as I can on this. If animals can be
> farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with vetinary
> care, I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm
> and eat them. It's the abattoir and frequent abuses of their
> right to freedoms that stops me agreeing with him fully.

Nobody cares about your stupid neck. Your arguments are irrational and
illogical bullshit. Why aren't you ****ed at Rat btw? she also equivocated
about the one rabbit for 1000 humans question.

Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message

>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message

<snip>

>>> Breastfeeding is a good example, because breast milk is
>>> unquestionably an animal product, but breastfeeding one's
>>> own child, or willingly breastfeeding 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.


>>Which is why I strenuously oppose the claim that
>>veganism is merely a dietary rule, or even based on
>>a dietary rule. I see that an objection to the use of
>>animals for food, clothing and human models is an
>>extension to a belief system which insists they have
>>a right not to be used in such a way. Nothing could
>>be simpler, or so I thought.


> If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have the
> right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you have
> instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

Used, killed, by moral agents, not by other animals or other
moral patients, and not if the animal products (like a
moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
exploitation.

>>>>>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.

>>To counter their nonsense on insisting we must remain
>> infallible lest we imperil our claim that animals deserve
>>rights against us, I've tried to show that though children
>>are used as slaves for our benefit, unwittingly buying
>>goods from their slavers doesn't show a contempt for
>>human rights, but rather the impossible position faced
>>by consumers duped into believing the goods they buy
>>are produced ethically. To escape this counter, to date,
>>every anti I've put this to has refused to accept the
>>existence of child slave labour.


> I never denied it, I don't know how you're defining "it" nor to what extent
> exists in it's various forms. To be sure, unfair labour practises and
> exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish your
> tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children deliberately
> and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned. Nowhere
> are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.

Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
as property, as objects, as things.

There's such a cognitive disconnect here. I have said many times
that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
immoral systm, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
their moral status which causes both. Antis respond by whining
that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
as animals are. What else would you expect?

> More to
> the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
> than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with so-called
> "animal rights".

ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
people who believe animals HAVE rights.

> <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.

>>That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
>>weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
>>it?

> Not at all, you're both lying.

Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
prejudices, call them a liar.

> No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.

*Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
meat are immoral. *grinds teeth,restraining self from using
term of personal insult.* Look -- I ate meat for many years,
up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS. If those
ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

<snip>

Rat

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:

[..]

> > If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have
the
> > right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you
have
> > instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.
>
> Used, killed, by moral agents,

That cannot be true, veganism focuses soley on a few specific *uses* of
animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.

> not by other animals or other
> moral patients,

Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the very
design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?

> and not if the animal products (like a
> moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
> exploitation.

Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano, dung,
or mother's milk.

> >>>>>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.
>
> >>To counter their nonsense on insisting we must remain
> >> infallible lest we imperil our claim that animals deserve
> >>rights against us, I've tried to show that though children
> >>are used as slaves for our benefit, unwittingly buying
> >>goods from their slavers doesn't show a contempt for
> >>human rights, but rather the impossible position faced
> >>by consumers duped into believing the goods they buy
> >>are produced ethically. To escape this counter, to date,
> >>every anti I've put this to has refused to accept the
> >>existence of child slave labour.
>
>
> > I never denied it, I don't know how you're defining "it" nor to what
extent
> > exists in it's various forms. To be sure, unfair labour practises and
> > exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish
your
> > tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children
deliberately
> > and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.
Nowhere
> > are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.
>
> Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
> as property, as objects, as things.

Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.
Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.

> There's such a cognitive disconnect here.

I'll agree with you there.

> I have said many times

You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things many
times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it sound
like you're a broken record.

> that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
> immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
> and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
> their moral status which causes both.

If cds and livestock production are so damned similiar then why are there a
million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the other?

There's your cognitive disconnect.

> Antis respond by whining
> that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
> culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
> routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
> They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
> as animals are. What else would you expect?

It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by most
people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals. They
are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about certain
animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.

> > More to
> > the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
> > than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with
so-called
> > "animal rights".
>
> ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
> people who believe animals HAVE rights.

Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human rights
than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains a
legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows. ARAs *do* claim to be
more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other ways,
that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they say
they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products without
consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
argument from start to finish.


> > <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.
>
> >>That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
> >>weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
> >>it?
>
> > Not at all, you're both lying.
>
> Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
> prejudices, call them a liar.

It doesn't fit my impression of you AT ALL, you are ALL about appearances.
You would not risk someone seeing you eat a rib. Derek, I would believe
anything of him, I doubt if he's even a vegetarian.

> > No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.
>
> *Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
> meat are immoral.

Partly, but also because vegans demonize meat-eaters and despise meat-eating
so much that it would be too much of a mental switch.

> *grinds teeth,restraining self from using
> term of personal insult.*

Your little tirades don't bother me, but as we know, they don't advance your
cause, do they ?

> Look -- I ate meat for many years,
> up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
> eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.

I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating meat
again your thinking would change. Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you don't
respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.

> If those
> ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
> I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral self-gratification
then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that keeps
them in it.

Dutch wrote:
> [..]

>>>If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have
> the
>>>right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you
> have
>>>instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

>> Used, killed, by moral agents,

> That cannot be true, veganism focuses soley on a few specific *uses* of
> animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.

The same is true of human death -- humans die and are killed in a
myriad of ways (of old age, by disease, by accident, by error)
but law and ethics focus on only a few.

>> not by other animals or other
>> moral patients,

> Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the very
> design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?

For the same reason we restrict ourself from farming and eating
people but not tomatoes.

>>and not if the animal products (like a
>> moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
>> exploitation.

> Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano, dung,
> or mother's milk.

Most do directly, and all by implication. The "roadkill argument"
is to the Anti argument what the CD argument is supposed
to be against ARists -- it proves your claim
that AR or veganism is based on a rule rather than a moral principle
is false, and you can't deal with it. It skewers your prejudices
and demonstrates them for what they are.

>>>>>>>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.

<snip>
>To be sure, unfair labour practises and
>>>exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish
> your
>>>tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children
> deliberately
>>>and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.
> Nowhere
>>>are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.

>> Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
>> as property, as objects, as things.

> Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.

They are seen as, collectively, property of the state. That is
why states create game preserves and National parks, why they
prosecute poachers, and why states sell hunting licenses. If
states recognized moral rights of animals individually, states
would not engage in culling of herds, etc.

> Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.

Duh....

>> There's such a cognitive disconnect here.

> I'll agree with you there.

>> I have said many times

> You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things many
> times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it sound
> like you're a broken record.

>> that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
>> immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
>> and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
>> their moral status which causes both.

> If cds and livestock production are so damned similiar then why are there a
> million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the other?

Because CDs are accidents, a sideeffect of the system of vegetable
production, a method, not an inherent part of vegetable production.
They would not exist IF farmers saw "pests" as ARists do. The
system which uses animals as products is the source of the whole
thing, the central issue, and is rightly seen as such. We attack
the central cause, and refuse to be diverted to perepheral issues until
the major one is adquately addressed. CDs are mentioned now and then,
usually as part of a general opposition to agribusiness, but they
really are a red herring as used by Antis.

> There's your cognitive disconnect.

>> Antis respond by whining
>> that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
>> culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
>> routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
>> They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
>> as animals are. What else would you expect?

> It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by most
> people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
> recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals. They
> are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about certain
> animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.

As usual, false. ARists are advocates for animals as supporters of
human rights are advocates for people. Not all bad things that
happen to people are violations of rights. Not all violations of
rights are equally central and serious.

>>>More to
>>>the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
>>>than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with
> so-called
>>>"animal rights".

>> ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
>> people who believe animals HAVE rights.

> Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human rights
> than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains a
> legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows.

Do you have an opinion on female genital mutilation, child indentured
servitude, or womens' rights under the Taliban? Then you do claim to
be more in tune with human rights than at least some other people.

> ARAs *do* claim to be
> more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
> rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
> principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other ways,
> that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they say
> they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products without
> consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
> argument from start to finish.

It simply demonstrates that ARists are no more personally immoral
or hypocritical than anyone else. We ALL are hypocritical and
sinful and incomplete in our application of principle. We
are all human. Personal attacks go both ways, once you bring
them in.

>>> <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.

>>>>That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
>>>>weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
>>>>it?

>>>Not at all, you're both lying.

>> Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
>> prejudices, call them a liar.

> It doesn't fit my impression of you AT ALL,

Because your impression of me is wrong.

> you are ALL about appearances.

If I were, I would do many things I do not.

> You would not risk someone seeing you eat a rib.

I wouldn't care who saw me, if I believed the animal
had not been unjustly treated.

> Derek, I would believe
> anything of him, I doubt if he's even a vegetarian.

Because your impression of him is probably wrong, too.

>>>No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.

>> *Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
>> meat are immoral.

> Partly, but also because vegans demonize meat-eaters and despise meat-eating
> so much that it would be too much of a mental switch.

Again, your prejudices have the better of you.

>> *grinds teeth,restraining self from using
>> term of personal insult.*

> Your little tirades don't bother me, but as we know, they don't advance your
> cause, do they ?

>> Look -- I ate meat for many years,
>> up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
>> eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.

> I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating meat
> again your thinking would change.

It would be a result, not a cause. If I changed my ethical views,
I would change my conduct. You did.

> Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
> fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you don't
> respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
> great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.

Ah,ah...watch it, Dutch. You just admitted I act on principle.

Watch out, or your blinding prejudice might let in a little light.

>> If those
>> ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
>> I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

> If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral self-gratification
> then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that keeps
> them in it.

Or their devotion to principle....

Rat

>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
> > [..]
>
> >>>If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have
> > the
> >>>right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you
> > have
> >>>instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.
>
> >> Used, killed, by moral agents,
>
> > That cannot be true, veganism focuses solely on a few specific *uses* of
> > animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.
>
> The same is true of human death -- humans die and are killed in a
> myriad of ways (of old age, by disease, by accident, by error)
> but law and ethics focus on only a few.

That's a misleading comment on several levels. First, the law_does address
accidental deaths, by charging those responsible with negligent homicide,
manslaughter, or any number of other charges as applicable. In addition, it
is incumbent on_everyone to take every conceivable measure to ensure they do
not happen. Failure to so is itself a crime. Disease and old age are red
herrings, they are of course, facts of every life. The real issue here is
the ubiquitous killing of animals in food production. You pay lip service to
the fact here when pressed, but it's not addressed in vegan philosophy and
it's not addressed to any degree in vegans' day-to-day lives. It remains a
huge contradiction in the vegan raison d'être that cannot be rationalized
away.

> >> not by other animals or other
> >> moral patients,
>
> > Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the
very
> > design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?
>
> For the same reason we restrict ourselves from farming and eating
> people but not tomatoes.

I don't see the very design of the ecosystem embracing cannibalism, except
in very rare and isolated circumstances. Species consume *other* species.

> >>and not if the animal products (like a
> >> molted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
> >> exploitation.
>
> > Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano,
dung,
> > or mother's milk.
>
> Most do directly, and all by implication.

The discussion here is *entirely* about killing and using animals. You're
just muddying the waters.

> The "roadkill argument"
> is to the Anti argument what the CD argument is supposed
> to be against ARists -- it proves your claim
> that AR or veganism is based on a rule rather than a moral principle
> is false, and you can't deal with it. It skewers your prejudices
> and demonstrates them for what they are.

It's a strawman. The rule of veganism is that's wrong to kill and eat
animals. Nobody is claiming that vegans would have a moral objection to
roadkill. I insist that vegans would not eat roadkill on aesthetic grounds,
but that's an aside.

No the cd argument says that vegans believe that it's wrong to kill and eat
animals but implicitly believe that it's not wrong to kill animals in the
course of food production. This is inconsistent with the claimed principle,
which is that animals possess basic rights. It's also inconsistent with one
of the primary vegan claims, about animal death and suffering.

> >>>>>>>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.
>
> <snip>
> >To be sure, unfair labour practices and
> >>>exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish
> > your
> >>>tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children
> > deliberately
> >>>and routinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.
> > Nowhere
> >>>are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.
>
> >> Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
> >> as property, as objects, as things.
>
> > Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.
>
> They are seen as, collectively, property of the state. That is
> why states create game preserves and National parks, why they
> prosecute poachers, and why states sell hunting licenses. If
> states recognized moral rights of animals individually, states
> would not engage in culling of herds, etc.
>
> > Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.
>
> Duh....

It's an important point. ARAs are wont to say that animals are treated as
property, as if that means they are not seen as animals also. Both can be
true.

>
> >> There's such a cognitive disconnect here.
>
> > I'll agree with you there.
>
> >> I have said many times
>
> > You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things
many
> > times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it
sound
> > like you're a broken record.
>
> >> that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
> >> immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
> >> and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
> >> their moral status which causes both.
>
> > If cds and livestock production are so damned similar then why are there
a
> > million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the
other?
>
> Because CDs are accidents, a sideeffect of the system of vegetable
> production, a method, not an inherent part of vegetable production.

In reality, they ARE an inherent part of vegetable production. The fact that
a tomato can theoretically can be grown on a patio with no (visible) animal
deaths is hardly more significant than the fact that a chicken leg can
theoretically be obtained without killing the chicken.

> They would not exist IF farmers saw "pests" as ARists do.

If "ARists" ran commercial farms we would all starve.

> The
> system which uses animals as products is the source of the whole
> thing, the central issue, and is rightly seen as such.

I agree it's the central issue. The issues of animal suffering, health, and
environmental impact are peripheral issues used by ARAs in dishonest ways to
promote the central issue.

>We attack
> the central cause,

No, you much more frequently dishonestly attack the peripheral issues.

> and refuse to be diverted to perepheral issues until
> the major one is adquately addressed.

ARism lives on peripheral issues.

CDs are mentioned now and then,
> usually as part of a general opposition to agribusiness, but they
> really are a red herring as used by Antis.

You only object to peripheral issues when they gore your ox, otherwise you
exploit them mercilessly with the most livid rhetoric you can muster..

> > There's your cognitive disconnect.
>
> >> Antis respond by whining
> >> that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
> >> culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
> >> routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
> >> They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
> >> as animals are. What else would you expect?
>
> > It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by
most
> > people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
> > recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals.
They
> > are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about
certain
> > animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.
>
> As usual, false. ARists are advocates for animals as supporters of
> human rights are advocates for people. Not all bad things that
> happen to people are violations of rights. Not all violations of
> rights are equally central and serious.

In the realm of human rights, being killed routinely without thought is a
serious violation of rights. Even livestock are afforded more consideration
than animals killed in the course of vegetable production.

> >>>More to
> >>>the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human
rights
> >>>than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with
> > so-called
> >>>"animal rights".
>
> >> ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
> >> people who believe animals HAVE rights.
>
> > Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human
rights
> > than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains
a
> > legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows.
>
> Do you have an opinion on female genital mutilation, child indentured
> servitude, or womens' rights under the Taliban? Then you do claim to
> be more in tune with human rights than at least some other people.

My awareness of those things does not make me a better person unless I do
something about them.

> > ARAs *do* claim to be
> > more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
> > rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
> > principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other
ways,
> > that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they
say
> > they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products
without
> > consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
> > argument from start to finish.
>
> It simply demonstrates that ARists are no more personally immoral
> or hypocritical than anyone else. We ALL are hypocritical and
> sinful and incomplete in our application of principle. We
> are all human. Personal attacks go both ways, once you bring
> them in.

My point is that when it comes to violations of human rights, most of if not
all of us are less than perfect in addressing how they leak into our lives,
this applies to ARAs and omnivores alike. We agree that exploitation of
children and mutilation of women is wrong, but we mostly lack the time
and/or energies to do anything about these things. There's no demonstrable
link between this and the issue of animal rights as you claim, because we DO
NOT agree on the the fundamental basis for the idea of animal rights. That
argument is a tu quoque and a red herring.

-snips-

> >> Look -- I ate meat for many years,
> >> up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
> >> eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.
>
> > I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating
meat
> > again your thinking would change.
>
> It would be a result, not a cause. If I changed my ethical views,
> I would change my conduct. You did.

The two are more interchangeable that you imagine. People act according to
their beliefs and believe according to their actions.

> > Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
> > fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you
don't
> > respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
> > great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.
>
> Ah,ah...watch it, Dutch. You just admitted I act on principle.

There is a principle involved, that it's immoral to use animals for personal
gain, to treat them as objects. The problem is that the principle becomes
lost in a myriad of misguided rationalizations and misstatements about
peripheral issues, (aka "lies")

What should be happening is this..

You: I believe that it's wrong to use animals for personal gain, therefore I
won't do it.

Me: I don't think it's wrong, so I will keep doing it.

Result: We both get to believe we live according to our principles (and go
to heaven as applicable) and meanwhile you get to benefit from my principles
by using modern medicine and products, and I don't bother mentioning the
hypocrisy of it all.

> Watch out, or your blinding prejudice might let in a little light.

That's rich.

> >> If those
> >> ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
> >> I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.
>
> > If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral
self-gratification
> > then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that
keeps
> > them in it.
>
> Or their devotion to principle....

If it were widely understood that veganism was not categorically more animal
or environmentally friendly, or more healthy, many people would simply take
the sensible path and limit the amount of "factory farmed" meat in their
diets, and not become addicted to this "moral gratification" syndrome that
plagues the mental processes of vegans. Self-righteousness is a ubiquitous
mental disorder that is not unique to ARism. Anyone who wished to remain a
vegan strictly "on principle" would do so.