Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 2:45*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't > >> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. > >> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about > >> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; > >> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. > > >> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is > >> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > > > What's the fallacy in this argument? > > >http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > > Argument is unsound: *based on false premises. Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false? I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 7:30*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't > >> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. > >> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about > >> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; > >> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. > > >> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is > >> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > > > What's the fallacy in this argument? > > >http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > > The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling > case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* > meat consumption is immoral. > He does make some remarks about how to make the further generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case that I wanted to make. > Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage > about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense. > No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you criticise. It is an environmental argument. We went through the distinction before. As I have made clear repeatedly you have done nothing to cast doubt on the environmental argument. Making the *purely* economic argument, which is the target you set yourself and the only one to which your criticisms apply, is extremely rare. > The sophistry of guys like this is simply staggering. *They have a > position to which they've leapt, and then they try to backfill the > yawning chasm behind them. Just specify where the argument breaks down. Which of the premises are wrong? Do you concede the case against factory farming, and if not, why not? Or if you think the generalisation beyond factory farming is unwarranted then address the remarks he makes about that and show why the additional generalisation is "unwarranted". Recall that my claim was that this paper offers compelling reasons for boycotting *almost* all animal products. I don't think that the paper is free of logical gaps, no, but I believe that it achieves something. In any event, you have left by rebuttal of your endlessly-repeated tirade about vegans being morally bankrupt unreplied to, so I take it you agree that those remarks of mine are unanswerable and that you were posting indefensible nonsense all those years? Of *course* you do because despite strenuous efforts to give a contrary impression you actually are at least a moderately intelligent person, in your best moments at least. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 27, 8:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>> "Ha" > wrote >>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>>>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>> I don't consume any animal products; >>>>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >>>>>> All vegans? >>>>>> rather a sweeping statement! >>>>> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the >>>>> validity of the message. >>>>> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an >>>>> exception? >>>> I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". They do >>>> *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a >>>> "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> False. I have never believed that. >> You have.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, I would certainly know. We both know you began by believing in the fallacy. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Ha wrote: >>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>>>> I don't consume any animal products; >>>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >>>>> All vegans? >>>> Without exception. They all start with that, and many - probably most - >>>> never move off it. Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol >>>> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free" >>>> lifestyle. Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the >>>> logical fallacy. >>> It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread >> Universal, at the outset. Most never abandon it. > > See the discussion in my other post. See my well established fact, above: All "vegans" begin by believing in the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't >>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. >>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about >>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; >>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. >>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is >>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. >>> What's the fallacy in this argument? >>> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... >> Argument is unsound: based on false premises. > > Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false? Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral. > > I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable? Junk philosophy. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
"Rupert" > wrote
Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony. ----------> Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking. Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse, conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by avoiding that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even though you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" using animals *as end products*. Personally it does not bother me that animals are viewed as commodities, as long as their capacity to suffer pain and deprivation is taken into account. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 10:05*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* > obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately > enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is > whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and > me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need > to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a > lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of > animal products. > ---------------> > > This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize > harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does > not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not > necessarily linked. No such claim was made. The claim was that (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, and Ball has done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is ****ing OBVIOUS) (2) it could be at least *argued* that typical people in Western societies have a moral obligation to do *about* that much by way of reducing their contribution to animal suffering. It does not logically follow from my contention that some nonhuman animals have some rights, no. But it's a plausible enough position and you and Ball have done nothing to show that wherever it is you choose to draw the line is any better. You could plausibly claim that your position would have more popular appeal at the moment, but that is argumentum ad verecundam. I have not offered *reasons* for thinking that my position is better but that is a symmetrical situation. > The main problem with veganism is that adherents tend to > see abstension from animal products as both necessary and sufficient steps > when such is clearly not the case. (See the vegan in an SUV (or like some > celebrities with private jets) vs the omnivore on a bike) A glaring > illustration of this issue plays out as a vegan examines a condiment in a > restaurant to ensure it does not contain even a milligram of animal cells, > (the horror!) all the while a 1% reduction in his caloric consumption would > do far more to reduce his impact on animals. > Fine. I agree with all that. > The elephant in the room is the notion that man ought not to view animals as > commodities, everything serves that master. Working from that perspective > the desire to avoid animal products makes perfect sense. If we're talking > about attempting to count and compare the number of animals that are harmed > or killed and assign some acceptable moral level, then we're kidding > ourselves, we're not actaully doing that, nor can we. > Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans inflict less suffering on nonhumans. Reducing one's own personal contribution as best one can short of dropping out of technological civilisation altogether is a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of reducing one's personal responsibility for an aspect of the world one dislikes. Ball has done nothing to show that this is morally bankrupt. It is one position regarding how humans should relate to nonhumans. It is not especially widely held one at the moment but I don't believe that anyone else has shown that theirs is more coherent or better justified. Narveson's position, which involves saying that he wouldn't call the police if he saw someone torching a stray dog, certainly *is* more coherent. He's definitely being consistent. But most of us don't like that one, so we need to find some rational ground for choosing between the other available positions. I do not say that I have done that yet. I say that Ball's endlessly-repeated tirade over all these years is indefensible nonsense. Which is of course obvious. > Nobody can say fairly that a vegan lifestyle is not likely to have a pretty > low level of associated animal deaths, but this is not the type of > reasonable argument being made. It is the one being made by me, and Ball said that he was talking about all vegans. I think he needs to get more specific. He's casting the net a bit too broad. If he wants to criticise Tom Regan or Gary Francione that's great, I'm sure there's plenty to criticise; he should probably have a look at what they wrote. Or if he wants to criticise my stance that's great, but again he should make sure his remarks are actually applicable to the stance being taken. If he's going to try to argue that all vegans are morally bankrupt I don't think he's going to get there. Based on my experience with vegans they are not especially morally criticisable people, indeed a lot less so than Ball based on my experience of him, but in many cases you might want to say there are problems with the intellectual foundations of the position that they take. I certanily grant that. It is not clear to me that Ball avoids this problem either. But of course none of this alters the obvious fact that Ball was obviously talking complete nonsense as always, which was of course my point. He has declined to answer my case for this contention. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't >>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. >>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about >>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; >>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. >>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is >>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. >>> What's the fallacy in this argument? >>> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... >> The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling >> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* >> meat consumption is immoral. >> > > He does make some remarks about how to make the further > generalisation, Unpersuasive. He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory farming". >> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage >> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense. >> > > No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you > criticise. Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that meat consumption is immoral: 1. allegedly extremely energy intensive 2. allegedly inefficient use of water 3. alleged nutrient inefficiency 4. soil erosion 5. hazardous waste production *All* of these are offered as *further evidence* that meat consumption is immoral. The whole thing falls to pieces, because of economic and environmental illiteracy, along with the basic, inescapable fact that killing animals to eat them is not inherently immoral. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 10:57*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Ha wrote: > >>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: > >>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > >>>>>> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>>>> * * I don't consume any animal products; > >>>>>> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. > >>>>> All vegans? > >>>> Without exception. *They all start with that, and many - probably most - > >>>> never move off it. *Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol > >>>> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free" > >>>> lifestyle. *Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the > >>>> logical fallacy. > >>> It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread > >> Universal, at the outset. *Most never abandon it. > > > See the discussion in my other post. > > See my well established fact, above: *All "vegans" begin by believing in > the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for, you mean "something you made up when obviously you have no particular evidence for it". |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 10:59*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't > >>>> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. > >>>> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about > >>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; > >>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. > >>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is > >>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > >>> What's the fallacy in this argument? > >>>http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20.... > >> Argument is unsound: *based on false premises. > > > Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false? > > Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to > produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral. > That's not on his list of premises. He explicitly gives the list of premises in an appendix for your convenience. > > > > I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable? > > Junk philosophy. I am not altogether heartbroken that you think that, because it is extremely obvious to any person of good sense that you were talking drivel, and I pointed out the reasons why in a rather cogent fashion. You have declined to attempt to respond, so I'll take it as read that you cannot give a satisfactory response. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* >> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately >> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is >> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and >> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need >> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a >> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of >> animal products. >> ---------------> >> >> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize >> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does >> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not >> necessarily linked. > > No such claim was made. The claim was that > > (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational > means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, No, it can't. Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within* the set of vegetable food products. If potatoes provide comparable nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no rice, and to eat potatoes instead. But no "vegan" has ever made that analysis, and none of them ever will. The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had any credibility to start.) *Some* "vegan" diets are higher in many undesirable side effects than *some* meat-including diets, so the fact of abstaining from meat /per se/ achieves nothing. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Ha wrote: >>>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >>>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>>>>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>> I don't consume any animal products; >>>>>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>> All vegans? >>>>>> Without exception. They all start with that, and many - probably most - >>>>>> never move off it. Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol >>>>>> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free" >>>>>> lifestyle. Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the >>>>>> logical fallacy. >>>>> It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread >>>> Universal, at the outset. Most never abandon it. >>> See the discussion in my other post. >> See my well established fact, above: All "vegans" begin by believing in >> the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it. > > No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for Indeed it is what I was looking for. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:59 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't >>>>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. >>>>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about >>>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; >>>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. >>>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is >>>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. >>>>> What's the fallacy in this argument? >>>>> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... >>>> Argument is unsound: based on false premises. >>> Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false? >> Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to >> produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral. >> > > That's not on his list of premises. It is. >>> I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable? >> Junk philosophy. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
"Rupert" > wrote
He does make some remarks about how to make the further generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case that I wanted to make. ---------> So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production. Provided that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing wrong in that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy locally produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile. It is worth noting that the same principle works for vegans when they buy grain, fruit and vegetable products, local and fresh vs imported and/or processed. Simply avoiding animal products is neither sufficient nor necessary in addressing the legitimate (IMO) issues, only the elephant in the room quasi-political issue of "animal liberation". |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 11:06*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't > >>>> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. > >>>> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about > >>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; > >>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. > >>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is > >>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > >>> What's the fallacy in this argument? > >>>http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20.... > >> The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling > >> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* > >> meat consumption is immoral. > > > He does make some remarks about how to make the further > > generalisation, > > Unpersuasive. That is not engaging with what he said. > *He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case > is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory > farming". > Point out his factual errors then. Just specify which of his premises is wrong. Is this really too hard for a "master of logic and philosophy"? > >> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage > >> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense. > > > No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you > > criticise. > > Absolutely it does: *pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five > environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that > meat consumption is immoral: > > 1. *allegedly extremely energy intensive > 2. *allegedly inefficient use of water > 3. *alleged nutrient inefficiency > 4. *soil erosion > 5. *hazardous waste production > For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument you clueless pointless clown. The reason those things are bad is because they contribute to environmental degradation. That is made quite clear. You explicitly conceded that your criticisms were not directed at the environmental argument, as of course they can't be. Sheesh. You *cannot* possibly be this stupid. > *All* of these are offered as *further evidence* that meat consumption > is immoral. > Because of their environmental consequences. > The whole thing falls to pieces, because of economic and environmental > illiteracy, along with the basic, inescapable fact that killing animals > to eat them is not inherently immoral. He explicitly concedes that *alleged* fact for the sake of argument and sets out to make his case in that context. You have offered no evidence of "economic or environmental illiteracy" and the environmental argument is not necessary for his case anyway, it is an additional argument. If the whole thing falls to pieces then you ought to be able to specify which one of his premises is wrong and why the argument is invalid. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > He does make some remarks about how to make the further > generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the > case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there > anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products > of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case > that I wanted to make. > ---------> > > So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production. > Provided that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing > wrong in that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy > locally produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile. I am convinced that the "buy local" trend is mostly about feel-goodism, just as "organic" is. Any talk of measurable benefit is entirely superfluous - what the real issue is, is feeling good about oneself. It is worth > noting that the same principle works for vegans when they buy grain, > fruit and vegetable products, local and fresh vs imported and/or > processed. Simply avoiding animal products is neither sufficient nor > necessary in addressing the legitimate (IMO) issues, only the elephant > in the room quasi-political issue of "animal liberation". > |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't >>>>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. >>>>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about >>>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; >>>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. >>>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is >>>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. >>>>> What's the fallacy in this argument? >>>>> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... >>>> The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling >>>> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* >>>> meat consumption is immoral. >>> He does make some remarks about how to make the further >>> generalisation, >> Unpersuasive. > > That is not engaging with what he said. It's enough. >> He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case >> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory >> farming". >> >>>> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage >>>> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense. >>> No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you >>> criticise. >> Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five >> environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that >> meat consumption is immoral: >> >> 1. allegedly extremely energy intensive >> 2. allegedly inefficient use of water >> 3. alleged nutrient inefficiency >> 4. soil erosion >> 5. hazardous waste production >> > > For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know what he's talking about. For one thing, environmental degradation applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable agriculture. For another, it is the economic cost of environmental degradation that is of concern. No one with a brain wants to avoid any and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social benefit. There is going to be some environmental degradation involved in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
"Rupert" > wrote
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > "Rupert" > wrote > > However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* > obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately > enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is > whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and > me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need > to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a > lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of > animal products. > ---------------> > > This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to > minimize > harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, > does > not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are > not > necessarily linked. No such claim was made. The claim was that -------> Whatever you did that one post to allow the insertion of carats is not happening. (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering --------> Nobody is denying that. That's the reasonable claim I mentioned earlier. , and Ball has done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is ****ing OBVIOUS) ----------> It's not morally bankrupt to avoid animal products, it isn't even a bad idea, it is morally bankrupt to transpose moral conclusions about it from the notion that animals must be liberated and project those conclusions onto others. [..] Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans inflict less suffering on nonhumans. ---------> I think it is an absurd strategy. For one thing hominids have included animal products as part of their survival strategy for millions of years, for another thing, a lot of land is unsuited for plant agriculture. A reasonable strategy would be to work towards much higher standards of treatment for livestock animals, not rejecting AW as counter-productive as some ARAs do. Very high standards of care would make costs rise and that would decrease the number of animals *exploited* which is your underlying goal. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
"ex-PFC Wintergreen" > wrote in message m... > Dutch wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> He does make some remarks about how to make the further >> generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the >> case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there >> anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products >> of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case >> that I wanted to make. >> ---------> >> >> So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production. Provided >> that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing wrong in >> that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy locally >> produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile. > > I am convinced that the "buy local" trend is mostly about feel-goodism, > just as "organic" is. Any talk of measurable benefit is entirely > superfluous - what the real issue is, is feeling good about oneself. There is no doubt that locally produced food contains a lower transportation (petroleum) component, which supports the argument that a calorie from locally caught salmon is more sustainable, causing less impact on the planet and thus animals, than a calorie of bananas flown in from Chile. > It is worth >> noting that the same principle works for vegans when they buy grain, >> fruit and vegetable products, local and fresh vs imported and/or >> processed. Simply avoiding animal products is neither sufficient nor >> necessary in addressing the legitimate (IMO) issues, only the elephant in >> the room quasi-political issue of "animal liberation". >> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 10:56*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 27, 8:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Dutch wrote: > >>>>> "Ha" > wrote > >>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: > >>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > >>>>>>> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>>>>> * * I don't consume any animal products; > >>>>>>> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. > >>>>>> All vegans? > >>>>>> rather a sweeping statement! > >>>>> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the > >>>>> validity of the message. > >>>>> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an > >>>>> exception? > >>>> I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". *They do > >>>> *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a > >>>> "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> False. I have never believed that. > >> You have.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, I would certainly know. > > We both know you began by believing in the fallacy. No, I know I didn't, and you apparently think you know I did, but you are sadly deluded, as is not uncommon. You should just start being a bit more selective about what you claim to "know". You very frequently claim to "know" things which are utter nonsense and which you obviously do not have the slightest reason to believe. You should do something about it. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 11:01*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does > not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the > suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware > that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously > contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with > my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one > way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to > disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no > rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony. > ----------> > > Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing > animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking. > > Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse, > conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like > health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by avoiding > that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you > contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even though > you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" using > animals *as end products*. > I'm not sure what your point is here, I thought we were agreed that a widespread transition to veganism would lead to a significant reduction in animal suffering. By being vegan and publicly defending this stance I am doing my bit to reduce my share of responsibility for the problem. > Personally it does not bother me that animals are viewed as commodities, *as > long as their capacity to suffer pain and deprivation is taken into account. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 11:13*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 10:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Ha wrote: > >>>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: > >>>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > >>>>>>>> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>>>>>> * * I don't consume any animal products; > >>>>>>>> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. > >>>>>>> All vegans? > >>>>>> Without exception. *They all start with that, and many - probably most - > >>>>>> never move off it. *Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol > >>>>>> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free" > >>>>>> lifestyle. *Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the > >>>>>> logical fallacy. > >>>>> It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread > >>>> Universal, at the outset. *Most never abandon it. > >>> See the discussion in my other post. > >> See my well established fact, above: *All "vegans" begin by believing in > >> the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it. > > > No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for > > Indeed it is what I was looking for. Well, that's a shame, because actually it's a false claim, which you asserted on the basis of no particular evidence. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 11:13*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 10:59 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't > >>>>>> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. > >>>>>> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about > >>>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; > >>>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. > >>>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is > >>>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > >>>>> What's the fallacy in this argument? > >>>>>http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > >>>> Argument is unsound: *based on false premises. > >>> Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false? > >> Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to > >> produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral. > > > That's not on his list of premises. > > It is. > Pffffffft. The premises are numbered (p1)-(p16) in the Appendix. Care to specify which number this premise is? > >>> I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable? > >> Junk philosophy. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 11:32*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't > >>>>>> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. > >>>>>> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about > >>>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; > >>>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. > >>>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is > >>>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > >>>>> What's the fallacy in this argument? > >>>>>http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > >>>> The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling > >>>> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* > >>>> meat consumption is immoral. > >>> He does make some remarks about how to make the further > >>> generalisation, > >> Unpersuasive. > > > That is not engaging with what he said. > > It's enough. > No. > > > >> *He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case > >> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory > >> farming". > > >>>> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage > >>>> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense. > >>> No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you > >>> criticise. > >> Absolutely it does: *pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five > >> environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that > >> meat consumption is immoral: > > >> 1. *allegedly extremely energy intensive > >> 2. *allegedly inefficient use of water > >> 3. *alleged nutrient inefficiency > >> 4. *soil erosion > >> 5. *hazardous waste production > > > For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument > > The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know > what he's talking about. *For one thing, environmental degradation > applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable > agriculture. *For another, it is the economic cost of environmental > degradation that is of concern. *No one with a brain wants to avoid any > and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want > to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social > benefit. *There is going to be some environmental degradation involved > in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production. First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one and you still have an obligation to address the main one. Secondly, it's not idiotic; the idea is that the externalities that you impose on other people, including future generations, are not fully reflected in the market price, but that you have a moral obligation to absorb those externalities anyway. If you were absorbing all the externalities associated with the production of your food then you would have to take that on board when buying rice, fruit, vegetables, meat, whatever. But his claim is that it would almost certainly involve avoiding meat, and you've done nothing in particular to cast doubt on that. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 11:12*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* > >> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately > >> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is > >> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and > >> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need > >> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a > >> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of > >> animal products. > >> ---------------> > > >> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize > >> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does > >> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not > >> necessarily linked. > > > No such claim was made. The claim was that > > > (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational > > means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, > > No, it can't. *Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within* > the set of vegetable food products. *If potatoes provide comparable > nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental > degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side > effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no > rice, and to eat potatoes instead. *But no "vegan" has ever made that > analysis, and none of them ever will. > Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated? "Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm." And Engel's premise 6: "Even a minimally decent person would take steps to help reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the world, if she could do so with very little effort." Well, do those principles require you to boycott rice? Well, I don't know. My level of rice consumption is small and I am fairly skeptical that it's the world's biggest tragedy. With phrases such as "very little effort" or "every reasonable effort", the cost of acquiring information has to be factored in. Given the time constraints I am not able to determine the optimal strategy for reducing my contribution to unnecessary suffering and environmental degradation in the minutest detail. I have put some effort into it, but I am not able to do everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal goals and also my ability to make the world better in other ways. We are not talking about principles which require you to make *substantial* sacrifices, especially when your ability to improve the world in other ways is at stake. Or maybe I haven't done a good job, maybe I am a moral hypocrite. If your goal in life is to demonstrate that Rupert is a moral hypocrite then that must be joyful. But the issue *should* be whether these are good moral principles. I don't see any particular reason why they're not. > The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of > vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had > any credibility to start.) * No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the argument. The reasons most vegans don't do it is probably because the issue hasn't occurred to them. They probably feel like they're doing enough already, which may or may not be the case but this has no bearing on the merits of the decision to go vegan in the first place. When these issues were discussed in this newsgroup I did make some effort to become more informed about such issues and modify my diet accordingly but got bogged down in other projects, as you probably would. Since as far as DeGrazia and Mylan Engel Jr. are concerned, we are only talking about behavioural modifications that involve "reasonable effort" or "little effort", I think it's probably fair to say that I've met their standards. But that's neither here nor there anyway, the issue should be whether there is a moral obligation to go at least as far as what would be required by those principles I stated above on any reasonable interpretation. You've offered no particularly good reason to think that there isn't. I *do* have to acknowledge moral hypocrisy as far as reducing my contribution to climate change goes, for the moment at least. If you can plausibly claim to be totally free of moral hypocrisy, that's awesome. I'm not really that interested in discussing this issue here. If I am a moral hypocrite then that's for me to worry about. We are talking about the merits of the principles under discusion. Demonstrating that someone is a moral hypocrite does not undermine their moral argument; that is the tu quoque fallacy. > *Some* "vegan" diets are higher in many > undesirable side effects than *some* meat-including diets, so the fact > of abstaining from meat /per se/ achieves nothing. In most cases, the decision to go vegan will result in a significant reduction in your contribution to animal suffering and environmental degradation. More may be required, yes. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 1:05*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > "Rupert" > wrote > > > However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* > > obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately > > enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is > > whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and > > me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need > > to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a > > lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of > > animal products. > > ---------------> > > > This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to > > minimize > > harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, > > does > > not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are > > not > > necessarily linked. > > No such claim was made. The claim was that > -------> > > Whatever you did that one post to allow the insertion of carats is not > happening. > > (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational > means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering > --------> > > Nobody is denying that. That's the reasonable claim I mentioned earlier. > Jolly good. Actually, Ball *does* deny it. He replied to this very same post to which you have just replied to and denied it. So you and Ball differ. There it is. But at least we have agreement on this point. > , and Ball has > done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is ****ing > OBVIOUS) > ----------> > > It's not morally bankrupt to avoid animal products, it isn't even a bad > idea, it is morally bankrupt to transpose moral conclusions about it from > the notion that animals must be liberated and project those conclusions onto > others. > Did you have a look at the Mylan Engel Jr essay? I'd be interested in your comment. I don't say that the essay is free of flaws but I don't believe that simply putting forward the point of view is morally bankrupt. > [..] > > Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is > a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans > inflict less suffering on nonhumans. > ---------> > > I think it is an absurd strategy. For one thing hominids have included > animal products as part of their survival strategy for millions of years, > for another thing, a lot of land is unsuited for plant agriculture. But the amount of land required for plant agriculture would be enormously less... > A > reasonable strategy would be to work towards much higher standards of > treatment for livestock animals, not rejecting AW as counter-productive as > some ARAs do. Very high standards of care would make costs rise and that > would decrease the number of animals *exploited* which is your underlying > goal. Well. That's the debate, isn't it. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:56 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 27, 8:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>>>> "Ha" > wrote >>>>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >>>>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>>>>>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>>> I don't consume any animal products; >>>>>>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>> All vegans? >>>>>>>> rather a sweeping statement! >>>>>>> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the >>>>>>> validity of the message. >>>>>>> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an >>>>>>> exception? >>>>>> I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". They do >>>>>> *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a >>>>>> "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> False. I have never believed that. >>>> You have.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, I would certainly know. >> We both know you began by believing in the fallacy. > > No, I know I didn't, You did. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:13 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 10:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Ha wrote: >>>>>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>>>>>>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>>>> I don't consume any animal products; >>>>>>>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>>> All vegans? >>>>>>>> Without exception. They all start with that, and many - probably most - >>>>>>>> never move off it. Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol >>>>>>>> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free" >>>>>>>> lifestyle. Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the >>>>>>>> logical fallacy. >>>>>>> It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread >>>>>> Universal, at the outset. Most never abandon it. >>>>> See the discussion in my other post. >>>> See my well established fact, above: All "vegans" begin by believing in >>>> the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it. >>> No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for >> Indeed it is what I was looking for. > > Well, that's a shame I don't think so. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:32 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't >>>>>>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. >>>>>>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about >>>>>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; >>>>>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. >>>>>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is >>>>>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. >>>>>>> What's the fallacy in this argument? >>>>>>> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... >>>>>> The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling >>>>>> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* >>>>>> meat consumption is immoral. >>>>> He does make some remarks about how to make the further >>>>> generalisation, >>>> Unpersuasive. >>> That is not engaging with what he said. >> It's enough. >> > > No. It is. > >> >>>> He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case >>>> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory >>>> farming". >>>>>> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage >>>>>> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense. >>>>> No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you >>>>> criticise. >>>> Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five >>>> environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that >>>> meat consumption is immoral: >>>> 1. allegedly extremely energy intensive >>>> 2. allegedly inefficient use of water >>>> 3. alleged nutrient inefficiency >>>> 4. soil erosion >>>> 5. hazardous waste production >>> For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument >> The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know >> what he's talking about. For one thing, environmental degradation >> applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable >> agriculture. For another, it is the economic cost of environmental >> degradation that is of concern. No one with a brain wants to avoid any >> and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want >> to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social >> benefit. There is going to be some environmental degradation involved >> in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production. > > First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one It's another slender reed that won't support the bloated weight of what he wants to believe. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:12 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* >>>> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately >>>> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is >>>> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and >>>> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need >>>> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a >>>> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of >>>> animal products. >>>> ---------------> >>>> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize >>>> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does >>>> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not >>>> necessarily linked. >>> No such claim was made. The claim was that >>> (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational >>> means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, >> No, it can't. Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within* >> the set of vegetable food products. If potatoes provide comparable >> nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental >> degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side >> effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no >> rice, and to eat potatoes instead. But no "vegan" has ever made that >> analysis, and none of them ever will. >> > > Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated? > > "Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm." Something you don't achieve. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:12 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* >>>> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately >>>> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is >>>> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and >>>> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need >>>> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a >>>> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of >>>> animal products. >>>> ---------------> >>>> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize >>>> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does >>>> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not >>>> necessarily linked. >>> No such claim was made. The claim was that >>> (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational >>> means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, >> No, it can't. Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within* >> the set of vegetable food products. If potatoes provide comparable >> nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental >> degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side >> effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no >> rice, and to eat potatoes instead. But no "vegan" has ever made that >> analysis, and none of them ever will. >> > > Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated? > > "Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm." > > And Engel's premise 6: > > "Even a minimally decent person would take steps to help > reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the > world, if she could do so with very little effort." > > Well, do those principles require you to boycott rice? Well, I don't > know. My level of rice consumption is small and I am fairly skeptical > that it's the world's biggest tragedy. With phrases such as "very > little effort" or "every reasonable effort", the cost of acquiring > information has to be factored in. Given the time constraints I am not > able to determine the optimal strategy for reducing my contribution to > unnecessary suffering and environmental degradation in the minutest > detail. I have put some effort into it, Laughably little. > but I am not able to do > everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal > goals So your inherent selfishness and wish for ease, comfort and glory override your obligation to behave ethically. But then, that was always obvious. >> The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of >> vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had >> any credibility to start.) > > No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the > argument. Absolutely it does. It proves they don't believe their own nonsense. It proves this is purely about self exaltation. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 3:56*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 10:56 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 27, 8:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Dutch wrote: > >>>>>>> "Ha" > wrote > >>>>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: > >>>>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > >>>>>>>>> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>>>>>>> * * I don't consume any animal products; > >>>>>>>>> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. > >>>>>>>> All vegans? > >>>>>>>> rather a sweeping statement! > >>>>>>> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the > >>>>>>> validity of the message. > >>>>>>> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an > >>>>>>> exception? > >>>>>> I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". *They do > >>>>>> *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a > >>>>>> "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> False. I have never believed that. > >>>> You have.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, I would certainly know. > >> We both know you began by believing in the fallacy. > > > No, I know I didn't, > > You did. Yawn. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 3:56*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 11:13 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 10:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ha wrote: > >>>>>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > >>>>>>>>>> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>>>>>>>> * * I don't consume any animal products; > >>>>>>>>>> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.. > >>>>>>>>> All vegans? > >>>>>>>> Without exception. *They all start with that, and many - probably most - > >>>>>>>> never move off it. *Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol > >>>>>>>> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free" > >>>>>>>> lifestyle. *Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the > >>>>>>>> logical fallacy. > >>>>>>> It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread > >>>>>> Universal, at the outset. *Most never abandon it. > >>>>> See the discussion in my other post. > >>>> See my well established fact, above: *All "vegans" begin by believing in > >>>> the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it. > >>> No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for > >> Indeed it is what I was looking for. > > > Well, that's a shame > > I don't think so. Whatever process you use for belief-formation, you should work on making it more truth-tracking. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 3:57*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 11:32 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't > >>>>>>>> really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. > >>>>>>>> * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about > >>>>>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; > >>>>>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. > >>>>>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is > >>>>>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > >>>>>>> What's the fallacy in this argument? > >>>>>>>http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > >>>>>> The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling > >>>>>> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* > >>>>>> meat consumption is immoral. > >>>>> He does make some remarks about how to make the further > >>>>> generalisation, > >>>> Unpersuasive. > >>> That is not engaging with what he said. > >> It's enough. > > > No. > > It is. > Enough for what? Enough to achieve whatever it is you get out of being here, no doubt, but why would anyone care about that? Enough to make a satisfactory response, obviously not. Sheesh. > > > > > >>>> *He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case > >>>> is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory > >>>> farming". > >>>>>> Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage > >>>>>> about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.. > >>>>> No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you > >>>>> criticise. > >>>> Absolutely it does: *pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five > >>>> environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that > >>>> meat consumption is immoral: > >>>> 1. *allegedly extremely energy intensive > >>>> 2. *allegedly inefficient use of water > >>>> 3. *alleged nutrient inefficiency > >>>> 4. *soil erosion > >>>> 5. *hazardous waste production > >>> For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument > >> The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know > >> what he's talking about. *For one thing, environmental degradation > >> applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable > >> agriculture. *For another, it is the economic cost of environmental > >> degradation that is of concern. *No one with a brain wants to avoid any > >> and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want > >> to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social > >> benefit. *There is going to be some environmental degradation involved > >> in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production. > > > First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one > > It's another slender reed that won't support the bloated weight of what > he wants to believe. Why did you snip the rest of the paragraph? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 3:58*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 11:12 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>> "Rupert" > wrote > >>>> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* > >>>> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately > >>>> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is > >>>> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and > >>>> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need > >>>> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a > >>>> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of > >>>> animal products. > >>>> ---------------> > >>>> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize > >>>> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does > >>>> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not > >>>> necessarily linked. > >>> No such claim was made. The claim was that > >>> (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational > >>> means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, > >> No, it can't. *Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within* > >> the set of vegetable food products. *If potatoes provide comparable > >> nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental > >> degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side > >> effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no > >> rice, and to eat potatoes instead. *But no "vegan" has ever made that > >> analysis, and none of them ever will. > > > Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated? > > > "Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for > > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm." > > Something you don't achieve. Why do you think that? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:56 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 10:56 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 27, 8:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Ha" > wrote >>>>>>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>>>>>>>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't consume any animal products; >>>>>>>>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>>>> All vegans? >>>>>>>>>> rather a sweeping statement! >>>>>>>>> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the >>>>>>>>> validity of the message. >>>>>>>>> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an >>>>>>>>> exception? >>>>>>>> I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". They do >>>>>>>> *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a >>>>>>>> "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> False. I have never believed that. >>>>>> You have.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, I would certainly know. >>>> We both know you began by believing in the fallacy. >>> No, I know I didn't, >> You did. > > Yawn. Not an argument; not even a claim. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:56 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 11:13 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 10:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ha wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>>>>>>>>>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't consume any animal products; >>>>>>>>>>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >>>>>>>>>>> All vegans? >>>>>>>>>> Without exception. They all start with that, and many - probably most - >>>>>>>>>> never move off it. Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol >>>>>>>>>> "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free" >>>>>>>>>> lifestyle. Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the >>>>>>>>>> logical fallacy. >>>>>>>>> It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread >>>>>>>> Universal, at the outset. Most never abandon it. >>>>>>> See the discussion in my other post. >>>>>> See my well established fact, above: All "vegans" begin by believing in >>>>>> the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it. >>>>> No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for >>>> Indeed it is what I was looking for. >>> Well, that's a shame >> I don't think so. > > Whatever process you use for belief-formation Logic and rational analysis. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:57 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 11:32 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't >>>>>>>>>> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. >>>>>>>>>> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about >>>>>>>>>> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; >>>>>>>>>> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. >>>>>>>>>> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is >>>>>>>>>> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. >>>>>>>>> What's the fallacy in this argument? >>>>>>>>> http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... >>>>>>>> The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling >>>>>>>> case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* >>>>>>>> meat consumption is immoral. >>>>>>> He does make some remarks about how to make the further >>>>>>> generalisation, >>>>>> Unpersuasive. >>>>> That is not engaging with what he said. >>>> It's enough. >>> No. >> It is. >> > > Enough for what? Enough to engage what he said. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:58 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 11:12 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>>>> However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* >>>>>> obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately >>>>>> enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is >>>>>> whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and >>>>>> me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need >>>>>> to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a >>>>>> lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of >>>>>> animal products. >>>>>> ---------------> >>>>>> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize >>>>>> harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does >>>>>> not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not >>>>>> necessarily linked. >>>>> No such claim was made. The claim was that >>>>> (1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational >>>>> means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, >>>> No, it can't. Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within* >>>> the set of vegetable food products. If potatoes provide comparable >>>> nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental >>>> degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side >>>> effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no >>>> rice, and to eat potatoes instead. But no "vegan" has ever made that >>>> analysis, and none of them ever will. >>> Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated? >>> "Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for >>> institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm." >> Something you don't achieve. > > Why do you think that? Your own admission. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
"Rupert" > wrote in message ... On Dec 29, 11:01 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > "Rupert" > wrote > > Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does > not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the > suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware > that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously > contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with > my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one > way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to > disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no > rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony. > ----------> > > Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing > animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking. > > Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse, > conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like > health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by > avoiding > that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you > contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even > though > you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" > using > animals *as end products*. > I'm not sure what your point is here, ------> I could hardly make it any clearer, *veganism*, the substitition of products which do not contain animal parts, fulfils the principle of not *exploiting animals as commodities* but does not elevate or deify the vegan in any way more than the omnivore who also takes steps to reduce his impact. Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in this regard, but it carries the risk of turning the person into an anal-retentive nit who studies the small print on bottles of sauce in dimply-lit restaurants, sneers secretively at people in the meat aisle, and drops unsolicited insulting, not-very-subtle suggestions to others about how they should eat. I thought we were agreed that a widespread transition to veganism would lead to a significant reduction in animal suffering. ----------> It might, but the issue I just brought up essentially wipes out that advantage in my opinion. By being vegan and publicly defending this stance I am doing my bit to reduce my share of responsibility for the problem. ------> Why should you defend it? so does the person who consumes less, consumes fewer imported goods, etc. > Personally it does not bother me that animals are viewed as commodities, > as > long as their capacity to suffer pain and deprivation is taken into > account. Which they clearly aren't... ------------> That is something that can be addressed, and it is a more practical and straightforward solution than equating omnivorism with cannibalism, or murder, which is essentially what vegans try to do, the honest ones. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Brussels Sprouts | General Cooking | |||
brussels sprouts | General Cooking | |||
Brussels Sprouts | General Cooking | |||
Brussels Sprouts | Recipes (moderated) |