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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 10:45 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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...20( 2000).pdf

*And in any
case, it isn't the consumption of the products /per se/ that causes any
putative moral harm.

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.


False. Not all vegans believe that. I was aware of the collateral
deaths argument during adolescence but became vegan as a young adult
anyway. Gary Francione is undoubtedly aware of the collateral deaths
argument. It is quite likely that Mylan Engel Jr. is too.

This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. *


Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah....

In fact, consuming
animal products is not the only way one might cause animals to suffer
and die. *Virtually every normal human activity in which "vegans" engage
has some deleterious impact on animals - an impact "vegans" ignore.


That is correct. Participating in a technological civilisation in any
meaningful way will inevitably lead to you buying products and
services whose production or provision involved the infliction of some
suffering and premature death on sentient nonhuman animals. Gary
Francione certainly acknowledges that point, for one. I don't know of
anyone who denies it.

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. I have linked to one article which attempts to argue
this case to which you have not yet responded. In any event you have
shown no very good reason why it should not be the case. A lot of
people, when contemplating the factual information about how animal
products are generally produced in modern societies, together with the
small burden involved in avoiding them, would just take it to be
obvious.

The next step in their thinking, once the fallacy is pointed out to
them, is to fall back to a claim of "minimizing" the suffering and death
they cause animals. *This position, too, is rubbish. *They do not
minimize the harm, for several reasons:

* * 1. *they have never measured


We all face time constraints. People who make the decision to go vegan
become acquainted with some factual information about how nonhuman
animals are treated, and decide that they want to do something about
it, even if they don't necessarily have the time to find out
absolutely everything they can about the issue. So they go vegan, as a
reasonable rule of thumb based on what they have found out so far,
with the proviso that they hope to find out more later.

* * 2. *even *within* a "vegan" lifestyle, some products they consume
* * * * cause more harm than others; there can be no claim to be
* * * * "minimizing" if one includes some higher-harm goods when there
* * * * are lower-harm substitutes available


If the differential is so high that it looks like culpable negligence,
sure, but you haven't demonstrated that that holds in every case.

So, they don't cause zero harm, and they aren't minimizing the harm they
cause. *


They're adopting a reasonable rule of thumb for minimisation (within
reasonable constraints about how much you sacrifice) based on the
information they've had time to acquire so far.

What's the next false claim? *"I'm doing the best I can." *This
is disposed of by the same means by which the claim of minimization was
vitiated. *They could be doing something more, by definition: *if they
aren't minimizing, then they are *not* doing the best they can.


But they are doing an adequate job of fulfilling their obligations
towards nonhuman animals, as some might take them to be, based on the
constraints they face and the information that they have encountered
so far. And the claim might also be made that reasonably well-informed
people who continue to consume animal products are *not* doing such an
adequate job. You've done nothing to cast doubt on this claim.

So, what's left? *Only this: *"I'm doing better than you." *Not only is
that claim not proved,


You've acknowledged elsewhere that it's not the subject of a
reasonable doubt.

it is the very epitome of sanctimony and moral
bankruptcy. *


Nonsense. I have decided to volunteer some time and effort serving
coffee and sandwiches to homeless people. (This is not an example of
fulfilling a moral obligation, of course.) But the change in behaviour
was motivated that it would help to achieve some goals I wanted to
achieve, as was going vegan. If it is morally worthy to invest time
and effort into doing what you reasonably believe will achieve certain
goals, then these changes in behaviour are moral improvements; if
there's no moral value in it, then fine, at least it doesn't hurt
anyone. But you haven't *demonstrated* that there's no moral value in
it in the case of veganism. And if you had it would hardly
substantiate a claim of moral bankruptcy.

Vegans, contrary to all your inane babbling, are not motivated by a
desire to prove themselves "better" than other people, they are
motivated by a desire to do something to reduce their contribution to
animal suffering. You obviously want to see it the former way because
you find the decision somehow threatening.

Ethical behavior *never* consists in doing less of some
morally wrong thing than someone else. *


Please comment on the example of applying a blowtorch to a dog which I
provided in a different threat. Do you agree that you are ethically
required to refrain from such behaviour? Then you can have moral
obligations towards nonhuman animals even if you are not morally
required to stop buying all the products of commercial agriculture. So
the question remains *how extensive* your obligations towards nonhuman
animals are. You have done nothing to specify where you draw the line
or why the place where you draw it is better than the place where
vegans draw it. This makes a complete nonsense of your argument below,
which you have been repeating ad nauseam for the last God knows how
many years.

If sodomizing young children is
wrong, one cannot claim to be "more ethical" because one "only"
sodomizes children once a week, versus someone else who does it daily.
The *only* way to claim to be ethical when it comes to sodomy committed
against children is *never* to engage in it.


Quite.

If causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong, the only way validly to
be able to claim to be ethical on that issue is not to engage in *any*
of it. *


So what's your conclusion? That there's no obligation to make *any
effort at all* to reduce your contribution to unnecessary harm to
animals?

If there's an obligation to make *some* effort, the question is *how
much*. You haven't said anything to show that the conclusions vegans
draw about that are mistaken.

Think that over carefully. It's important.

Refraining from consuming animal products simply doesn't meet
the requirement. *All it does is give the "vegan" an utterly false sense
of self-satisfaction. *


It gives them a justified sense of satisfaction in having genuinely
reduced their contribution to the demand for processes which cause
unnecessary suffering. And when large numbers of people do it there is
an actual reduction in unnecessary suffering, which is of course the
whole point.


In short, it is the vilest sort of sanctimony and
hypocrisy.


You couldn't be being a little bit overblown here, could you?

I hope this helps some people to eliminate confusion over this issue.


Any hope you have that you have produced an argument that any sane
person could take seriously is utterly empty.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 10:47 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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?


He might be, but he's lying.


You wouldn't have a clue, you stupid pointless clown. You *constantly*
make categorical assertions about people regarding things about which
you *obviously* would not have the slightest clue. It's one of your
well-established habits.

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 no evidence that Gary
Francione ever believed it. He certainly doesn't now.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 10:50 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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, but any
academic defender of veganism would obviously be aware of the
collateral deaths argument, and as I say I was aware of it during
adolescence.

Here's a claim at the terrorist Animal Liberation Front's web site:

* * You don't have to do it over night. You can take small steps by
* * eliminating one cruel product at a time until you arrive at your
* * ultimate goal of a cruelty-free diet.

* *http://www.animalliberation.org.au/vego.php

By the way, there is a poster in this very newsgroup who is a terrorist
and card-carrying supporter of the terrorist organization ALF.


Who are you thinking of there?

Here's another instance:

* * Whether you're hosting a vegan at your holiday table, or looking for
* * holiday recipes as a vegan yourself, it can be a daunting task to
* * find recipes that accommodate the cruelty-free diet

* *http://www.ehow.com/way_5498650_vega...y-recipes.html

Here's a PETA page hawking supposedly "cruelty-free" products:http://tinyurl.com/ycvwtzf. *The *only* reason they consider these
products "cruelty-free" is because they don't contain animal parts - in
other words, they are under the influence of the logical fallacy in
claiming the products to be "cruelty-free". *They don't take into
consideration any animals that are killed in the course of obtaining the
ingredients of the products, manufacturing the products, or distributing
them.

Yes, indeed: **all* "vegans" start by believing the logical fallacy, and
many if not most of them never leave it. *Those who do abandon it merely
move to another, equally invalid moral pose. *In short, "veganism" has
nothing whatever to do with /real/ ethics. *It's all about the pose.


  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 03:45 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 03:45 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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...20( 2000).pdf


Argument is unsound: based on false premises.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 03:46 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 08:30 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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...20( 2000).pdf


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.

Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.

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.
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 11:05 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be


"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. 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.

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.

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.




  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 11:39 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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
can agree on that much, yes?

On what exactly is your confidence based?

You often make a big deal of how vegans ought to back claims such as
"A widespread transition to a vegan diet would be effective at
reducing suffering" with careful research and evidence. Well, quite.
Well, similarly, statements such as "All vegans begin their transition
to veganism in the belief that a vegan lifestyle as typically does not
involve buying *any* products whose production caused nonhuman
suffering and death" or "Rupert began his transition to veganism by
believing this", ought to be based in *evidence*. You have made the
bare-fased *assertion*, as is your wont, without offering the
slightest reason for thinking that you could possibly have any
evidence.

You have shown us some websites which make the statement that a vegan
diet is "cruelty-free". Such statements certainly are frequently made
and it's not too hard to understand to understand why advocates of
veganism would want to make them. Whether most vegans believe the
statement to be literally true in the sense *you* have in mind, or
*began* their transition to veganism by believing this, is a moot
point. You just haven't got the kind of evidence that would justify
you in saying this. As a big fan of the scientific method you ought to
appreciate this point.

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.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 11:40 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

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.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 11:41 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "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?
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 11:52 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "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.
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 11:56 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "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.
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 11:57 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "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.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2009, 11:59 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brussels Sprouts Melba's Jammin' General Cooking 6 04-03-2013 11:07 PM
brussels sprouts sf[_9_] General Cooking 6 02-03-2013 08:22 PM
Brussels Sprouts Julian Vrieslander[_3_] General Cooking 1 27-02-2013 09:39 AM
Brussels Sprouts Travis and Jenn Bartimus Recipes (moderated) 0 13-07-2006 01:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017