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, 4:36*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." > > > 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. > You wouldn't know how much. More than you, it's certainly safe to say that. You obviously don't think that there is any obligation to make any effort at all to reduce the amount of suffering caused by the production of the food you consume, so I'm not really sure why you think you're in a position to try to put down the amount of effort I've made, which you obviously wouldn't know anything about anyway. We are discussing these two moral principles: "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." Now, sometimes you say that some of the terms are vague, but on this occasion you apparently understand them well enough to know that I don't live up to them, so I welcome any effort to explain why. If you convince me then I will change my behaviour, but I would like some kind of rational case you don't mind. I have explained why I don't think I'm morally required to find out more about the impact of rice production. It's just not an especially good investment of my time and resources with regard to the goal of reducing suffering. Completing my Ph.D. was a better investment, though in that case there was a self- interested component too, obviously. And joining a philanthropy group and doing research about what charities are the most effective is also a better investment. I'm not really sure why you are so concerned about whether *I* live up to them. Obviously *I* should worry about that but I don't know why *you* would care. Oh, silly me: because your only purpose in hanging out on these newsgroups is to make lame attempts to put people down, not to have intellectually serious discussion. Anyway, in all seriousness, I take it you don't accept the principles, I would be interested in hearing what you think is wrong with them. > > 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. > No. That is not the claim under discussion. The claim is that there is an ethical obligation which is overridable by other considerations. That was always the claim. Ethical obligations can be like that, even if they are grounded in rights. Speaking of behaving ethically, you remember that time where you asked me if my history of psychosis was a product of a history of child abuse? Do you have any thoughts about the ethics of that at all? I mean, it's big of you to spend your life on usenet offering people free feedback about their alleged shortcomings, but have you ever thought about having a look at your own? > >> 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. What they do or do not believe has no bearing on the merits of the argument, either. Most likely the situation with most vegans is that they do believe that there is an obligation to minimise suffering but it has not occurred to them that there is any particular issue with plant-based food. That is probably the situation regarding what they believe, make of it what you will. But what most vegans believe has no bearing on what I am discussing. I have put forward two moral premises for discussion and you have not explained to me what is wrong with them. On other occasions you have said that they are too vague to be applied but on this occasion you wish to say that you understand them well enough to know that I don't live up to them. Well, if I don't I'd better change my behaviour. I just don't think that you've made an especially good case. But that's a side-issue. What I want to know is why *you* don't think the premises are correct. > It proves this is purely about self exaltation. It doesn't prove any such thing, you silly clown. You would like to believe that no-one could ever be genuinely motivated to do something about the suffering in the world, but it just ain't 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
Dutch wrote:
> > "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. Exactly. The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) > Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in > this regard, But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory, comparative-ethics hypocrite. Nothing could be more obvious: "veganism", and the irrationally ardent defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of legitimate ethics. There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan". Ethical behavior simply *cannot* be determined by a comparison with others, but that's all that's left to "veganism" when you strip away all the taxpayer-funded (wasteful by definition) philosophical blather. "vegans" still: - "unnecessarily" cause animals to suffer and die - aren't minimizing - aren't willing to expend /any/ effort to learn more about relative death tolls of different non-animal foods "vegans" make an unwarranted assumption that their "lifestyle" (nauseating both as word and concept) is inherently less harm-causing than /any/ meat-including one, but that's simply not true. There's another interesting thing to note. Vegetarianism generally, and "veganism" specifically, are predominantly practiced in the western world by clueless urbanites. This is not in serious dispute. Urbanites are generally richer than rural dwellers, and being richer, consume more. They consume more electricity, more water, more gasoline, more natural gas - more of just about everything. Their resource consumption is greater both directly and indirectly. The indirect components arises from the fact that the more expensive things richer people buy require more resources to produce. For relatively rich urban "vegans", this is true for everything /except/ perhaps their diet, in which they consume no resource-intensive meat. But "vegans" - almost universally clueless urbanites, such as mathematics and philosophy lecturers and graduate students, as well as air-headed film starlets - weakly assume that all the rest of their rich, resource-wasteful consumption is somehow offset by not putting animal parts into their mouths. The assumption, it goes without saying, is unwarranted. > but it carries the risk of turning the person into an > anal-retentive nit who studies the small print on bottles of sauce in > dimly-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. |
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, 4:36 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." >>> 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. >> > > You wouldn't know how much. I know more than enough. >>> 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. >> > > No. Yes. > Speaking of behaving ethically, you remember that time where you asked > me if my history of psychosis was a product of a history of child > abuse? Do you have any thoughts about the ethics of that at all? As a matter of fact, I do. I believe child abuse is unethical. >>>> 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. > > What they do or do not believe has no bearing on the merits of the > argument, either. Of course it does. If they really believed it, they'd make /some/ effort to live up to it. Of course, they do not. |
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, 5:12*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > 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. No, of course not. |
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, 5:18*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "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. |
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, 5:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> 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. > > No, of course not. So, you were just wasting time. Of course, that's easy to do when your time is worth so little. |
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, 5:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "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. >> > > No, it doesn't carry those risks. The issue of whether veganism is > better than conscientious omnivorism Proof, as if any more were needed, that this is purely about an invidious, nasty, sanctimonious comparison. Once again, for the slow learners (among whom number all "vegans", by definition): ethical behavior /never/ is determined by a comparison with the behavior of others. Ethical behavior consists solely in doing what is right, without regard to any others. If your brother sodomizes the four-year-old neighbor boy twice a week, and you "only" sodomize the boy once a week, you are not "more ethical" than your brother; you are, in fact, entirely unethical. *Any* amount of sodomy committed against four-year-old boys makes you unethical - full stop. If causing "unnecessary" animal suffering and death is wrong, then it's wrong in any amount. It simply won't do to try to equivocate on the concept of necessity by appealing to one's own selfish wishes and wants - that is, one cannot simply define as "necessary" some suffering, the elimination of which would inconvenience you in the pursuit of purely selfish goals. If reducing the animal harm caused by your "lifestyle" would adversely affect your attainment of academic glory, then your attainment of academic glory will simply have to give way - that is, it will if there is any compelling reason in the first place to reduce harm to animals. |
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, 5:52*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Dutch wrote: > > > "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. > > Exactly. *The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; > can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can > supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided > meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering > (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) > You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" undefined. I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by "little" animal suffering that would be awesome. The point in contention is whether it is especially easy for most people living in cities to get hold of commercially produced meat that one reasonably believes involves little animal suffering, whatever that might mean. There might be some disagreement about what "little animal suffering" means. But if you've done your homework and you know you can get it, that's great, and I would never mock your efforts at conscientious omnivorism, even though you mock my efforts to find out more about rice production when you obviously know nothing about how much effort I made. I've actually conceded that point for a fairly long time, despite it leading to Derek playing jokes on me thinking he has hacked my email account and emailing my friends saying that I shouldn't be a voting member of Animal Liberation. I'm pretty sure that I said from day one that some forms of conscientious omnivorism might be acceptable, I just think it's a bit of a stretch to say that I would be able to find any form of conscientious omnivorism that I would find acceptable. We probably have some disagreement about what constitutes "acceptable conscientious omnivorism". That is indeed what I hoped to thrash out in the other thread I started with the paraphrase of Mylan Engel Jr's argument, but it ended up with you making a false and unsupported assertion about what I mean by "unnecessary suffering" which bears no relation to anything I have ever actually written about the matter. You seem to think I came in here with the purpose of proving myself better than everyone else; well, I don't think there's any particular evidence of that in what I actually wrote, but I probably get a bit defensive when I am subjected to a tirade of abuse that I regard as absurd and unjustified. But I'm pretty sure that I said more than once that I have no way of knowing whether your diet is better than mine, certainly I said that to Rick Petter. When Dutch admits to eating factory-farmed meat in restaurants you feel like you can make an educated guess, but who knows. Unlike you I don't usually focus on the specifics of other people's behaviour, I am more interested in debating the ethical issues. I have conceded for a long time that some forms of conscientious omnivorism might be acceptable, I just haven't put the effort into finding out much about it because it doesn't really appeal. I am happy to listen to any factual information you have to offer about conscientious omnivorism, I'm just waiting for the attempt at reasoned argument really, as opposed to the endless tirade of verbal abuse. But whatever floats your boat. > > Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in > > this regard, > > But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory, > comparative-ethics hypocrite. > No, it does not. You say repeatedly that it does but you offer no particular support for this claim and most outside observers would form the view that you are being a bit defensive. In any case I think the issue of what is the most effective way to do something about animal suffering should be more important. > Nothing could be more obvious: *"veganism", and the irrationally ardent > defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of > legitimate ethics. * Nothing could be more obvious **********. Why, Ball? Why does it make a mockery of legitimate ethics any more than whatever stance you want to defend? It's really just a different view about what is involved in fulfilling your obligations to nonhumans. What makes it a "mockery of legitimate ethics". The fact that you don't like it? The fact that you don't get on with the vegans you have met? Sheesh, talking with you is such a waste of time. > There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an > "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan". > Ball, I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care* about whether I am more ethical than you, I care about fulfilling my moral obligations as best I can work out what they are, and that is what you should care about too. If you think I am mistaken about my moral obligations then you should simply offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken. You have never done that. I have never expressed moral contempt at you not being vegan, although I don't think you've done an especially good job of defending the points of view you put around here. I've expressed moral contempt at you for plenty of other things, obviously. You are the one who tries to make it your life's mission to show that I do not live up to my stated moral principles. You don't do an especially good job of it because I put qualifying phrases into them. Then you express contempt at me for doing that. Which reduces to the "all-or-nothing" argument, really. You can have a moral obligation which can be outweighed by competing considerations. I tell you you can. You think so, too, because you acknowledge some moral constraints on your behaviour towards nonhumans but put them aside when it comes to deciding what you buy at the supermarket. > Ethical behavior simply *cannot* be determined by a comparison with > others, but that's all that's left to "veganism" when you strip away all > the taxpayer-funded (wasteful by definition) philosophical blather. How about using public money to keep immigrants from coming into the country and accepting employment from people who want to employ them? Is *that* wasteful by definition? My contributions to this newsgroup aren't taxpayer-funded, and your responses to them aren't very good. I've explained to you countless times what's wrong with all this rubbish. > "vegans" still: > > - "unnecessarily" cause animals to suffer and die > - aren't minimizing > - aren't willing to expend /any/ effort to learn more about relative > * *death tolls of different non-animal foods > We've been over this plenty of times in the other thread. You think that the only way vegans can offer a coherent foundation for their position is by holding themselves to standards much higher than the ones that they in fact do. It just ain't so. > "vegans" make an unwarranted assumption that their "lifestyle" > (nauseating both as word and concept) is inherently less harm-causing > than /any/ meat-including one, but that's simply not true. > I don't know of any evidence that vegans make such an assumption, I certainly don't. In *typical* cases it's not a bad rule of thumb. > There's another interesting thing to note. *Vegetarianism generally, and > "veganism" specifically, are predominantly practiced in the western > world by clueless urbanites. * Yawn. Oh yes, that's fascinating. > This is not in serious dispute. * Some rural folks do convert to veganism. The reasons why it is less likely to happen for them are pretty clear. > Urbanites > are generally richer than rural dwellers, and being richer, consume > more. *They consume more electricity, more water, more gasoline, more > natural gas - more of just about everything. *Their resource consumption > is greater both directly and indirectly. *The indirect components arises > from the fact that the more expensive things richer people buy require > more resources to produce. *For relatively rich urban "vegans", this is > true for everything /except/ perhaps their diet, in which they consume > no resource-intensive meat. > > But "vegans" - almost universally clueless urbanites, such as > mathematics and philosophy lecturers and graduate students, as well as > air-headed film starlets - weakly assume that all the rest of their > rich, resource-wasteful consumption is somehow offset by not putting > animal parts into their mouths. *The assumption, it goes without saying, > is unwarranted. > Mathematics and philosophy lecturers are generally not especially "clueless" in my book. Knowledge is a big inter-related web. Most of the vegans I know do worry about the impact of the rest of their consumption, but the abuses involved in food production are particularly egregious and should be spoken out about. We should worry about other areas of consumption too. |
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. What an absurd, convoluted bit of double negation. You really ought to take a course in remedial English, and learn to write plain, forthright sentences. > I was well aware > that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously > contemplated giving up meat, That's simply bullshit. You just aren't thoughtful enough to have reached that understanding in adolescence - probably not even now. If you aren't sufficiently aware in your 30s of what is necessary in order realistically to say that you are "minimizing" the harm you cause, subject to reasonable constraints (which reasonable constraints do *NOT* include your wish to achieve academic glory) - and plainly, you are not aware - then it is entirely unreasonable and unrealistic to think that you were aware in adolescence that refraining from eating meat was insufficient to achieve the end of causing no harm to animals. I have always been amused by people who claim to have had precocious awareness or understanding of anything, but especially of difficult philosophical issues. There's always a huge and obvious element of self-flattery at work in such claims, and you're no exception. You simply aren't as clever or perceptive or aware as you like to pretend, and that is and has been true throughout your life. |
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, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Dutch wrote: >> >>> "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. >> Exactly. The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; >> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can >> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided >> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering >> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) >> > > You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" > undefined. Not "undefined"; flexi-defined. "Unnecessary", as you and your fellow sophists use it, is extremely supple. It means whatever you need it to mean. > I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by > "little" animal suffering I'm happy to oblige. An example might prove instructive and helpful to a clueless urbanite like you: a single high-powered rifle slug through the heart of a 70 kg mule deer causes relatively little animal suffering. An agricultural discing machine slicing through a dozen or so rabbits to prepare a hectare of land for some grain crop causes relatively much animal suffering. I hope that helps. >>> Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in >>> this regard, >> But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory, >> comparative-ethics hypocrite. >> > > No, it does not. It does. >> Nothing could be more obvious: "veganism", and the irrationally ardent >> defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of >> legitimate ethics. > > Nothing could be more obvious Right - that's what I said. >> There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an >> "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan". >> > > I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care* > about whether I am more ethical than you, Of course you do. > I care about fulfilling my > moral obligations as best I can work out what they are, You don't do that. Your moral obligations, if you took them seriously, demand that you do much more than you do to reduce the harm to animals that your consumption habits cause. You refuse to do 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, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Dutch wrote: >> >>> "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. >> Exactly. The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; >> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can >> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided >> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering >> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) >> > > You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" > undefined. I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by > "little" animal suffering that would be awesome. The point in > contention is whether it is especially easy for most people living in > cities to get hold of commercially produced meat that one reasonably > believes involves little animal suffering, whatever that might mean. > There might be some disagreement about what "little animal suffering" > means. > > But if you've done your homework and you know you can get it, that's > great, and I would never mock your efforts at conscientious > omnivorism, even though you mock my efforts to find out more about > rice production when you obviously know nothing about how much effort > I made. I've actually conceded that point for a fairly long time, > despite it leading to Derek playing jokes on me thinking he has hacked > my email account and emailing my friends saying that I shouldn't be a > voting member of Animal Liberation. I'm pretty sure that I said from > day one that some forms of conscientious omnivorism might be > acceptable, I just think it's a bit of a stretch to say that I would > be able to find any form of conscientious omnivorism that I would find > acceptable. We probably have some disagreement about what constitutes > "acceptable conscientious omnivorism". That is indeed what I hoped to > thrash out in the other thread I started with the paraphrase of Mylan > Engel Jr's argument, but it ended up with you making a false and > unsupported assertion about what I mean by "unnecessary suffering" > which bears no relation to anything I have ever actually written about > the matter. > > You seem to think I came in here with the purpose of proving myself > better than everyone else; well, I don't think there's any particular > evidence of that in what I actually wrote, but I probably get a bit > defensive when I am subjected to a tirade of abuse that I regard as > absurd and unjustified. But I'm pretty sure that I said more than once > that I have no way of knowing whether your diet is better than mine, > certainly I said that to Rick Petter. When Dutch admits to eating > factory-farmed meat in restaurants you feel like you can make an > educated guess, but who knows. Unlike you I don't usually focus on the > specifics of other people's behaviour, I am more interested in > debating the ethical issues. I have conceded for a long time that some > forms of conscientious omnivorism might be acceptable, I just haven't > put the effort into finding out much about it because it doesn't > really appeal. I am happy to listen to any factual information you > have to offer about conscientious omnivorism, I'm just waiting for the > attempt at reasoned argument really, as opposed to the endless tirade > of verbal abuse. But whatever floats your boat. > >>> Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in >>> this regard, >> But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory, >> comparative-ethics hypocrite. >> > > No, it does not. You say repeatedly that it does but you offer no > particular support for this claim and most outside observers would > form the view that you are being a bit defensive. In any case I think > the issue of what is the most effective way to do something about > animal suffering should be more important. > >> Nothing could be more obvious: "veganism", and the irrationally ardent >> defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of >> legitimate ethics. > > Nothing could be more obvious **********. > > Why, Ball? Why does it make a mockery of legitimate ethics any more > than whatever stance you want to defend? It's really just a different > view about what is involved in fulfilling your obligations to > nonhumans. What makes it a "mockery of legitimate ethics". The fact > that you don't like it? The fact that you don't get on with the vegans > you have met? > > Sheesh, talking with you is such a waste of time. > >> There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an >> "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan". >> > > Ball, I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care* > about whether I am more ethical than you, I care about fulfilling my > moral obligations as best I can work out what they are, and that is > what you should care about too. If you think I am mistaken about my > moral obligations then you should simply offer reasons for thinking > that I am mistaken. You have never done that. > > I have never expressed moral contempt at you not being vegan, although > I don't think you've done an especially good job of defending the > points of view you put around here. I've expressed moral contempt at > you for plenty of other things, obviously. > > You are the one who tries to make it your life's mission to show that > I do not live up to my stated moral principles. You don't do an > especially good job of it because I put qualifying phrases into them. > Then you express contempt at me for doing that. Which reduces to the > "all-or-nothing" argument, really. You can have a moral obligation > which can be outweighed by competing considerations. I tell you you > can. You think so, too, because you acknowledge some moral constraints > on your behaviour towards nonhumans but put them aside when it comes > to deciding what you buy at the supermarket. > >> Ethical behavior simply *cannot* be determined by a comparison with >> others, but that's all that's left to "veganism" when you strip away all >> the taxpayer-funded (wasteful by definition) philosophical blather. > > How about using public money to keep immigrants from coming into the > country and accepting employment from people who want to employ them? > Is *that* wasteful by definition? > > My contributions to this newsgroup aren't taxpayer-funded, and your > responses to them aren't very good. > > I've explained to you countless times what's wrong with all this > rubbish. > >> "vegans" still: >> >> - "unnecessarily" cause animals to suffer and die >> - aren't minimizing >> - aren't willing to expend /any/ effort to learn more about relative >> death tolls of different non-animal foods >> > > We've been over this plenty of times in the other thread. You think > that the only way vegans can offer a coherent foundation for their > position is by holding themselves to standards much higher than the > ones that they in fact do. It just ain't so. > >> "vegans" make an unwarranted assumption that their "lifestyle" >> (nauseating both as word and concept) is inherently less harm-causing >> than /any/ meat-including one, but that's simply not true. >> > > I don't know of any evidence that vegans make such an assumption, I > certainly don't. In *typical* cases it's not a bad rule of thumb. > >> There's another interesting thing to note. Vegetarianism generally, and >> "veganism" specifically, are predominantly practiced in the western >> world by clueless urbanites. > > Yawn. Oh yes, that's fascinating. > >> This is not in serious dispute. > > Some rural folks do convert to veganism. The reasons why it is less > likely to happen for them are pretty clear. > >> Urbanites >> are generally richer than rural dwellers, and being richer, consume >> more. They consume more electricity, more water, more gasoline, more >> natural gas - more of just about everything. Their resource consumption >> is greater both directly and indirectly. The indirect components arises >> from the fact that the more expensive things richer people buy require >> more resources to produce. For relatively rich urban "vegans", this is >> true for everything /except/ perhaps their diet, in which they consume >> no resource-intensive meat. >> >> But "vegans" - almost universally clueless urbanites, such as >> mathematics and philosophy lecturers and graduate students, as well as >> air-headed film starlets - weakly assume that all the rest of their >> rich, resource-wasteful consumption is somehow offset by not putting >> animal parts into their mouths. The assumption, it goes without saying, >> is unwarranted. >> > > Mathematics and philosophy lecturers are generally not especially > "clueless" in my book. They are utterly clueless about things that happen outside academe, particularly those that happen outside urban environments. They don't like to get their hands dirty, and they have *ZERO* /real/ understanding of the reality of those people who do get their hands dirty providing the maths and philosophy lecturers with the "necessities" of life. There is a reason - a very sound reason - that most people view maths and philosophy lecturers, among many others, as largely detached from unpleasant physical reality. The reason is that you are. In fact, most urbanites - clueless ones like you, as well as relatively more clued-in ones like me - don't have nearly enough contact with and awareness of the the realities of those who do our dirty work. The difference between you and me is, you don't want to know. You revel in and pride yourself in the distance. You affect a nauseating egalitarianism, but the phoniness of it is like a sledgehammer between the eyes. You sneer at what you conceive of as the simple and simpleminded rustics who cultivate the organic veggies you take great and public pride in eating. You are a fraud. |
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:
> [massive load of clueless urbanite crap] So, how long have you been back in Sydney? Are you back in telemarketing (better known as bothering people)? What happened with your little Chinese slattern? Did you nobly rescue her from the ecologically contemptuous and politically totalitarian regime you were serving, or did one of you dump the other and now you're split up? |
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, 6:27*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 5:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> 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. > > > No, of course not. > > So, you were just wasting time. *Of course, that's easy to do when your > time is worth so little. It's Christmas holidays, and writing "Yawn" did not take up that much time. In any case, pot and kettle. You truly are a silly man. |
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, 7:12*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Dutch wrote: > > >>> "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. > >> Exactly. *The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; > >> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can > >> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided > >> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering > >> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) > > > You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" > > undefined. > > Not "undefined"; flexi-defined. *"Unnecessary", as you and your fellow > sophists use it, is extremely supple. *It means whatever you need it to > mean. > What's your evidence for that? > > I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by > > "little" animal suffering > > I'm happy to oblige. *An example might prove instructive and helpful to > a clueless urbanite like you: *a single high-powered rifle slug through > the heart of a 70 kg mule deer causes relatively little animal > suffering. *An agricultural discing machine slicing through a dozen or > so rabbits to prepare a hectare of land for some grain crop causes > relatively much animal suffering. > > I hope that helps. > Well, that's totally awesome, although you'd still have in factor in the ratios of how much food is produced. You were referring to "commercially produced meat", you utterly clueless clown. That was the context. Sheesh. > >>> Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in > >>> this regard, > >> But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory, > >> comparative-ethics hypocrite. > > > No, it does not. > > It does. > What's that based on, Ball? Some kind of scientific research with serious statistical methodology? Exactly how many vegans have you run into in your time? Were the ones with whom you discussed the matter in depth all on the Internet? > >> Nothing could be more obvious: *"veganism", and the irrationally ardent > >> defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of > >> legitimate ethics. * > > > Nothing could be more obvious > > Right - that's what I said. > Lame. > >> There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an > >> "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan". > > > I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care* > > about whether I am more ethical than you, > > Of course you do. > Please do me a favour and say that I didn't laugh out loud when I read that. That was totally awesome. There is no rational reason about why I would care about whether I am more ethical than *you*, Ball. I really have no strong reason to think that that would be any achievement to write home about in any case, but however that may be there is no reason why I would care. I should care about being as ethical as I can be. Comparing myself with you would not be the issue. We can agree on that, yes? So what exactly gave you the idea that comparing myself with you is some kind of big issue? Sorry, my friend David said I have to stop talking to you because I have to go and talk to him and he says you're not worth spitting on. > > I care about fulfilling my > > moral obligations as best I can work out what they are, > > You don't do that. *Your moral obligations, if you took them seriously, > demand that you do much more than you do to reduce the harm to animals > that your consumption habits cause. *You refuse to do it. Why do you think that, Ball? And why do the same remarks not equally apply to you? Presumably because you don't really mean what you actually said, you mean my obligations *as I conceive them*. Which would have to be based on what I actually *wrote*. Dear oh dear. There's just no hope for you, is there? |
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, 6:27 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 5:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> No, of course not. >> So, you were just wasting time. Of course, that's easy to do when your >> time is worth so little. > > It's Christmas holidays, and writing "Yawn" did not take up that much > time. It was wasting time, something that comes easily to you. |
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, 7:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>> "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. >>>> Exactly. The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; >>>> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can >>>> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided >>>> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering >>>> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) >>> You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" >>> undefined. >> Not "undefined"; flexi-defined. "Unnecessary", as you and your fellow >> sophists use it, is extremely supple. It means whatever you need it to >> mean. >> > > What's your evidence for that? Your statements. |
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 30, 2:31*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 6:27 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 5:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>> No, of course not. > >> So, you were just wasting time. *Of course, that's easy to do when your > >> time is worth so little. > > > It's Christmas holidays, and writing "Yawn" did not take up that much > > time. > > It was wasting time, something that comes easily to you. Probably a bit hard to argue with that, except I don't know how you would avoid drawing the same conclusion about yourself, based on your usenet track record... I did manage to complete my Ph.D. while holding down a full-time job, so my time management skills are probably acceptable, although as with many people they could probably use some improvement. I don't know if wasting time on usenet during the Christmas holidays is such a major concern. Am I to understand that you think that your time spent on usenet, which is certainly non-negligible, is most profitably spent? |
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 30, 2:32*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 7:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Dutch wrote: > >>>>> "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. > >>>> Exactly. *The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; > >>>> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can > >>>> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided > >>>> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering > >>>> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) > >>> You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" > >>> undefined. > >> Not "undefined"; flexi-defined. *"Unnecessary", as you and your fellow > >> sophists use it, is extremely supple. *It means whatever you need it to > >> mean. > > > What's your evidence for that? > > Your statements. Which ones? Sheesh. You talk about me wasting time. This would be called "not answering the question", wouldn't it? I don't know, it shouldn't be too much of a challenge to give some indication of what the evidence is, should it? You claim that it's within your power to do that but for whatever reason chose not to. Well, you said in recent memory, "You just don't have an answer, do you?", when I had in fact provided one. So it would seem that when I have provided an answer that is compelling evidence that I don't have one, but when you don't provide one you apparently expect people to believe that you are capable of doing so. Not too sure if that makes a lot of sense. |
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 30, 2:31 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 6:27 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 5:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> No, of course not. >>>> So, you were just wasting time. Of course, that's easy to do when your >>>> time is worth so little. >>> It's Christmas holidays, and writing "Yawn" did not take up that much >>> time. >> It was wasting time, something that comes easily to you. > > Probably a bit hard to argue with that Very few academics can argue with it. The greatest part of academic endeavor, even at its best, is a waste of time. Hard to imagine how the taxpayer can be so easily flim-flammed to pay for smart guys jerking off and wasting time for entire careers. |
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 30, 2:32 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 7:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>>>> "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. >>>>>> Exactly. The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; >>>>>> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can >>>>>> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided >>>>>> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering >>>>>> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) >>>>> You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" >>>>> undefined. >>>> Not "undefined"; flexi-defined. "Unnecessary", as you and your fellow >>>> sophists use it, is extremely supple. It means whatever you need it to >>>> mean. >>> What's your evidence for that? >> Your statements. > > Which ones? All of them. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 24, 12:17*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > DC wrote: > > NY Times > > > In his new book, “Eating Animals” (Amazon.com: > >http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran > > Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, > > oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets” > > to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a > > philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed > > page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat > > people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like > > himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, > > including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and > > finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said... > > > But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed > > vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider > > that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok > > than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my > > Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument > > or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it > > that way. The more that scientists learn about the > > complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the > > environment, the speed with which they react to changes in > > the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks > > that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit > > help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and > > the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill > > backdrop... > > > Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 > > "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. > * In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the > person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because > "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about > making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then > patting oneself on the back. I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric restriction and good old hunger from the gut. So there is at least one vegan that denies your assumption that all x do some y or some faulty logic. Why less food intake can be healthier The fountain of youth may exist after all, as a study showed that scientist... ‘The Future of Us’: Is Human Life Expectancy About to Increase Dramatically? The fountain of youth may exist after all, as a study showed that scientists have discovered means to extend the lifespan of mice and primates. The key to eternal -- or at least prolonged -- youth lies in genetic manipulation that mimics the health benefits of reducing calorie intake, suggesting that aging and age-related diseases can be treated. Scientists from the Institute of Healthy Ageing at University College London (UCL) extended the lifespan of mice by up to a fifth and reduced the number of age-related diseases affecting the animals after they genetically manipulated them to block production of the S6 Kinase 1 (S6K1) protein. Scientists have shown since the 1930s that reducing the calorie intake by 30 percent for rats, mice and -- in a more recent finding -- primates can extend their lifespan by 40 percent and have health benefits. By blocking S6K1, which is involved in the body's response to changes in food intake, similar benefits were obtained without reducing food intake, according to the study published in the US journal Science. The results corroborated those of other recent studies. "Blocking the action of the S6K1 protein helps prevent a number of age- related conditions in female mice," explained UCL professor Dominic Withers, the study's lead author. "The mice lived longer and were leaner, more active and generally healthier than the control group. We added 'life to their years' as well as 'years to their lives.'" The genetically altered female mice lived 20 percent longer -- living a total of 950 days -- or over 160 days more than their normal counterparts. At age 600 days, the equivalent of middle age in humans, the altered female mice were leaner, had stronger bones, were protected from type 2 diabetes, performed better at motor tasks and demonstrated better senses and cognition, according to the study. Their T-cells, a key component of the immune system also seemed more "youthful," the researchers said, which points to a slowing of the declining immunity that usually accompanies aging. Male mice showed little difference in lifespan although they also demonstrated some of the health benefits, including less resistance to insulin and healthier T-cells. Researchers said reasons for the differences between the two sexes were unclear. "We are suddenly much closer to treatments for aging than we thought," said David Gems of UCL's Institute of Healthy Aging, one of the authors of the study, which was primarily funded by the Wellcome Trust. "We have moved from initial findings in worm models to having 'druggable' targets in mice. The next logical step is to see if drugs like metformin can slow the aging process in humans." Other studies have also found that blocking S6K1 were channeled through increased activity of a second molecule, AMPK, which regulates energy levels within cells. AMPK, also known as a master "fuel gauge," is activated when cellular energy levels fall, as takes place when calorie intake is reduced. Drugs, such as the widely-used metformin, that activate AMPK are already being used in human patients to treat type 2 diabetes. Recent studies by Russian scientists suggested that metformin can extend mice's lifespan. Another drug, rapamycin, was found to extend the lifespan of mice, according to a study published in the British journal Nature. As rapamycin is already used in humans as an immunosuppresant -- to prevent a patient from rejecting an organ after transplant -- it could not be administered as an anti-ageing drug in its current form. But rapamycin blocks S6K1 activity and could thus extend lifespan through its impact on S6K1. Seizing on the potential, US firm Sirtris Pharmaceuticals uses resveratrol, a powerful anti-oxidant found in red wine, as well as other fruits than raisin. Sirtris scientists -- including co-founder David Sinclair, also a researcher at Harvard Medical School -- have found that resveratrol activates the production of sirtuin proteins, which also unleash the same physiological effects as reducing calorie intake. Sirtris has produced highly concentrated doses of resveratrol and is currently leading clinical trials with diabetes patients and others suffering from liver and colon cancer. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Immortalist wrote:
> On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> DC wrote: >>> NY Times >>> In his new book, “Eating Animals” (Amazon.com: >>> http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran >>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, >>> oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets” >>> to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a >>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed >>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat >>> people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like >>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, >>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and >>> finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said... >>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed >>> vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider >>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok >>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my >>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument >>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it >>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the >>> complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the >>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in >>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks >>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit >>> help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and >>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill >>> backdrop... >>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 >> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. >> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the >> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because >> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about >> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then >> patting oneself on the back. > > I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric > restriction and good old hunger from the gut. Then you're not a "vegan". "vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or something like that. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 29, 7:30*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Immortalist wrote: > > On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> DC wrote: > >>> NY Times > >>> In his new book, “Eating Animals” (Amazon.com: > >>>http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran > >>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, > >>> oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets” > >>> to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a > >>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed > >>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat > >>> people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like > >>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, > >>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and > >>> finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said... > >>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed > >>> vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider > >>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok > >>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my > >>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument > >>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it > >>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the > >>> complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the > >>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in > >>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks > >>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit > >>> help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and > >>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill > >>> backdrop... > >>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 > >> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. > >> * In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the > >> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because > >> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about > >> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then > >> patting oneself on the back. > > > I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric > > restriction and good old hunger from the gut. > > Then you're not a "vegan". *"vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". > > If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a > "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or > something like that. No. A vegan is someone who don't eat animal products nor grains and seeds, nor mucus snot milk, no no, a vegan is almost always skinny fatman. http://i43.tinypic.com/2elxzqb.jpg |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Immortalist wrote:
> On Dec 29, 7:30 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Immortalist wrote: >>> On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> DC wrote: >>>>> NY Times >>>>> In his new book, “Eating Animals” (Amazon.com: >>>>> http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran >>>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, >>>>> oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets” >>>>> to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a >>>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed >>>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat >>>>> people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like >>>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, >>>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and >>>>> finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said... >>>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed >>>>> vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider >>>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok >>>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my >>>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument >>>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it >>>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the >>>>> complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the >>>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in >>>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks >>>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit >>>>> help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and >>>>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill >>>>> backdrop... >>>>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 >>>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. >>>> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the >>>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because >>>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about >>>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then >>>> patting oneself on the back. >>> I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric >>> restriction and good old hunger from the gut. >> Then you're not a "vegan". "vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". >> >> If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a >> "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or >> something like that. > > No. A vegan is someone who don't eat animal products nor grains and > seeds, nor mucus snot milk, No. That's a strict vegetarian. A strict vegetarian *may* be a "vegan", if his motive is ethics. If not, then he's just a strict vegetarian. "mucus snot milk" - you revealed that your motive isn't even health, it's goofy aesthetics. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals I do not eat meat; Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. This argument contains a classical fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and if so, exclude it from their diet. A while ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend - and none of the other participants seemed especially eager to eliminate canned black olives from their diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms. Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the animal collateral death toll caused by the production and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if the geographic locale of production has anything to do with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't kill animals. It simply is not credible. How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans" *still* accept it. I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on what they call "ethics", their devotion to the religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them away. In that light, the obsessive Search for Micrograms takes on the character of a religious ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. |
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, 5:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > "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. > No, it doesn't carry those risks. -------> It absolutely does, I have seen it repeatedly, I have experienced it personally. The issue of whether veganism is better than conscientious omnivorism in typical cases is our main point of disagreement. --------> I disagree, I doubt if we can agree on what the terms in that statement mean. I am happy to consider any factual information that you have to offer about this. Have you had a look at Peter Singer's book "The Ethics Of What We Eat?" ---------------> No > 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. > Well, I don't regard the picture that you paint of vegans as being especially reasonable, and I think that we might also disagree about the importance of reducing animal suffering. ------------> I don't believe that is our main disagreement, as I have said already, and you may not realize it, but I believe your primary motive is quasi-political. You think animals need "liberating", I don't. > 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. > Yeah, fine, but I wandered onto here many years ago and saw people making critical remarks about veganism, and offered some thoughts about the matter, and was subject to a tirade of abuse, and for some reason developed an obsession with showing these people that their attacks were ill-founded. You guys started it, so to speak. I do think that veganism advocacy is a good thing but in my general I don't really go out of my way to talk about my views with people who don't want to hear about it. I am an ethical vegan, I talk about it with those who express interest, and I engage in animal activism, but I'm a fairly live and let live type of guy. -------> That's good for you, otherwise you have a pretty short list of friends outside the AR community. We clearly have some disagreement about what the human-nonhuman relationship should be, and about what vegans are usually like, but other than that there's nothing especially wrong with what you are saying. But Ball has made it his life's mission to denigrate vegans just for being vegans and the arguments he offers are palpable nonsense, and I'm just doing him the favour of explaining why. ---------------> Obviously I don't agree with your assessment, I find his arguement quite persuasive, even if I don't agree on every last detail. What's your take on Ball, anyway? He asked me whether my history of psychosis was due to a history of child abuse. Do you not think that that is fairly disgusting? You talk about the risks of being a vegan; maybe Ball illustrates the risks of being an anti-ARA. ---------> I don't perceive him to have any particular problem. Usenet can be a rough place, you need thick skin. > > 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, Well, that remains to be seen. ----------> Sure > 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. The likes of Gary Francione, of whom most vegans are a bit of a fan, think that animals will inevitably be abused as long as they are property. That is of course the central point of disagreement. ----------------> I think it is plausible that animals will someday be seen as *a different sort of property*, the legislation we see around the world these days confirms that is a trend. |
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, 5:55*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 4:36 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." > >>> 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. > > > You wouldn't know how much. > > I know more than enough. > Knowledge involves *justified* belief, Ball. That would mean belief that is in some way grounded in *reason* or *evidence*. You're not being very specific about what sorts of *reason* or *evidence* would be available to you in this matter. Notably you yourself are trying to say in a different thread that you have enough time to spend so much time talking to me, for whom you have absolutely no respect and whom you regard as "tedious and boring", yet simultaneously you have absolutely zero free time and you're just not able to acquire the necessary information to have a healthy vegan diet. That is certainly very interesting, isn't it. We'd better get round to replying to that one of these days. Yawn can't be bothered reading the rest of your drivel... |
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, 5:55*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 4:36 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." > >>> 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. > > > You wouldn't know how much. > > I know more than enough. > > >>> 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. > > > No. > > Yes. > > > Speaking of behaving ethically, you remember that time where you asked > > me if my history of psychosis was a product of a history of child > > abuse? Do you have any thoughts about the ethics of that at all? > > As a matter of fact, I do. *I believe child abuse is unethical. > Oh yeah. Why is it unethical? Where I'm trying to go with this is, I'm not a victim of child abuse and hopefully neither are you, so you or I wouldn't have any real understanding of what's involved in trying to recover from that, so if you deliberately taunt someone on usenet asking them whether they have a history of child abuse, when for all you know they might, that might be seen as being a bit unethical, hard to reconcile with being a decent person. You boldly claimed to be a decent person in a different thread. And of course that isn't the only example that could be given of behaviour of yours which we all know about which is hard to reconcile with being a decent person. > >>>> 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.. > > > What they do or do not believe has no bearing on the merits of the > > argument, either. > > Of course it does. *If they really believed it, they'd make /some/ > effort to live up to it. *Of course, they do not. The only problem with this statement is that it very obviously is complete nonsense to anyone with any kind of functioning brain. Just a slight problem. |
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, 5:12*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Pfffffffffffffffffft. |
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, 5:13*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Pfffffffffffffffft. |
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, 5:13 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> 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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Pfffffffffffffffft. You're a spastic in addition to being a psychotic. |
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 30, 5:54*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ... > On Dec 29, 5:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > > > "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. > > No, it doesn't carry those risks. > -------> > > It absolutely does, I have seen it repeatedly, I have experienced it > personally. > > *The issue of whether veganism is > better than conscientious omnivorism in typical cases is our main > point of disagreement. > --------> > > I disagree, I doubt if we can agree on what the terms in that statement > mean. > > I am happy to consider any factual information > that you have to offer about this. Have you had a look at Peter > Singer's book "The Ethics Of What We Eat?" > ---------------> > > No > > > 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. > > Well, I don't regard the picture that you paint of vegans as being > especially reasonable, and I think that we might also disagree about > the importance of reducing animal suffering. > ------------> > > I don't believe that is our main disagreement, as I have said already, and > you may not realize it, but I believe your primary motive is > quasi-political. You think animals need "liberating", I don't. > > > 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. > > Yeah, fine, but I wandered onto here many years ago and saw people > making critical remarks about veganism, and offered some thoughts > about the matter, and was subject to a tirade of abuse, and for some > reason developed an obsession with showing these people that their > attacks were ill-founded. You guys started it, so to speak. I do think > that veganism advocacy is a good thing but in my general I don't > really go out of my way to talk about my views with people who don't > want to hear about it. I am an ethical vegan, I talk about it with > those who express interest, and I engage in animal activism, but I'm a > fairly live and let live type of guy. > -------> > > That's good for you, otherwise you have a pretty short list of friends > outside the AR community. > > We clearly have some disagreement about what the human-nonhuman > relationship should be, and about what vegans are usually like, but > other than that there's nothing especially wrong with what you are > saying. But Ball has made it his life's mission to denigrate vegans > just for being vegans and the arguments he offers are palpable > nonsense, and I'm just doing him the favour of explaining why. > ---------------> > > Obviously I don't agree with your assessment, I find his arguement quite > persuasive, even if I don't agree on every last detail. > > What's your take on Ball, anyway? He asked me whether my history of > psychosis was due to a history of child abuse. Do you not think that > that is fairly disgusting? You talk about the risks of being a vegan; > maybe Ball illustrates the risks of being an anti-ARA. > ---------> > > I don't perceive him to have any particular problem. Usenet can be a rough > place, you need thick skin. > Get round to responding to the rest later. Since I happen not to be a victim of child abuse there is no particular problem with me, but for all Ball knew there was some risk that I might be, which is obviously the issue. I don't think especially well of anyone who trivialises that kind of thing, who says "Oh, it's not Ball's problem, it's just the nature of Usenet." We can agree that "it's the nature of Usenet" in the sense that you sometimes run into sociopaths on Usenet, yes, but I don't know about this whole thing of "the problem doesn't lie with Ball". Not too comfortable with that, really. Based on previous remarks you made I thought we were agreed that child abuse is not something to be trivialised. > > > 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, > > Well, that remains to be seen. > ----------> > > Sure > > > 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. > > The likes of Gary Francione, of whom most vegans are a bit of a fan, > think that animals will inevitably be abused as long as they are > property. That is of course the central point of disagreement. > ----------------> > > I think it is plausible that animals will someday be seen as *a different > sort of property*, the legislation we see around the world these days > confirms that is a trend.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
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 30, 10:10*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2:31 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 6:27 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 29, 5:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>> No, of course not. > >>>> So, you were just wasting time. *Of course, that's easy to do when your > >>>> time is worth so little. > >>> It's Christmas holidays, and writing "Yawn" did not take up that much > >>> time. > >> It was wasting time, something that comes easily to you. > > > Probably a bit hard to argue with that > > Very few academics can argue with it. *The greatest part of academic > endeavor, even at its best, is a waste of time. *Hard to imagine how the > taxpayer can be so easily flim-flammed to pay for smart guys jerking off > and wasting time for entire careers.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yeah, you'd know all about it, wouldn't you, Ball. |
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 30, 10:10*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2:32 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 7:12 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 29, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Dutch wrote: > >>>>>>> "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. > >>>>>> Exactly. *The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; > >>>>>> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can > >>>>>> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided > >>>>>> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering > >>>>>> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) > >>>>> You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" > >>>>> undefined. > >>>> Not "undefined"; flexi-defined. *"Unnecessary", as you and your fellow > >>>> sophists use it, is extremely supple. *It means whatever you need it to > >>>> mean. > >>> What's your evidence for that? > >> Your statements. > > > Which ones? > > All of them.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Remember how you once used the phrase "travesty of debate"? Hold that thought. Focus. |
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, 7:35*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > [massive load of clueless urbanite crap] > > So, how long have you been back in Sydney? *Are you back in > telemarketing (better known as bothering people)? *What happened with > your little Chinese slattern? *Did you nobly rescue her from the > ecologically contemptuous and politically totalitarian regime you were > serving, or did one of you dump the other and now you're split up? Back in Sydney since July, lecturer position at a university, still with Annie. Did raise the possibility of her coming to Sydney but she didn't want to, but I am visiting her next month. |
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, 7:24*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 5:52 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Dutch wrote: > > >>> "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. > >> Exactly. *The omnivore can buy locally grown, "cruelty free" produce; > >> can provide mostly his own hunted or caught meat and fish; can > >> supplement the meat he provides himself only with commercially provided > >> meat that he reasonably believes involves little animal suffering > >> (grass-fed beef, free range chickens, unpenned hogs, etc.) > > > You give me a hard time about leaving words like "unnecessary" > > undefined. I wonder if you could help clarify what you mean by > > "little" animal suffering that would be awesome. The point in > > contention is whether it is especially easy for most people living in > > cities to get hold of commercially produced meat that one reasonably > > believes involves little animal suffering, whatever that might mean. > > There might be some disagreement about what "little animal suffering" > > means. > > > But if you've done your homework and you know you can get it, that's > > great, and I would never mock your efforts at conscientious > > omnivorism, even though you mock my efforts to find out more about > > rice production when you obviously know nothing about how much effort > > I made. I've actually conceded that point for a fairly long time, > > despite it leading to Derek playing jokes on me thinking he has hacked > > my email account and emailing my friends saying that I shouldn't be a > > voting member of Animal Liberation. I'm pretty sure that I said from > > day one that some forms of conscientious omnivorism might be > > acceptable, I just think it's a bit of a stretch to say that I would > > be able to find any form of conscientious omnivorism that I would find > > acceptable. We probably have some disagreement about what constitutes > > "acceptable conscientious omnivorism". That is indeed what I hoped to > > thrash out in the other thread I started with the paraphrase of Mylan > > Engel Jr's argument, but it ended up with you making a false and > > unsupported assertion about what I mean by "unnecessary suffering" > > which bears no relation to anything I have ever actually written about > > the matter. > > > You seem to think I came in here with the purpose of proving myself > > better than everyone else; well, I don't think there's any particular > > evidence of that in what I actually wrote, but I probably get a bit > > defensive when I am subjected to a tirade of abuse that I regard as > > absurd and unjustified. But I'm pretty sure that I said more than once > > that I have no way of knowing whether your diet is better than mine, > > certainly I said that to Rick Petter. When Dutch admits to eating > > factory-farmed meat in restaurants you feel like you can make an > > educated guess, but who knows. Unlike you I don't usually focus on the > > specifics of other people's behaviour, I am more interested in > > debating the ethical issues. I have conceded for a long time that some > > forms of conscientious omnivorism might be acceptable, I just haven't > > put the effort into finding out much about it because it doesn't > > really appeal. I am happy to listen to any factual information you > > have to offer about conscientious omnivorism, I'm just waiting for the > > attempt at reasoned argument really, as opposed to the endless tirade > > of verbal abuse. But whatever floats your boat. > > >>> Being a vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in > >>> this regard, > >> But then, it once again turns the "vegan" into a self-congratulatory, > >> comparative-ethics hypocrite. > > > No, it does not. You say repeatedly that it does but you offer no > > particular support for this claim and most outside observers would > > form the view that you are being a bit defensive. In any case I think > > the issue of what is the most effective way to do something about > > animal suffering should be more important. > > >> Nothing could be more obvious: *"veganism", and the irrationally ardent > >> defense of it by the type we're dealing with here, make a mockery of > >> legitimate ethics. * > > > Nothing could be more obvious **********. > > > Why, Ball? Why does it make a mockery of legitimate ethics any more > > than whatever stance you want to defend? It's really just a different > > view about what is involved in fulfilling your obligations to > > nonhumans. What makes it a "mockery of legitimate ethics". The fact > > that you don't like it? The fact that you don't get on with the vegans > > you have met? > > > Sheesh, talking with you is such a waste of time. > > >> There is simply no way for it *not* to turn into an > >> "I'm 'more ethical' than you" pose by the "vegan". > > > Ball, I hope you won't find this heartbreaking but I *do not care* > > about whether I am more ethical than you, I care about fulfilling my > > moral obligations as best I can work out what they are, and that is > > what you should care about too. If you think I am mistaken about my > > moral obligations then you should simply offer reasons for thinking > > that I am mistaken. You have never done that. > > > I have never expressed moral contempt at you not being vegan, although > > I don't think you've done an especially good job of defending the > > points of view you put around here. I've expressed moral contempt at > > you for plenty of other things, obviously. > > > You are the one who tries to make it your life's mission to show that > > I do not live up to my stated moral principles. You don't do an > > especially good job of it because I put qualifying phrases into them. > > Then you express contempt at me for doing that. Which reduces to the > > "all-or-nothing" argument, really. You can have a moral obligation > > which can be outweighed by competing considerations. I tell you you > > can. You think so, too, because you acknowledge some moral constraints > > on your behaviour towards nonhumans but put them aside when it comes > > to deciding what you buy at the supermarket. > > >> Ethical behavior simply *cannot* be determined by a comparison with > >> others, but that's all that's left to "veganism" when you strip away all > >> the taxpayer-funded (wasteful by definition) philosophical blather. > > > How about using public money to keep immigrants from coming into the > > country and accepting employment from people who want to employ them? > > Is *that* wasteful by definition? > > > My contributions to this newsgroup aren't taxpayer-funded, and your > > responses to them aren't very good. > > > I've explained to you countless times what's wrong with all this > > rubbish. > > >> "vegans" still: > > >> - "unnecessarily" cause animals to suffer and die > >> - aren't minimizing > >> - aren't willing to expend /any/ effort to learn more about relative > >> * *death tolls of different non-animal foods > > > We've been over this plenty of times in the other thread. You think > > that the only way vegans can offer a coherent foundation for their > > position is by holding themselves to standards much higher than the > > ones that they in fact do. It just ain't so. > > >> "vegans" make an unwarranted assumption that their "lifestyle" > >> (nauseating both as word and concept) is inherently less harm-causing > >> than /any/ meat-including one, but that's simply not true. > > > I don't know of any evidence that vegans make such an assumption, I > > certainly don't. In *typical* cases it's not a bad rule of thumb. > > >> There's another interesting thing to note. *Vegetarianism generally, and > >> "veganism" specifically, are predominantly practiced in the western > >> world by clueless urbanites. * > > > Yawn. Oh yes, that's fascinating. > > >> This is not in serious dispute. * > > > Some rural folks do convert to veganism. The reasons why it is less > > likely to happen for them are pretty clear. > > >> Urbanites > >> are generally richer than rural dwellers, and being richer, consume > >> more. *They consume more electricity, more water, more gasoline, more > >> natural gas - more of just about everything. *Their resource consumption > >> is greater both directly and indirectly. *The indirect components arises > >> from the fact that the more expensive things richer people buy require > >> more resources to produce. *For relatively rich urban "vegans", this is > >> true for everything /except/ perhaps their diet, in which they consume > >> no resource-intensive meat. > > >> But "vegans" - almost universally clueless urbanites, such as > >> mathematics and philosophy lecturers and graduate students, as well as > >> air-headed film starlets - weakly assume that all the rest of their > >> rich, resource-wasteful consumption is somehow offset by not putting > >> animal parts into their mouths. *The assumption, it goes without saying, > >> is unwarranted. > > > Mathematics and philosophy lecturers are generally not especially > > "clueless" in my book. > > They are utterly clueless about things that happen outside academe, > particularly those that happen outside urban environments. * I'm not. I'm involved with an organisation that frequently does investigations of farms in Australia. Tom Regan and Peter Singer went to visit plenty of farms. > They don't > like to get their hands dirty, You wouldn't have any kind of clue what you're talking about. I have some idea about the academic world; you don't. > and they have *ZERO* /real/ understanding > of the reality of those people who do get their hands dirty providing > the maths and philosophy lecturers with the "necessities" of life. In exchange for money which they earn by educating the young minds of their society and contributing to the productivity of the economy, which helps out the rural labourers quite a bit. It's a two-way street. Maths teaching and farming are both subsidised out of public money, and both are quite crucial to the economy. > There is a reason - a very sound reason - that most people view maths > and philosophy lecturers, among many others, as largely detached from > unpleasant physical reality. * Yeah, you'd have some kind of a clue about it, wouldn't you, Mr. let's consult Webster's to check whether a word in a maths paper is a real world. You don't know anything about the role of maths education in the economy. You've been more in touch with unpleasant physical reality than me lately, have you? Tell us all about it. > The reason is that you are. *In fact, most > urbanites - clueless ones like you, as well as relatively more clued-in > ones like me - don't have nearly enough contact with and awareness of > the the realities of those who do our dirty work. * Angie was asking me once if I wanted to work in a piggery for a while as part of an investigation. I didn't do it because I had my hands full with finishing a Ph.D., but that kind of thing does go on. I don't know of any reason to think that you're more "clued-in" than me. I've seen plenty of footage and I have been inside more than one farm. I don't have much familiarity with the kind of manual labour that goes on on a farm, but neither do you. What's your point? > The difference > between you and me is, you don't want to know. * You wouldn't have a clue, you stupid pointless clown. You have no idea what you're talking about. > You revel in and pride > yourself in the distance. *You affect a nauseating egalitarianism, but > the phoniness of it is like a sledgehammer between the eyes. *You sneer > at what you conceive of as the simple and simpleminded rustics who > cultivate the organic veggies you take great and public pride in eating. > > You are a fraud. Pffffffft. Yeah, thanks, that was good for a laugh. I have a lot of respect for people who make their livings on farms, even if I don't always agree with everything they do. Considerably more than for you, who obviously has intellectual pretensions but unfortunately just doesn't really cut 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, 6:43*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 5:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "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. > > > No, it doesn't carry those risks. The issue of whether veganism is > > better than conscientious omnivorism > > Proof, as if any more were needed, that this is purely about an > invidious, nasty, sanctimonious comparison. > We're talking about showing some concern for the well-being of animals, tempered by some concern for one's own personal interests, yes, so I wouldn't say that the words "invidious", "nasty", and "sanctimonious" were appropriate. As I say your attempts to defend your own lifestyle on the other thread are very interesting; we'd better get round to replying to all that. > Once again, for the slow learners (among whom number all "vegans", by > definition): *ethical behavior /never/ is determined by a comparison > with the behavior of others. * Indeed not. > Ethical behavior consists solely in doing > what is right, without regard to any others. * Yep, fine. > If your brother sodomizes > the four-year-old neighbor boy twice a week, and you "only" sodomize the > boy once a week, you are not "more ethical" than your brother; you are, > in fact, entirely unethical. **Any* amount of sodomy committed against > four-year-old boys makes you unethical - full stop. > Quite. Obviously if you are going to try to defend buying any products of commercial agriculture at all you would have to claim that there is some kind of distinction between buying products whose production caused some animal suffering and deliberately sodomising a four-year- old child. You're right, there's a distinction there. I thought I made that point clear enough for quite a while, actually, but I apologise if I wasn't clear enough. Are these remarks helpful? We agree that there is a distinction. > If causing "unnecessary" animal suffering and death is wrong, then it's > wrong in any amount. * No. It could be that there is some kind of moral requirement to make *some* effort to reduce your contribution to it but not every *possible* effort. That could well be, and actually you yourself probably agree with that because isn't it right that you don't approve of people who participate in dogfighting or cockfighting, so you do think that there's a requirement to avoid causing unnecessary suffering and death at least to the point of avoiding participating in those things? So the issue would be where to draw the line. I welcome any attempt to clarify where it is you choose to draw the line and why that is the best place to draw it. Bit amazing that we constantly have to go over this ground year after year, really... > It simply won't do to try to equivocate on the > concept of necessity by appealing to one's own selfish wishes and wants > - that is, one cannot simply define as "necessary" some suffering, the > elimination of which would inconvenience you in the pursuit of purely > selfish goals. * We did go over this. That isn't what I did. > If reducing the animal harm caused by your "lifestyle" > would adversely affect your attainment of academic glory, then your > attainment of academic glory will simply have to give way - that is, it > will if there is any compelling reason in the first place to reduce harm > to animals. If academic glory were the only consideration, then I would have to say that that goal would have to give way given the other remarks I have made, yes. If that were the *only* consideration which it very obviously isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination, as I have made clear on plenty of occasions. We really have been over this plenty of times. Sheesh. |
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 30, 8:50*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 5:13 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Pfffffffffffffffft. > > You're a spastic in addition to being a psychotic. You're a lame waste of space who wastes half his life on usenet talking palpable nonsense. Just out of curiosity, do you think that "You're a diabetic" is a put- down? Or "You're an epileptic"? Or "You have high blood pressure"? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
On Dec 30, 5:45*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > * * * If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > * * * I do not eat meat; > > * * * Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > Whoops. This statement was wrong and not founded in the least degree of evidence. What a shame. Oh, well. Bit tragic how he keeps making the same post over and over again for year after year, isn't it? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 30, 5:45 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >> >> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >> >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> > > Whoops. This statement was wrong No. *All* "vegans" begin by believing this. And nearly all continue to believe it - the Irrational Search for Micrograms is the evidence. |
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) |