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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:01 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

"Rupert" wrote

Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does
not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the
suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware
that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously
contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with
my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one
way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to
disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no
rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony.
----------

Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing
animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking.

Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse,
conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like
health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by avoiding
that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you
contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even though
you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" using
animals *as end products*.

Personally it does not bother me that animals are viewed as commodities, as
long as their capacity to suffer pain and deprivation is taken into account.



  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:06 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

On Dec 29, 10:05*am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products.
---------------

This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
necessarily linked.


No such claim was made. The claim was that

(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering, and Ball has
done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is ****ing
OBVIOUS)
(2) it could be at least *argued* that typical people in Western
societies have a moral obligation to do *about* that much by way of
reducing their contribution to animal suffering. It does not logically
follow from my contention that some nonhuman animals have some rights,
no. But it's a plausible enough position and you and Ball have done
nothing to show that wherever it is you choose to draw the line is any
better. You could plausibly claim that your position would have more
popular appeal at the moment, but that is argumentum ad verecundam. I
have not offered *reasons* for thinking that my position is better but
that is a symmetrical situation.


The main problem with veganism is that adherents tend to
see abstension from animal products as both necessary and sufficient steps
when such is clearly not the case. (See the vegan in an SUV (or like some
celebrities with private jets) vs the omnivore on a bike) A glaring
illustration of this issue plays out as a vegan examines a condiment in a
restaurant to ensure it does not contain even a milligram of animal cells,
(the horror!) all the while a 1% reduction in his caloric consumption would
do far more to reduce his impact on animals.


Fine. I agree with all that.

The elephant in the room is the notion that man ought not to view animals as
commodities, everything serves that master. Working from that perspective
the desire to avoid animal products makes perfect sense. If we're talking
about attempting to count and compare the number of animals that are harmed
or killed and assign some acceptable moral level, then we're kidding
ourselves, we're not actaully doing that, nor can we.


Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is
a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans
inflict less suffering on nonhumans. Reducing one's own personal
contribution as best one can short of dropping out of technological
civilisation altogether is a reasonable strategy with respect to the
goal of reducing one's personal responsibility for an aspect of the
world one dislikes. Ball has done nothing to show that this is morally
bankrupt.

It is one position regarding how humans should relate to nonhumans. It
is not especially widely held one at the moment but I don't believe
that anyone else has shown that theirs is more coherent or better
justified. Narveson's position, which involves saying that he wouldn't
call the police if he saw someone torching a stray dog, certainly *is*
more coherent. He's definitely being consistent. But most of us don't
like that one, so we need to find some rational ground for choosing
between the other available positions. I do not say that I have done
that yet. I say that Ball's endlessly-repeated tirade over all these
years is indefensible nonsense. Which is of course obvious.

Nobody can say fairly that a vegan lifestyle is not likely to have a pretty
low level of associated animal deaths, but this is not the type of
reasonable argument being made.


It is the one being made by me, and Ball said that he was talking
about all vegans.

I think he needs to get more specific. He's casting the net a bit too
broad. If he wants to criticise Tom Regan or Gary Francione that's
great, I'm sure there's plenty to criticise; he should probably have a
look at what they wrote. Or if he wants to criticise my stance that's
great, but again he should make sure his remarks are actually
applicable to the stance being taken.

If he's going to try to argue that all vegans are morally bankrupt I
don't think he's going to get there. Based on my experience with
vegans they are not especially morally criticisable people, indeed a
lot less so than Ball based on my experience of him, but in many cases
you might want to say there are problems with the intellectual
foundations of the position that they take. I certanily grant that. It
is not clear to me that Ball avoids this problem either.

But of course none of this alters the obvious fact that Ball was
obviously talking complete nonsense as always, which was of course my
point. He has declined to answer my case for this contention.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:06 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20...

The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling
case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
meat consumption is immoral.


He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation,


Unpersuasive. He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
farming".


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


No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
criticise.


Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
meat consumption is immoral:

1. allegedly extremely energy intensive
2. allegedly inefficient use of water
3. alleged nutrient inefficiency
4. soil erosion
5. hazardous waste production

*All* of these are offered as *further evidence* that meat consumption
is immoral.

The whole thing falls to pieces, because of economic and environmental
illiteracy, along with the basic, inescapable fact that killing animals
to eat them is not inherently immoral.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:09 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

On Dec 29, 10:57*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Ha wrote:
ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
* * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
* * I don't consume any animal products;
* * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
All vegans?
Without exception. *They all start with that, and many - probably most -
never move off it. *Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol
"veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free"
lifestyle. *Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the
logical fallacy.
It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread
Universal, at the outset. *Most never abandon it.


See the discussion in my other post.


See my well established fact, above: *All "vegans" begin by believing in
the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for,
you mean "something you made up when obviously you have no particular
evidence for it".
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:11 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

On Dec 29, 10:59*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
* There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20....
Argument is unsound: *based on false premises.


Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false?


Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to
produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral.


That's not on his list of premises. He explicitly gives the list of
premises in an appendix for your convenience.



I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable?


Junk philosophy.


I am not altogether heartbroken that you think that, because it is
extremely obvious to any person of good sense that you were talking
drivel, and I pointed out the reasons why in a rather cogent fashion.
You have declined to attempt to respond, so I'll take it as read that
you cannot give a satisfactory response.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:12 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products.
---------------

This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
necessarily linked.


No such claim was made. The claim was that

(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering,


No, it can't. Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within*
the set of vegetable food products. If potatoes provide comparable
nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental
degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side
effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no
rice, and to eat potatoes instead. But no "vegan" has ever made that
analysis, and none of them ever will.

The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
any credibility to start.) *Some* "vegan" diets are higher in many
undesirable side effects than *some* meat-including diets, so the fact
of abstaining from meat /per se/ achieves nothing.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:13 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 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.
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:13 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:59 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20...
Argument is unsound: based on false premises.
Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false?

Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to
produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral.


That's not on his list of premises.


It is.


I take it you think that all my other remarks are unanswerable?

Junk philosophy.

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:15 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

"Rupert" wrote
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the
case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there
anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products
of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case
that I wanted to make.
---------

So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production. Provided
that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing wrong in
that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy locally
produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile. It is worth noting that
the same principle works for vegans when they buy grain, fruit and vegetable
products, local and fresh vs imported and/or processed. Simply avoiding
animal products is neither sufficient nor necessary in addressing the
legitimate (IMO) issues, only the elephant in the room quasi-political issue
of "animal liberation".

  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:16 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

On Dec 29, 11:06*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
* There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20....
The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling
case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
meat consumption is immoral.


He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation,


Unpersuasive.


That is not engaging with what he said.

*He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
farming".


Point out his factual errors then. Just specify which of his premises
is wrong. Is this really too hard for a "master of logic and
philosophy"?

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


No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
criticise.


Absolutely it does: *pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
meat consumption is immoral:

1. *allegedly extremely energy intensive
2. *allegedly inefficient use of water
3. *alleged nutrient inefficiency
4. *soil erosion
5. *hazardous waste production


For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument you clueless
pointless clown. The reason those things are bad is because they
contribute to environmental degradation. That is made quite clear. You
explicitly conceded that your criticisms were not directed at the
environmental argument, as of course they can't be.

Sheesh. You *cannot* possibly be this stupid.

*All* of these are offered as *further evidence* that meat consumption
is immoral.


Because of their environmental consequences.

The whole thing falls to pieces, because of economic and environmental
illiteracy, along with the basic, inescapable fact that killing animals
to eat them is not inherently immoral.


He explicitly concedes that *alleged* fact for the sake of argument
and sets out to make his case in that context. You have offered no
evidence of "economic or environmental illiteracy" and the
environmental argument is not necessary for his case anyway, it is an
additional argument.

If the whole thing falls to pieces then you ought to be able to
specify which one of his premises is wrong and why the argument is
invalid.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:27 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the
case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there
anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products
of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case
that I wanted to make.
---------

So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production.
Provided that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing
wrong in that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy
locally produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile.


I am convinced that the "buy local" trend is mostly about feel-goodism,
just as "organic" is. Any talk of measurable benefit is entirely
superfluous - what the real issue is, is feeling good about oneself.


It is worth
noting that the same principle works for vegans when they buy grain,
fruit and vegetable products, local and fresh vs imported and/or
processed. Simply avoiding animal products is neither sufficient nor
necessary in addressing the legitimate (IMO) issues, only the elephant
in the room quasi-political issue of "animal liberation".

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 12:32 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20...
The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling
case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
meat consumption is immoral.
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation,

Unpersuasive.


That is not engaging with what he said.


It's enough.


He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
farming".

Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
criticise.

Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
meat consumption is immoral:

1. allegedly extremely energy intensive
2. allegedly inefficient use of water
3. alleged nutrient inefficiency
4. soil erosion
5. hazardous waste production


For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument


The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know
what he's talking about. For one thing, environmental degradation
applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable
agriculture. For another, it is the economic cost of environmental
degradation that is of concern. No one with a brain wants to avoid any
and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want
to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social
benefit. There is going to be some environmental degradation involved
in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production.
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 02:05 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

"Rupert" wrote
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products.
---------------

This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to
minimize
harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like,
does
not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are
not
necessarily linked.


No such claim was made. The claim was that
-------

Whatever you did that one post to allow the insertion of carats is not
happening.

(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering
--------

Nobody is denying that. That's the reasonable claim I mentioned earlier.

, and Ball has
done nothing to show that it is morally bankrupt (this is ****ing
OBVIOUS)
----------

It's not morally bankrupt to avoid animal products, it isn't even a bad
idea, it is morally bankrupt to transpose moral conclusions about it from
the notion that animals must be liberated and project those conclusions onto
others.


[..]

Working towards a world where nonhumans are not seen as commodities is
a reasonable strategy with respect to the goal of having humans
inflict less suffering on nonhumans.
---------

I think it is an absurd strategy. For one thing hominids have included
animal products as part of their survival strategy for millions of years,
for another thing, a lot of land is unsuited for plant agriculture. A
reasonable strategy would be to work towards much higher standards of
treatment for livestock animals, not rejecting AW as counter-productive as
some ARAs do. Very high standards of care would make costs rise and that
would decrease the number of animals *exploited* which is your underlying
goal.


  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 02:13 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be


"ex-PFC Wintergreen" wrote in message
m...
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation, which you should address. Anyway, let's start with the
case against factory-farming and worry about the rest later. Is there
anything wrong with *that* case, the case for boycotting the products
of factory farming? I said from day one that this was the main case
that I wanted to make.
---------

So much these days comes from large scale mechanized production. Provided
that the welfare of animals is taken into account I see nothing wrong in
that, and I realize that is not the case now. Preferring to buy locally
produced small farm goods is certainly worthwhile.


I am convinced that the "buy local" trend is mostly about feel-goodism,
just as "organic" is. Any talk of measurable benefit is entirely
superfluous - what the real issue is, is feeling good about oneself.


There is no doubt that locally produced food contains a lower transportation
(petroleum) component, which supports the argument that a calorie from
locally caught salmon is more sustainable, causing less impact on the planet
and thus animals, than a calorie of bananas flown in from Chile.


It is worth
noting that the same principle works for vegans when they buy grain,
fruit and vegetable products, local and fresh vs imported and/or
processed. Simply avoiding animal products is neither sufficient nor
necessary in addressing the legitimate (IMO) issues, only the elephant in
the room quasi-political issue of "animal liberation".


  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 02:24 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

On Dec 29, 10:56*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 8:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"Ha" wrote
ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
* * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
* * I don't consume any animal products;
* * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
All vegans?
rather a sweeping statement!
You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the
validity of the message.
Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an
exception?
I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". *They do
*all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a
"cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
False. I have never believed that.
You have.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, I would certainly know.


We both know you began by believing in the fallacy.


No, I know I didn't, and you apparently think you know I did, but you
are sadly deluded, as is not uncommon. You should just start being a
bit more selective about what you claim to "know". You very frequently
claim to "know" things which are utter nonsense and which you
obviously do not have the slightest reason to believe. You should do
something about it.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017