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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 02:28 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, 11:01*am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

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

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

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


I'm not sure what your point is here, I thought we were agreed that a
widespread transition to veganism would lead to a significant
reduction in animal suffering. By being vegan and publicly defending
this stance I am doing my bit to reduce my share of responsibility for
the problem.

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


  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 02:31 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, 11:13*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Ha wrote:
ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
* * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
* * I don't consume any animal products;
* * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.
All vegans?
Without exception. *They all start with that, and many - probably most -
never move off it. *Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol
"veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free"
lifestyle. *Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the
logical fallacy.
It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread
Universal, at the outset. *Most never abandon it.
See the discussion in my other post.
See my well established fact, above: *All "vegans" begin by believing in
the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it.


No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for


Indeed it is what I was looking for.


Well, that's a shame, because actually it's a false claim, which you
asserted on the basis of no particular evidence.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 02:31 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, 11:13*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:59 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:45 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
* There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20...
Argument is unsound: *based on false premises.
Would you be able to specify one of the premises which is false?
Among others, it is a false premise that greater resource usage to
produce meat "proves" that meat is immoral.


That's not on his list of premises.


It is.


Pffffffft.

The premises are numbered (p1)-(p16) in the Appendix. Care to specify
which number this premise is?

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


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 02:53 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, 11:32*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
* There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20...
The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling
case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
meat consumption is immoral.
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation,
Unpersuasive.


That is not engaging with what he said.


It's enough.


No.



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


Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
criticise.
Absolutely it does: *pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
meat consumption is immoral:


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


For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument


The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know
what he's talking about. *For one thing, environmental degradation
applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable
agriculture. *For another, it is the economic cost of environmental
degradation that is of concern. *No one with a brain wants to avoid any
and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want
to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social
benefit. *There is going to be some environmental degradation involved
in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production.


First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one and you
still have an obligation to address the main one. Secondly, it's not
idiotic; the idea is that the externalities that you impose on other
people, including future generations, are not fully reflected in the
market price, but that you have a moral obligation to absorb those
externalities anyway. If you were absorbing all the externalities
associated with the production of your food then you would have to
take that on board when buying rice, fruit, vegetables, meat,
whatever. But his claim is that it would almost certainly involve
avoiding meat, and you've done nothing in particular to cast doubt on
that.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 03:09 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, 11:12*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


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


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


No such claim was made. The claim was that


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


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


Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated?

"Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for
institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm."

And Engel's premise 6:

"Even a minimally decent person would take steps to help
reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the
world, if she could do so with very little effort."

Well, do those principles require you to boycott rice? Well, I don't
know. My level of rice consumption is small and I am fairly skeptical
that it's the world's biggest tragedy. With phrases such as "very
little effort" or "every reasonable effort", the cost of acquiring
information has to be factored in. Given the time constraints I am not
able to determine the optimal strategy for reducing my contribution to
unnecessary suffering and environmental degradation in the minutest
detail. I have put some effort into it, but I am not able to do
everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal
goals and also my ability to make the world better in other ways. We
are not talking about principles which require you to make
*substantial* sacrifices, especially when your ability to improve the
world in other ways is at stake.

Or maybe I haven't done a good job, maybe I am a moral hypocrite. If
your goal in life is to demonstrate that Rupert is a moral hypocrite
then that must be joyful. But the issue *should* be whether these are
good moral principles. I don't see any particular reason why they're
not.

The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
any credibility to start.) *


No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the
argument. The reasons most vegans don't do it is probably because the
issue hasn't occurred to them. They probably feel like they're doing
enough already, which may or may not be the case but this has no
bearing on the merits of the decision to go vegan in the first place.
When these issues were discussed in this newsgroup I did make some
effort to become more informed about such issues and modify my diet
accordingly but got bogged down in other projects, as you probably
would. Since as far as DeGrazia and Mylan Engel Jr. are concerned, we
are only talking about behavioural modifications that involve
"reasonable effort" or "little effort", I think it's probably fair to
say that I've met their standards. But that's neither here nor there
anyway, the issue should be whether there is a moral obligation to go
at least as far as what would be required by those principles I stated
above on any reasonable interpretation. You've offered no particularly
good reason to think that there isn't.

I *do* have to acknowledge moral hypocrisy as far as reducing my
contribution to climate change goes, for the moment at least. If you
can plausibly claim to be totally free of moral hypocrisy, that's
awesome. I'm not really that interested in discussing this issue here.
If I am a moral hypocrite then that's for me to worry about. We are
talking about the merits of the principles under discusion.

Demonstrating that someone is a moral hypocrite does not undermine
their moral argument; that is the tu quoque fallacy.

*Some* "vegan" diets are higher in many
undesirable side effects than *some* meat-including diets, so the fact
of abstaining from meat /per se/ achieves nothing.


In most cases, the decision to go vegan will result in a significant
reduction in your contribution to animal suffering and environmental
degradation. More may be required, yes.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 03:14 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, 1:05*pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:



"Rupert" wrote


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


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


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

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

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

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


Jolly good. Actually, Ball *does* deny it. He replied to this very
same post to which you have just replied to and denied it. So you and
Ball differ. There it is.

But at least we have agreement on this point.

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

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


Did you have a look at the Mylan Engel Jr essay? I'd be interested in
your comment. I don't say that the essay is free of flaws but I don't
believe that simply putting forward the point of view is morally
bankrupt.

[..]

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

I think it is an absurd strategy. For one thing hominids have included
animal products as part of their survival strategy for millions of years,
for another thing, a lot of land is unsuited for plant agriculture.


But the amount of land required for plant agriculture would be
enormously less...

A
reasonable strategy would be to work towards much higher standards of
treatment for livestock animals, not rejecting AW as counter-productive as
some ARAs do. Very high standards of care would make costs rise and that
would decrease the number of animals *exploited* which is your underlying
goal.


Well. That's the debate, isn't it.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 04:56 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, 10:56 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.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 04:56 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, 11:13 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.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 04:57 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, 11:32 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20...
The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling
case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
meat consumption is immoral.
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation,
Unpersuasive.
That is not engaging with what he said.

It's enough.


No.


It is.




He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
farming".
Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense.
No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
criticise.
Absolutely it does: pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
meat consumption is immoral:
1. allegedly extremely energy intensive
2. allegedly inefficient use of water
3. alleged nutrient inefficiency
4. soil erosion
5. hazardous waste production
For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument

The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know
what he's talking about. For one thing, environmental degradation
applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable
agriculture. For another, it is the economic cost of environmental
degradation that is of concern. No one with a brain wants to avoid any
and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want
to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social
benefit. There is going to be some environmental degradation involved
in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production.


First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one


It's another slender reed that won't support the bloated weight of what
he wants to believe.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 04:58 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, 11:12 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products.
---------------
This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
necessarily linked.
No such claim was made. The claim was that
(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering,

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


Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated?

"Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for
institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm."


Something you don't achieve.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 05:36 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, 11:12 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products.
---------------
This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
necessarily linked.
No such claim was made. The claim was that
(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering,

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


Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated?

"Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for
institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm."

And Engel's premise 6:

"Even a minimally decent person would take steps to help
reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the
world, if she could do so with very little effort."

Well, do those principles require you to boycott rice? Well, I don't
know. My level of rice consumption is small and I am fairly skeptical
that it's the world's biggest tragedy. With phrases such as "very
little effort" or "every reasonable effort", the cost of acquiring
information has to be factored in. Given the time constraints I am not
able to determine the optimal strategy for reducing my contribution to
unnecessary suffering and environmental degradation in the minutest
detail. I have put some effort into it,


Laughably little.


but I am not able to do
everything I can without substantially sacrificing my own personal
goals


So your inherent selfishness and wish for ease, comfort and glory
override your obligation to behave ethically. But then, that was always
obvious.


The fact that "vegans" do not attempt to "minimize" even with the set of
vegetarian foods kills their entire argument (not that the argument had
any credibility to start.)


No. The behaviour of vegans has nothing to do with the merits of the
argument.


Absolutely it does. It proves they don't believe their own nonsense.
It proves this is purely about self exaltation.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 06:04 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, 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.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 06:05 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, 3:56*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:13 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:46 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 8:49 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Ha wrote:
ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:
* * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.
* * I don't consume any animal products;
* * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die..
All vegans?
Without exception. *They all start with that, and many - probably most -
never move off it. *Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol
"veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free"
lifestyle. *Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the
logical fallacy.
It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread
Universal, at the outset. *Most never abandon it.
See the discussion in my other post.
See my well established fact, above: *All "vegans" begin by believing in
the logical fallacy, and most never abandon it.
No, "well established fact" is not the phrase you were looking for
Indeed it is what I was looking for.


Well, that's a shame


I don't think so.


Whatever process you use for belief-formation, you should work on
making it more truth-tracking.
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 06:07 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, 3:57*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:32 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:06 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:30 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
* There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.
"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products.
What's the fallacy in this argument?
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20...
The fallacy is non sequitur: *he builds what he thinks is a compelling
case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all*
meat consumption is immoral.
He does make some remarks about how to make the further
generalisation,
Unpersuasive.
That is not engaging with what he said.
It's enough.


No.


It is.


Enough for what?

Enough to achieve whatever it is you get out of being here, no doubt,
but why would anyone care about that?

Enough to make a satisfactory response, obviously not.

Sheesh.





*He wants to show that *all* meat is immoral, but his case
is fundamentally predicated on an overwrought caricature of "factory
farming".
Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage
about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense..
No, that paper does not contain the economic misconceptions which you
criticise.
Absolutely it does: *pages 870-872 of his Section 3 include five
environmental/economic points that are intended to cement the claim that
meat consumption is immoral:
1. *allegedly extremely energy intensive
2. *allegedly inefficient use of water
3. *alleged nutrient inefficiency
4. *soil erosion
5. *hazardous waste production
For the purposes of making an *environmental* argument
The pseudo "environmental" argument is idiotic, because he doesn't know
what he's talking about. *For one thing, environmental degradation
applies just as much to different types of fruit and vegetable
agriculture. *For another, it is the economic cost of environmental
degradation that is of concern. *No one with a brain wants to avoid any
and all environmental degradation simply because it's "wrong"; we want
to avoid environmental degradation whose social cost exceeds the social
benefit. *There is going to be some environmental degradation involved
in farming rice; the answer is not to stop all rice production.


First of all, the environmental argument is a separate one


It's another slender reed that won't support the bloated weight of what
he wants to believe.


Why did you snip the rest of the paragraph?
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2009, 06:08 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, 3:58*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:12 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products.
---------------
This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
necessarily linked.
No such claim was made. The claim was that
(1) making a policy of boycotting animal products can be a rational
means of reducing one's contribution to animal suffering,
No, it can't. *Not until you measure, and that means measuring *within*
the set of vegetable food products. *If potatoes provide comparable
nutrition to rice, but at much lower animal harm, less environmental
degradation, lower energy inputs and less of any other harmful side
effect of production and distribution, then you are *OBLIGED* to eat no
rice, and to eat potatoes instead. *But no "vegan" has ever made that
analysis, and none of them ever will.


Remember the moral principle of DeGrazia's that I advocated?


"Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for
institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm."


Something you don't achieve.


Why do you think that?


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 05:03 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