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
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that 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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that > 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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On 24 Dec 2009 19:13:23 -0000, 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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that >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... · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
It is almost impossible to believe humans are such dicks.
Anything that you can pluck from the trees or plants such as say an apple that falls to the ground or a brussel sprout is not life and does not live. A potato that grows roots is life and does live. An apple that falls to the ground can be eaten with a totally clear conscience, providing that you plant the seeds back into the ground. But a brussel sprout is totally different to a potato, a potato is life and grows and lives, but a brussel sprout once removed from the plant is not life and will not grow. The plant however where the brussel sprout comes from is life, but not the sprout. Do humans really need this explaining? Unbelievable just how stupid humans are. Anything that can be taken from plants or trees that cannot sustain life are OK to eat with a clear conscience. You should not eat seeds, or any product or animal or creature that can sustain their own life. And being vegan is not about giving yourself a pat on the back, it is eating what you know you can eat with a totally clear conscience. Milk and eggs also cause suffering to the animals and birds concerned. These also cannot be consumed with a clear conscience. A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better than the greed and gluttony of the masses. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
There is no requirement at all for humans to eat meat or
fish. The reason humans do is that they place their enjoyment of eating and their gluttony and greed BEFORE the respect and sanctity they should give to other life. OBVIOUSLY the sanctity and respect toward other life takes priority over human greed and gluttony and their very superficial desires for taste sensations. Humans are a vegetarian animal by nature, they are not naturally flesh-eaters. Horses and apes and many animals, live admirably and grow strong on vegetarian diets. And humans are another animal just like they. They are just more filthy and more stupid and more greedy. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
We find it revolting to see prawn cocktail flavoured crisps,
or beef flavour, or chicken flavour. These are living, breathing, sentient animals and birds and fish. And yet to humans, all they are is "snacks". We find that repulsive, and evident of a population who are brain dead and do not think. If humans want milk, they should get their pregnant women after childbirth and bung them in a cold shed place suckers on their mammary glands and see how they like it. If they do not like it, then don't do this to others. And next time a young human male behaves badly, have him neutered, and if he does not like it then don't do this to others. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 25, 5:49*pm, "The Consulate" > wrote:
> It is almost impossible to believe humans are such dicks. You speak from experience, obviously. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On 24 Dec 2009 19:13:23 -0000, 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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that >>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... > > · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals No boilerplate bullshit |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 25, 5:57*pm, "The Consulate" > wrote:
> There is no requirement at all for humans to eat meat or > fish. > The reason humans do is that they place their enjoyment of > eating and their gluttony and greed BEFORE the respect and > sanctity they should give to other life. There is no moral problem with eating meat. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:49:32 -0000, "The Consulate"
> wrote: >A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to >others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and >eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better >than the greed and gluttony of the masses. · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 26, 9:05*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:49:32 -0000, "The Consulate" > > > wrote: > >A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to > >others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and > >eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better > >than the greed and gluttony of the masses. > > *[garbage] Animals do not benefit by coming into existence. Therefore, there is nothing to consider in that regard. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 25, 6:13*am, 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. That's very sad. > 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 There is no good evidence at all that plants have desires. But if you do want to minimise the number of plants that are killed to produce your food then you should go with plant-based agriculture, because more plants need to be killed and fed to animals to produce the same amount of animal protein as you would get from eating the plants directly. |
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 25, 7:17*am, 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. You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 25, 7:17 am, 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. > > [garbage] "vegans" cannot show how refraining from consuming animal products comprises more ethical behavior. "veganism" is and only can be about sanctimony. Any time a person's "ethics" consists in comparing oneself with others, it isn't ethics at all. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
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. And in any case, it isn't the consumption of the products /per se/ that causes any putative moral harm. All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. I don't consume any animal products; therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. In fact, consuming animal products is not the only way one might cause animals to suffer and die. Virtually every normal human activity in which "vegans" engage has some deleterious impact on animals - an impact "vegans" ignore. The next step in their thinking, once the fallacy is pointed out to them, is to fall back to a claim of "minimizing" the suffering and death they cause animals. This position, too, is rubbish. They do not minimize the harm, for several reasons: 1. they have never measured 2. even *within* a "vegan" lifestyle, some products they consume cause more harm than others; there can be no claim to be "minimizing" if one includes some higher-harm goods when there are lower-harm substitutes available So, they don't cause zero harm, and they aren't minimizing the harm they cause. What's the next false claim? "I'm doing the best I can." This is disposed of by the same means by which the claim of minimization was vitiated. They could be doing something more, by definition: if they aren't minimizing, then they are *not* doing the best they can. So, what's left? Only this: "I'm doing better than you." Not only is that claim not proved, it is the very epitome of sanctimony and moral bankruptcy. Ethical behavior *never* consists in doing less of some morally wrong thing than someone else. If sodomizing young children is wrong, one cannot claim to be "more ethical" because one "only" sodomizes children once a week, versus someone else who does it daily. The *only* way to claim to be ethical when it comes to sodomy committed against children is *never* to engage in it. If causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong, the only way validly to be able to claim to be ethical on that issue is not to engage in *any* of it. Refraining from consuming animal products simply doesn't meet the requirement. All it does is give the "vegan" an utterly false sense of self-satisfaction. In short, it is the vilest sort of sanctimony and hypocrisy. I hope this helps some people to eliminate confusion over this issue. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> 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! |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Actually its worse than that. In increasing the intake of vegetables, Vegans are responsible for the death of more animal life than a meat eater. As a meat eater I can subsist on the life of one animal for a long time. To eat a vegetable I am responsible for the death of many insects that have to be killed to protect that life if that plant. On Dec 24, 8:17*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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:49:32 -0000, "The Consulate" > > wrote: > >>A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to >>others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and >>eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better >>than the greed and gluttony of the masses. > > · Vegans Cram the boilerplate bullshit up your ass. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
"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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
"Rupert" > wrote in message ... On Dec 25, 7:17 am, 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. You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball? -------> That's not claptrap, it is quite true. Of course vegans want to do what is right, but sanctimony is part of it. I've been on both sides of the issue, and the charge is valid. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
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. Here's a claim at the terrorist Animal Liberation Front's web site: You don't have to do it over night. You can take small steps by eliminating one cruel product at a time until you arrive at your ultimate goal of a cruelty-free diet. http://www.animalliberation.org.au/vego.php By the way, there is a poster in this very newsgroup who is a terrorist and card-carrying supporter of the terrorist organization ALF. Here's another instance: Whether you're hosting a vegan at your holiday table, or looking for holiday recipes as a vegan yourself, it can be a daunting task to find recipes that accommodate the cruelty-free diet http://www.ehow.com/way_5498650_vega...y-recipes.html Here's a PETA page hawking supposedly "cruelty-free" products: http://tinyurl.com/ycvwtzf. The *only* reason they consider these products "cruelty-free" is because they don't contain animal parts - in other words, they are under the influence of the logical fallacy in claiming the products to be "cruelty-free". They don't take into consideration any animals that are killed in the course of obtaining the ingredients of the products, manufacturing the products, or distributing them. Yes, indeed: *all* "vegans" start by believing the logical fallacy, and many if not most of them never leave it. Those who do abandon it merely move to another, equally invalid moral pose. In short, "veganism" has nothing whatever to do with /real/ ethics. It's all about the pose. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
chazwin wrote:
> Actually its worse than that. In increasing the intake of vegetables, > Vegans are responsible for the death of more animal life than a meat > eater. Not necessarily, but it's really beside the point. The real point is, they never really attempt to measure their death toll. It's rather obvious that some possible omnivores' diets have a lower death toll than some "vegan" diets. > As a meat eater I can subsist on the life of one animal for a long > time. But more likely than not, you don't. > To eat a vegetable I am responsible for the death of many > insects that have to be killed to protect that life if that plant. Depends. If you lived entirely on fruits and nuts that you personally harvested from trees - preferably after they already fell off the trees - then you probably would have a lower death toll than virtually all omnivores. But of course, no one does that. > > > > > On Dec 24, 8:17 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. > |
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:
> > "Ha" > wrote >> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >> >>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>> >>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>> >>> I don't consume any animal products; >>> >>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >> >> All vegans? >> rather a sweeping statement! > > You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the > validity of the message. > > Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an > exception? He might be, but he's lying. 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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Dutch wrote:
> > "Rupert" > wrote in message > ... > On Dec 25, 7:17 am, 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. > > You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball? > -------> > > That's not claptrap, it is quite true. Of course vegans want to do what is > right, I'm not persuaded of that at all. > but sanctimony is part of it. I've been on both sides of the issue, > and the charge is valid. > > |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
"ex-PFC Wintergreen" > wrote in message ... > Dutch wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> ... >> On Dec 25, 7:17 am, 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. >> >> You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball? >> -------> >> >> That's not claptrap, it is quite true. Of course vegans want to do what >> is >> right, > I'm not persuaded of that at all. I do think that is the initial intent for many at least partially, I mean who doesn't want to do the right thing? Others begin by aiming for optimum health. It morphs as the experience sinks in and the ego creeps in. When the vegan begins her journey the focus is primarily on the issue of the suffering of animals. The ego is what introduces the whole "my diet is superior to your diet" syndrome. Once the ideas of not consuming animal products and eliminating suffering are linked in the brain and welded by the rush of ego gratification the fallacy you describe so well becomes embedded. >> but sanctimony is part of it. I've been on both sides of the issue, >> and the charge is valid. >> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Dutch wrote:
> > "ex-PFC Wintergreen" > wrote in message > ... >> Dutch wrote: >>> >>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> On Dec 25, 7:17 am, 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. >>> >>> You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball? >>> -------> >>> >>> That's not claptrap, it is quite true. Of course vegans want to do >>> what is >>> right, > > >> I'm not persuaded of that at all. > > I do think that is the initial intent for many at least partially, I > mean who doesn't want to do the right thing? More than doing the right thing, "vegans" seem to be driven by a wish not to do the wrong thing. They view what "everybody else" does as the wrong thing, and they decide not to do it. It starts at the very beginning as a comparison with others. Most people who honestly think about trying to do the right thing don't conceive of it as a contrast with what others are doing. I don't consciously refrain from robbing banks out of a fear that if I did rob banks, it would make me too much like others; I refrain from robbing banks because, irrespective of what anyone else thinks, I know that it's wrong to rob banks. I also don't refrain from robbing banks out of a wish to think well of myself. As you note below, ego plays a huge role in "vegans'" formulation of what they think right behavior is. For properly ethical people, ego plays no part in it. > Others begin by aiming for > optimum health. It morphs as the experience sinks in and the ego creeps > in. When the vegan begins her journey the focus is primarily on the > issue of the suffering of animals. The ego is what introduces the whole > "my diet is superior to your diet" syndrome. Once the ideas of not > consuming animal products and eliminating suffering are linked in the > brain and welded by the rush of ego gratification the fallacy you > describe so well becomes embedded. > > >>> but sanctimony is part of it. I've been on both sides of the issue, >>> and the charge is valid. >>> |
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:
> "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? > no. I am not a vegan |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> Dutch wrote: >> "Ha" > wrote >>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: >>> >>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: >>>> >>>> If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>> >>>> I don't consume any animal products; >>>> >>>> therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. >>> All vegans? >>> rather a sweeping statement! >> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the >> validity of the message. >> >> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an >> exception? > > He might be, but he's lying. and you're assuming |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Dutch wrote:
> > <dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:49:32 -0000, "The Consulate" >> > wrote: >> >>> A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to >>> others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and >>> eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better >>> than the greed and gluttony of the masses. >> >> · Vegans > > Cram the boilerplate bullshit up your ass. It showed very little thought when it was first written, and the tedious repetition of it shows even less thought. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that > 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 There is no such thing as a "death-free" diet. Living creatures are killed in order to provide humans with food. |
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 27, 7:50*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't > really about ethics. *It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. > * There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. *It isn't at all about > identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; > it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. > > "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is > unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. What's the fallacy in this argument? http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...20( 2000).pdf >*And in any > case, it isn't the consumption of the products /per se/ that causes any > putative moral harm. > > All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > > * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > > * * I don't consume any animal products; > > * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. > False. Not all vegans believe that. I was aware of the collateral deaths argument during adolescence but became vegan as a young adult anyway. Gary Francione is undoubtedly aware of the collateral deaths argument. It is quite likely that Mylan Engel Jr. is too. > This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. * Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah.... > In fact, consuming > animal products is not the only way one might cause animals to suffer > and die. *Virtually every normal human activity in which "vegans" engage > has some deleterious impact on animals - an impact "vegans" ignore. > That is correct. Participating in a technological civilisation in any meaningful way will inevitably lead to you buying products and services whose production or provision involved the infliction of some suffering and premature death on sentient nonhuman animals. Gary Francione certainly acknowledges that point, for one. I don't know of anyone who denies it. However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of animal products. I have linked to one article which attempts to argue this case to which you have not yet responded. In any event you have shown no very good reason why it should not be the case. A lot of people, when contemplating the factual information about how animal products are generally produced in modern societies, together with the small burden involved in avoiding them, would just take it to be obvious. > The next step in their thinking, once the fallacy is pointed out to > them, is to fall back to a claim of "minimizing" the suffering and death > they cause animals. *This position, too, is rubbish. *They do not > minimize the harm, for several reasons: > > * * 1. *they have never measured We all face time constraints. People who make the decision to go vegan become acquainted with some factual information about how nonhuman animals are treated, and decide that they want to do something about it, even if they don't necessarily have the time to find out absolutely everything they can about the issue. So they go vegan, as a reasonable rule of thumb based on what they have found out so far, with the proviso that they hope to find out more later. > * * 2. *even *within* a "vegan" lifestyle, some products they consume > * * * * cause more harm than others; there can be no claim to be > * * * * "minimizing" if one includes some higher-harm goods when there > * * * * are lower-harm substitutes available > If the differential is so high that it looks like culpable negligence, sure, but you haven't demonstrated that that holds in every case. > So, they don't cause zero harm, and they aren't minimizing the harm they > cause. * They're adopting a reasonable rule of thumb for minimisation (within reasonable constraints about how much you sacrifice) based on the information they've had time to acquire so far. > What's the next false claim? *"I'm doing the best I can." *This > is disposed of by the same means by which the claim of minimization was > vitiated. *They could be doing something more, by definition: *if they > aren't minimizing, then they are *not* doing the best they can. > But they are doing an adequate job of fulfilling their obligations towards nonhuman animals, as some might take them to be, based on the constraints they face and the information that they have encountered so far. And the claim might also be made that reasonably well-informed people who continue to consume animal products are *not* doing such an adequate job. You've done nothing to cast doubt on this claim. > So, what's left? *Only this: *"I'm doing better than you." *Not only is > that claim not proved, You've acknowledged elsewhere that it's not the subject of a reasonable doubt. > it is the very epitome of sanctimony and moral > bankruptcy. * Nonsense. I have decided to volunteer some time and effort serving coffee and sandwiches to homeless people. (This is not an example of fulfilling a moral obligation, of course.) But the change in behaviour was motivated that it would help to achieve some goals I wanted to achieve, as was going vegan. If it is morally worthy to invest time and effort into doing what you reasonably believe will achieve certain goals, then these changes in behaviour are moral improvements; if there's no moral value in it, then fine, at least it doesn't hurt anyone. But you haven't *demonstrated* that there's no moral value in it in the case of veganism. And if you had it would hardly substantiate a claim of moral bankruptcy. Vegans, contrary to all your inane babbling, are not motivated by a desire to prove themselves "better" than other people, they are motivated by a desire to do something to reduce their contribution to animal suffering. You obviously want to see it the former way because you find the decision somehow threatening. > Ethical behavior *never* consists in doing less of some > morally wrong thing than someone else. * Please comment on the example of applying a blowtorch to a dog which I provided in a different threat. Do you agree that you are ethically required to refrain from such behaviour? Then you can have moral obligations towards nonhuman animals even if you are not morally required to stop buying all the products of commercial agriculture. So the question remains *how extensive* your obligations towards nonhuman animals are. You have done nothing to specify where you draw the line or why the place where you draw it is better than the place where vegans draw it. This makes a complete nonsense of your argument below, which you have been repeating ad nauseam for the last God knows how many years. > If sodomizing young children is > wrong, one cannot claim to be "more ethical" because one "only" > sodomizes children once a week, versus someone else who does it daily. > The *only* way to claim to be ethical when it comes to sodomy committed > against children is *never* to engage in it. > Quite. > If causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong, the only way validly to > be able to claim to be ethical on that issue is not to engage in *any* > of it. * So what's your conclusion? That there's no obligation to make *any effort at all* to reduce your contribution to unnecessary harm to animals? If there's an obligation to make *some* effort, the question is *how much*. You haven't said anything to show that the conclusions vegans draw about that are mistaken. Think that over carefully. It's important. > Refraining from consuming animal products simply doesn't meet > the requirement. *All it does is give the "vegan" an utterly false sense > of self-satisfaction. * It gives them a justified sense of satisfaction in having genuinely reduced their contribution to the demand for processes which cause unnecessary suffering. And when large numbers of people do it there is an actual reduction in unnecessary suffering, which is of course the whole point. > In short, it is the vilest sort of sanctimony and > hypocrisy. > You couldn't be being a little bit overblown here, could you? > I hope this helps some people to eliminate confusion over this issue. Any hope you have that you have produced an argument that any sane person could take seriously is utterly empty. |
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 27, 8:57*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Dutch wrote: > > > "Ha" > wrote > >> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: > > >>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > > >>> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > > >>> * * I don't consume any animal products; > > >>> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. > > >> All vegans? > >> rather a sweeping statement! > > > You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the > > validity of the message. > > > Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an > > exception? > > He might be, but he's lying. > You wouldn't have a clue, you stupid pointless clown. You *constantly* make categorical assertions about people regarding things about which you *obviously* would not have the slightest clue. It's one of your well-established habits. > I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". *They do > *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a > "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - False. I have never believed that. You have no evidence that Gary Francione ever believed it. He certainly doesn't now. |
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 27, 8:49*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Ha wrote: > > ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: > > >> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > > >> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > > >> * * I don't consume any animal products; > > >> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. > > > All vegans? > > Without exception. *They all start with that, and many - probably most - > never move off it. *Look at the myriad "vegan" web sites that extol > "veganism" as a means of living a "cruelty-free" or "death-free" > lifestyle. *Those people, by necessary implication, believe in the > logical fallacy. > It's probably fair to say that it is quite widespread, but any academic defender of veganism would obviously be aware of the collateral deaths argument, and as I say I was aware of it during adolescence. > Here's a claim at the terrorist Animal Liberation Front's web site: > > * * You don't have to do it over night. You can take small steps by > * * eliminating one cruel product at a time until you arrive at your > * * ultimate goal of a cruelty-free diet. > > * *http://www.animalliberation.org.au/vego.php > > By the way, there is a poster in this very newsgroup who is a terrorist > and card-carrying supporter of the terrorist organization ALF. > Who are you thinking of there? > Here's another instance: > > * * Whether you're hosting a vegan at your holiday table, or looking for > * * holiday recipes as a vegan yourself, it can be a daunting task to > * * find recipes that accommodate the cruelty-free diet > > * *http://www.ehow.com/way_5498650_vega...y-recipes.html > > Here's a PETA page hawking supposedly "cruelty-free" products:http://tinyurl.com/ycvwtzf. *The *only* reason they consider these > products "cruelty-free" is because they don't contain animal parts - in > other words, they are under the influence of the logical fallacy in > claiming the products to be "cruelty-free". *They don't take into > consideration any animals that are killed in the course of obtaining the > ingredients of the products, manufacturing the products, or distributing > them. > > Yes, indeed: **all* "vegans" start by believing the logical fallacy, and > many if not most of them never leave it. *Those who do abandon it merely > move to another, equally invalid moral pose. *In short, "veganism" has > nothing whatever to do with /real/ ethics. *It's all about the pose. |
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 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. |
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 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't >> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. >> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about >> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; >> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. >> >> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is >> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > > What's the fallacy in this argument? > > http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...20( 2000).pdf > Argument is unsound: based on false premises. |
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 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. |
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 27, 7:50 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't >> really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony. >> There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about >> identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it; >> it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue. >> >> "vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is >> unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. > > What's the fallacy in this argument? > > http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...20( 2000).pdf The fallacy is non sequitur: he builds what he thinks is a compelling case against factory farming, then makes the unwarranted leap that *all* meat consumption is immoral. Along the way, he belabors the same old, tired, inapplicable garbage about resource "inefficiency", which, as we have seen, is nonsense. The sophistry of guys like this is simply staggering. They have a position to which they've leapt, and then they try to backfill the yawning chasm behind them. |
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 However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some* obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of animal products. ---------------> This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not necessarily linked. The main problem with veganism is that adherents tend to see abstension from animal products as both necessary and sufficient steps when such is clearly not the case. (See the vegan in an SUV (or like some celebrities with private jets) vs the omnivore on a bike) A glaring illustration of this issue plays out as a vegan examines a condiment in a restaurant to ensure it does not contain even a milligram of animal cells, (the horror!) all the while a 1% reduction in his caloric consumption would do far more to reduce his impact on animals. The elephant in the room is the notion that man ought not to view animals as commodities, everything serves that master. Working from that perspective the desire to avoid animal products makes perfect sense. If we're talking about attempting to count and compare the number of animals that are harmed or killed and assign some acceptable moral level, then we're kidding ourselves, we're not actaully doing that, nor can we. Nobody can say fairly that a vegan lifestyle is not likely to have a pretty low level of associated animal deaths, but this is not the type of reasonable argument being made. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 2:45*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 27, 8:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Dutch wrote: > > >>> "Ha" > wrote > >>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote: > >>>>> All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy: > >>>>> * * If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>>> * * I don't consume any animal products; > >>>>> * * therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die. > >>>> All vegans? > >>>> rather a sweeping statement! > >>> You can replace "All vegans" with "Vegans" (in general) and not lose the > >>> validity of the message. > >>> Are you implicitly agreeing with the message but claiming to be an > >>> exception? > > >> I don't have any problem making the assertion "all vegans". *They do > >> *all* begin by believing that being "vegan" equates to living a > >> "cruelty-free" or "death-free" lifestyle.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > False. I have never believed that. > > You have.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, I would certainly know. We can agree on that much, yes? On what exactly is your confidence based? You often make a big deal of how vegans ought to back claims such as "A widespread transition to a vegan diet would be effective at reducing suffering" with careful research and evidence. Well, quite. Well, similarly, statements such as "All vegans begin their transition to veganism in the belief that a vegan lifestyle as typically does not involve buying *any* products whose production caused nonhuman suffering and death" or "Rupert began his transition to veganism by believing this", ought to be based in *evidence*. You have made the bare-fased *assertion*, as is your wont, without offering the slightest reason for thinking that you could possibly have any evidence. You have shown us some websites which make the statement that a vegan diet is "cruelty-free". Such statements certainly are frequently made and it's not too hard to understand to understand why advocates of veganism would want to make them. Whether most vegans believe the statement to be literally true in the sense *you* have in mind, or *began* their transition to veganism by believing this, is a moot point. You just haven't got the kind of evidence that would justify you in saying this. As a big fan of the scientific method you ought to appreciate this point. Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 29, 2:46*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. |
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) |