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

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.

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. ·

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.

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.

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.

On Dec 25, 5:49*pm, "The Consulate" > wrote:
> It is almost impossible to believe humans are such dicks.

You speak from experience, obviously.

<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

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.

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. ·

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

<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.

"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?

"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.

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.

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.
>

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.

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.
>
>

"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.
>>

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.
>>>

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.