In article . net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> John Deere wrote:
>
> > Jay Santos wrote:
> >
> >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>
> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >>
> >>
> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> >>argument.
> >>
> >>All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in
> >>order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the
> >>rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this:
> >>
> >> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
> >>and death of animals.
> >>
> >> I do not consume animal parts;
> >>
> >> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
> >>of animals.
> >>
> >>This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the
> >>Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of
> >>animals by means other than consuming things made from
> >>animal parts. The most important way in which this
> >>occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral
> >>animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation,
> >>harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in
> >>particular causes suffering and death to animals on a
> >>massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is
> >>"necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods
> >>of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without
> >>any consideration whatever about how many animals were
> >>killed in the course of their production.
> >>
> >>When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
> >>to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
> >>life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
> >>consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
> >>to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
> >>doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
> >>quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
> >>crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
> >>of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
> >>animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
> >>extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
> >>lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
> >>to cause animal death.
> >>
> >>Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is
> >>untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest
> >>position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be
> >>utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm
> >>doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is
> >>false, as one can easily show that a meat-including
> >>diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan"
> >>diet. However, there is no further room for retreat,
> >>so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and
> >>either stick with the "I'm doing better than you"
> >>position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy
> >>of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to
> >>their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can."
> >>
> >>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
> >>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
> >>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
> >>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
> >>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
> >>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
> >>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
> >>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
> >>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
> >>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
> >>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
> >>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
> >>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
> >>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
> >>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
> >>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
> >>
> >>It can't.
> >>
> >>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> >>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> >>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> >>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> >>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> >>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> >>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> >>revealing:
> >>
> >> You can't accept that I find an improvement good
> >>enough.
> >> You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that
> >>only
> >> you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which
> >>is good
> >> enough for me to be content.
> >>
> >>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> >>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> >>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> >>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> >>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
> >>
> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
> >
> >
> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>
> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".

Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or popular.
So much for "great minds".