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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 05:14 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default The perfect foil creates the perfect setup again!

"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.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 05:26 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
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.


Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans live
up to your expectations for perfection?
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 05:30 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sophomore Ron wrote:

In article .net,
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.



Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?


Because they don't believe in the supposedly
fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place.

Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron?
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 05:33 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


Waa waa, poor Jay. You needed to start a whole
new crossposted thread for this old stuff again?

And you're back to insults rather than arguments.
'Skanky Carpetmuncher'. What's that? An unbathed
*******? LOL ))))

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.


Despite variances in individual foods, you know
full well that eating vegan causes way, way less
cds as a whole than the animal product industry
as a whole, due to livestock's extensive need
for far more cropland (thus more cds).

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."


I never made a claim of doing better than you.
Is this one of those 'implied' things you see so
often in people's writings?




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 05:33 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Ron wrote:
In article .net,
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.


Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans

live
up to your expectations for perfection?


It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
it, banbrains.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 05:36 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


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.



Despite variances in individual foods, you know
full well that eating vegan causes way, way less
cds as a whole than the animal product industry
as a whole, due to livestock's extensive need
for far more cropland (thus more cds).


This is the second retreat, AGAIN: you are trying to
defend yourself by saying "vegans cause fewer deaths
than omnivores". You are implicitly admitting that you
aren't "doing the best you can", and you're comforting
yourself with the false and ethically bankrupt belief
"I'm doing better than you".

You can't say why you think it "good" to reduce animal
deaths in the first place.



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."



I never made a claim of doing better than you.


Yes, you did; you make it every time you talk about
"average" "vegans" versus "average" omnivores.

You still can't say why you think it is "good" to
reduce animal deaths in the first place.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 05:50 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


And you're back to insults rather than arguments.


The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 05:51 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
who's who.

  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:01 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sophomore Ron wrote:

In article .net,
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.



Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?


Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:02 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.


rebut If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
animals then why do I feel good about lessening
their deaths? Huh? /rebut


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:02 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.



rebut If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
animals then why do I feel good about lessening
their deaths? Huh? /rebut


Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening"
your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong
to kill animals?
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:26 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?


Careful with this one Ron. He loves to talk about
sodomizing children and comparing it to meat
eating. Why he loves to talk about it I don't know.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:28 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rebut If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
animals then why do I feel good about lessening
their deaths? Huh? /rebut


Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening"
your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong
to kill animals?


You're not very bright. I obviously think it's
wrong to kill animals. The less the better.
Don't you get it yet?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The perfect G&T.... Aussie General Cooking 19 24-11-2010 06:23 AM
The perfect cup of tea aaaaa Tea 13 03-01-2007 07:27 PM
Perfect BBQ was had Duwop Barbecue 0 27-05-2005 10:47 PM
The perfect cup of tea Captain Infinity Tea 12 19-04-2005 08:20 PM
The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) Jay Santos Vegan 23 19-12-2004 12:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017