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
  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 12:32 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:19:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

If they're truly accidental,

They are accidental to the farmer.

Then they carry no moral importance

To the farmer, no.

And nor to me, either,

That isn't even English.

The deaths are intentional to you

Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter

According to those two scholars, the deaths are
intentional to you.

And to them


Nope.


Their quotes prove


that "vegans" intend the deaths because they know they will happen and
they intend their purchases, and so the deaths are intentional from the
perspective of "vegans", not collateral. From the perspective of
farmers, they are collateral.


  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 12:41 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
of animals to eat.

If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
the abuse.

That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
stating you didn't ask for any abuse.

Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse, and didn't say
I
did.

When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.


I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,


Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.


By that reasoning if you ask for vegetables when you are aware that cds take
place that means you are asking for cds to take place. By your reasoning
vegans are even MORE culpable than I believe they are.


  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 12:51 AM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:41:40 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
of animals to eat.

If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
the abuse.

That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
stating you didn't ask for any abuse.

Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse,
and didn't say I did.

When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.

I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,


Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.


By that reasoning if you ask for vegetables when you are aware that cds take
place that means you are asking for cds to take place.


That sentence presupposes collateral deaths are associated
with every item I might buy when it simply isn't the case.
For example, I don't presuppose that a police driver has killed
pedestrians on his way to answer my call, just because police
drivers are known to sometimes kill pedestrians. If he does,
then that doesn't mean to say that I asked him to kill any
pedestrians.
  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 01:02 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:41:40 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch"

wrote:
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch"

wrote:
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
of animals to eat.

If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
the abuse.

That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
stating you didn't ask for any abuse.

Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse,
and didn't say I did.

When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.

I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,

Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.


By that reasoning if you ask for vegetables when you are aware that

cds take
place that means you are asking for cds to take place.


That sentence presupposes collateral deaths are associated
with every item I might buy


No, it isn't. It only presupposes that CDs are associated with SOME
items you buy every time you shop, and that IS the case.
[snip bad, ****witted example]


  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 01:07 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skunky wrote:
the view that "vegans" cannot view the deaths of animals of the

field
as collateral because they INTEND them to happen.


It is the farmer who intends and does.

Take the test first if you expect me to respond to you.



  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 01:14 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:41:40 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
of animals to eat.

If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
the abuse.

That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
stating you didn't ask for any abuse.

Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse,
and didn't say I did.

When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.

I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,

Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.


By that reasoning if you ask for vegetables when you are aware that cds
take
place that means you are asking for cds to take place.


That sentence presupposes collateral deaths are associated
with every item I might buy when it simply isn't the case.


Your reply to me presupposes that abuse takes place with every cut of meat I
buy when it simply isn't the case.

For example, I don't presuppose that a police driver has killed
pedestrians on his way to answer my call, just because police
drivers are known to sometimes kill pedestrians. If he does,
then that doesn't mean to say that I asked him to kill any
pedestrians.



  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 01:25 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Take the test first if you expect me to respond to you.

You don't have to respond. I don't mind
talking to myself or other people.


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



  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 06:23 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:43:47 +0000, Derek wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:33 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:16:05 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:07 GMT,
wrote:

His view doesn't matter.

His view DOES matter and IS the subject of this thread.


Then let HIM say what his view is.


He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
intentional, they aren't also collateral." That being so, when
he asserts that vegans are responsible for collateral deaths
he contradicts himself, because according to his view, the
intentional deaths caused by farmers aren't collateral deaths
in the first place if they're intentional.


The only way to know what he thinks about it is if he
explains it. But I am convinced he's not helping you get out
of anything simply by saying intentional deaths aren't collateral.
And. If he's saying they're not, he's wrong anyway in at least
some cases, imo.

Read my paragraph above your line again.

If
you hadn't ignored my earlier comment above* you
would've been reminded of that and not tried to divert
this discussion onto my view of what constitutes one
instead.

Read that again as well.


Reality is what matters.


The subject title to this thread is what matters to this
thread, Harrison.


Reality is what matters to reality, Nash.

and accidental deaths

If they are truly accidental, then no one can be
blamed for them.

If someone caused them to happen they can be
blamed for them, since they are to blame for them.

That's true and takes nothing from the fact that, if
they're truly accidental, then no one can be blamed
for them.

When people cause farm machinery to run blades
through the surface area of fields, turning the ground
upside down and stomping down on it with tons of weight,
animals are killed and those responsible for the action are
to blame.

That's right: farmers.

And consumers

Obviously not, since you yourself are on record as saying;
"To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
is true, since they would occur even if you were dead
or had never been born"
David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25


You are not the consumers. You are one meaningless consumer,
and it makes no difference whether you contribute or not, much
less what you consume.


Then you cannot continue to claim vegetarians are
responsible for the collateral deaths caused by others
since conceding they aren't.


But you do contribute to them.

and consumer contribution to the process allows it to
repeat and cause more such deaths

Yet only an hour ago in your reply to Scented Nectar
you claimed that we are not responsible for them,
since they would occur whether we were alive or dead.

"To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
is true, since they would occur even if you were dead
or had never been born"
David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25

There's a difference between being responsible and
contributing.

We aren't responsible for them, as you concede.
That you believe we contribute to those deaths
is irrelevant and cannot be shown anyway. I for
one don't contribute anything towards those deaths.

How do you avoid it?

It's not a case of avoiding it. It's something that happens
around me,

Come to think of it, that's how it is with chicken houses
around here, and beef cattle in pastures...

No. Chicken houses exist because you pay money
to have others farm chickens for you. Crop fields
exist because I pay to have others plant vegetables
in them.


You give yourself far too much credit.


I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
of animals to eat.


We contribute to it, but we're not responsible for it.

We personally can contribute to something,
without being responsible for whether or not it occurs.

No. If I contribute to the meat industry by eating
meat, then I am responsible for the deaths of those
animals I choose as part of my diet.

No.

YES Harrison. YOU are responsible for the death of
whatever animal you choose to eat. Get used to it!

Not lately. It has been years since I've eaten an animal
who I was responsible for the death of.

You are responsible for the death of every animal you
chose to eat,


LOL! I am not.


You are because you instruct that it be farmed and killed
on your behalf.


No, I sure don't. I never have had to, and wouldn't know
how to.

I haven't been responsible for the death
of any animal I've eaten for years, except for the clams
I've steamed.


A meatarian denying responsibility for the deaths
he causes;


No, I'm denying responsibility for deaths I had nothing
at all to do with.

priceless! Thanks Dave.

just as the vegan is responsible for the
death of every vegetable he chooses to eat.


Only if they're still alive when you get them.


No. The vegetarian vicariously kills the vegetables he
chooses to eat.

What you've conceded there is something along the lines
of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym
"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of
being responsible for the collateral death caused in
telecommunications.

"The most reliable way of ruling out the existence
of a causal connection between any two events, namely
your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths
it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in
the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of
your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have
occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one
of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To
be causal, your action as a participant here must be
necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged
collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your
participation here. It's a "but for condition."

I use it in response to the CD argument

It works fine for meat eaters too.

Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat.
Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat.

I rarely have in the past. Most never do.

There's no confusion over whether either are to
blame for the deaths they cause. When vegetarians
are accused of causing the deaths of animals, the
link between the two actions isn't apparent, and
that's where the "but for" condition comes into play.
It doesn't work for meatarians because the link
between them and the deaths they cause is already
apparent.

Whatever works for veg*ns in that respect, works
equally well for meat consumers.

I've just painstakingly shown that it doesn't.

LOL. You did not.

I've shown that there's no confusion as to whom is
responsible for the death of the animal they chose
to eat, on the basis that the meatarian makes the
choice to vicariously kill that animal. He cannot
eat it unless that animal is killed. The direct link
between the meatarian and the death he causes
is clear.

Vegetarians don't eat animals or direct others to kill
animals on their behalf during crop production, so
when meatarians try to level the death toll by insisting
that the vegetarian does kill these animals, the "but-for
condition" comes into play to show they cannot be the
cause of those deaths. You've conceded as much by
writing;

"To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
is true, since they would occur even if you were
dead or had never been born"
David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25


Which is true. It's true for meat eaters and for veg*ns.


I agree. Neither the vegetarian or the meatarian can be
held responsible for the collateral deaths caused by
farmers.


But we all contribute to them.

generally as the
most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal
connection between the farmer causing harms and his
consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral
deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have
occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables.
If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I
cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore
not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a
mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and
it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying
from him. I understand it as the "but-for condition." But
for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen,
so he is causal

True.

You have no option but to agree.

But but for the consumer the same is true. As
a group, customers are causal.

They are causal to whatever they choose to kill.
Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat.
Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat.
There's no confusion over whether either are to
blame for the deaths they cause.

Including deaths associated with crop production.

No. Neither the meatarian or the vegetarian is responsible
for the collateral deaths caused by autonomous farmers in
crop production, whether those crops go to feed livestock
or ourselves.

We're as responsible for those deaths as the ones of
animals killed to eat. We're either responsible for both,
or for neither.

Yet earlier you wrote;

"To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
is true, since they would occur even if you were
dead or had never been born"
David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25

Make up your mind, Harrison.


Neither.


Then you'll remain in constant contradiction.


There's no contradiction that I can see. We're not
responsible for deaths we're not responsible for. But
if you want to pretend we are, then we would be as
responsible for cds as we are for deliberate killings.
No contradiction in any of that. You're the one who
wants to introduce a contradiction, but it doesn't
work.
  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 02:37 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Jon wrote:

He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
intentional, they aren't also collateral." That being so, when
he asserts that vegans are responsible for collateral deaths
he contradicts himself, because according to his view, the
intentional deaths caused by farmers aren't collateral deaths
in the first place if they're intentional. What part in that don't
you understand, and how many times must I repeat it before
you finally grasp it?


This is also the fallacy of insignificant cause. (The human need to
special, important or signficant.)

A more accurate determination could be accomplished by graphing all of
those involved and determining the percentage of
responsibility/contributed to the outcome

50% The farmer (person who kills the animal)
10% The consumer (demand -- one of many who wants the animal)
10% Other consumers (demand -- the others who want the animal)
10% Other farmers (competition)
10% Personal needs of the farmer (economic forces on the farmer)
10% All the others associated with the
growing, production, sale and purchase.

In this instance, there are six causes related to the death of a farm
animal and the most significant cause is the farmer who kills it.
  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 03:43 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:37:55 -0500, Ron wrote:
In article ,
Jon wrote:

He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
intentional, they aren't also collateral." That being so, when
he asserts that vegans are responsible for collateral deaths
he contradicts himself, because according to his view, the
intentional deaths caused by farmers aren't collateral deaths
in the first place if they're intentional. What part in that don't
you understand, and how many times must I repeat it before
you finally grasp it?


This is also the fallacy of insignificant cause. (The human need to
special, important or signficant.)


You're missing the point entirely. This thread concerns
itself with 'usual suspects' view on what qualifies a
collateral death and the implications of such a view.


Just sloppiness on my part. Both perspectives are based on the notion of
responsibility. Both perspectives are a dichotomy of the same phenomena
of exclusive responsibility versus shared responsibility. A discussion
of direct or indirect death requires an accurate assessment of who is
responsible for what part of the outcome.

A more accurate determination could be accomplished by graphing all of
those involved and determining the percentage of
responsibility/contributed to the outcome

50% The farmer (person who kills the animal)
10% The consumer (demand -- one of many who wants the animal)
10% Other consumers (demand -- the others who want the animal)
10% Other farmers (competition)
10% Personal needs of the farmer (economic forces on the farmer)
10% All the others associated with the
growing, production, sale and purchase.

In this instance, there are six causes related to the death of a farm
animal and the most significant cause is the farmer who kills it.



  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 11:43 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote \
There aren't as many places in Toronto
that have community gardens as you
think. Also, the plots are rather small.
You certainly couldn't grow a years
supply of food there. Well maybe of
just one crop.


So this code of ethics stipulates that you stay in Toronto?


What code of ethics do you mean? There
are a lot of reasons I stay in Toronto.


The code that informs you that it is always morally better to abstain from
eating meat.


  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 11:54 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote

I do know some vegans, you know. The stats
or numbers work out death-wise in favour of
the vegan diet.


Compared to...?


The average meat eating diet, like I
ate before going veg in 1981.


That's a very narrow frame of reference. There are countless other viable
options that ought to considered also.

I can feel proud of that if I want
to. There's worse crimes out there than that
for you to go fix.


I haven't accused anyone of a crime, I just find it a shame that you

refuse
to explore the possibility that this narrow moral relativistic

thinking you
are using to make yourself feel good causes more harm to you than it

does
good. I can't explain it better than that, you need to try it out to

see
what I mean.


You keep assuming that there is a harm in
my being veg and becoming vegan.


I'm not just assuming it, I have concluded it from my own experience, from
general observations of vegans, and by listening to your evasive responses.
There is something going on inside your head that is not in your best
interests. I absolutely guarantee it.

There's
not, and your help is not needed.


I disagree, you are in denial and I have conclusive evidence of it.

Go help
someone who wants it, not me.


As long as you make responses to me I shall continue to interpret that as a
cry for help. Despite your protestations, something in your subconscious is
recognizing that there is a truth here for you that your conscious awareness
will not allow you to see.




  #148 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2005, 12:24 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There aren't as many places in Toronto
that have community gardens as you
think. Also, the plots are rather small.
You certainly couldn't grow a years
supply of food there. Well maybe of
just one crop.

So this code of ethics stipulates that you stay in Toronto?


What code of ethics do you mean? There
are a lot of reasons I stay in Toronto.


The code that informs you that it is always morally better to abstain

from
eating meat.


Not eating meat has nothing to do with
where I live. What do ethics have to do
with where I live?


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



  #149 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2005, 01:14 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I do know some vegans, you know. The stats
or numbers work out death-wise in favour of
the vegan diet.

Compared to...?


The average meat eating diet, like I
ate before going veg in 1981.


That's a very narrow frame of reference. There are countless other

viable
options that ought to considered also.


My personal health and well being is a good
frame of reference for me, not necessarily
for you. What other options are you referring
to?

You keep assuming that there is a harm in
my being veg and becoming vegan.


I'm not just assuming it, I have concluded it from my own experience,

from
general observations of vegans, and by listening to your evasive

responses.
There is something going on inside your head that is not in your best
interests. I absolutely guarantee it.


You're nuts. And completely wrong too.

There's
not, and your help is not needed.


I disagree, you are in denial and I have conclusive evidence of it.


Regardless of whether you disagree I don't
want your help. Please refrain from it. I'll
discuss and debate things with you, but
dump the helping bit.

Go help
someone who wants it, not me.


As long as you make responses to me I shall continue to interpret that

as a
cry for help. Despite your protestations, something in your

subconscious is
recognizing that there is a truth here for you that your conscious

awareness
will not allow you to see.


Then you will be misinterpreting me. I am
not crying for help. Understand this. When
I respond to you it's to debate, discuss and
find humour sometimes. Do not take any
thing I say as a cry for help unless I specifically
ask.


--
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 collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 03:45 AM
Collateral Deaths Associated with the Vegetarian Diet Derek Vegan 0 16-12-2005 12:54 PM
at least keep up, usual suspect soapless Vegan 2 22-04-2004 02:13 AM
Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef Ipse dixit Vegan 6 15-11-2003 01:20 PM
Animal Collateral Deaths [email protected] Vegan 33 13-11-2003 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 AM.

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