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 28-01-2005, 04:09 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gaverick Matheny pours shit all over Dreck's head (then porks Dreck'swife)

Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
This in fact is straightforward: neither meat eaters
nor vegetarians, themselves, kill animals (usually).
That, of course, isn't the point. The linkage to the
actual animal killers is clear. It's even a little
amusing that Matheny has gone through all his gyrations
to try to show that meat eaters do in fact bear
responsibility for the animals they cause to be killed,
because I don't think most meat eaters ever think they
*aren't* responsible.

However, Matheny's analysis, as I said, clearly works
to establish "vegans" as being responsible for animal
collateral deaths, too, by exactly the same mechanism.
Some low-talent sophists like Dreck Nash attempt to
make the difference based on the "necessity" of animals
being killed in order to produce the food (necessary
for meat, supposedly not necessary for vegetables), but
Matheny's paper doesn't address that issue at all, as
it shouldn't.

When we look at one of the two criminal situations that
serve as analogies for the idea of complicity of
"vegans" in animal deaths - the accomplice in an
unexpectedly fatal bank robbery - we see that the
accomplice's complicity is NOT dependent on some
"necessity" of the unexpected outcome. That is, the
accomplice - say, the getaway driver - is already
responsible for the bank robbery, but if some innocent
person is killed in the course of the robbery, the
accomplice ALSO shares in the responsibility for the
death. If caught, his punishment will be, and SHOULD
be, harsher than if no death had occurred.

The "vegan" isn't the hands-on killer of animals in the
case of collateral animal deaths in agriculture, but
the dead animals are a foreseeable consequence of the
process, just as the dead bank customer is a
foreseeable consequence of an armed bank robbery, and
the "vegan" knows about the virtual certainty of CDs;
at least, Dreck Nash always claims she does.

"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
food.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 06:42 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.


No, it does not. The paper sets out to prove that, while
some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians
cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and
must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions.

There's no mention in his paper that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in
crop production. You've merely asserted there is and
fail to show where. Throw again.
[..]
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 06:43 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
food.


Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice. The
vegan must buy food and there is not enough
veganic foods available to provide for a
healthy life. That makes no choice buy to
buy some commercial foods. It's literally
a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
away when there's no choice.


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


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 06:44 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
food.



Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice.


1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
outcome doesn't change.

2. There IS a choice.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 06:52 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.



No, it does not.


Yes, it does.

The paper sets out to prove that, while
some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians
cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and
must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions.


Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER, Dog-beater. All you
did was cut-and-paste from the abstract.


There's no mention in his paper


You didn't read the paper; you only read the abstract,
and cut-and-pasted two sentences from it.

that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in
crop production.


Irrelevant. The mechanism applies perfectly well to
vegetarians. The EXPECTED utility to animals of the
field due to the act of buying commercially produced
vegetables is diminished in EXACTLY the same way the
expected utility to meat animals is diminished by all
meat eaters. The mechanism is the same.

Once again, you lose. You may now move on to another
form of time wastage.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 06:53 PM
Ray
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
. net...

Snip

What's a "Collateral Death" ~~Jonnie~~?

Is it the same as accidental?


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:05 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.


No, it does not.


Yes, it does.


Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production, and after you've done that show where his
article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
them.

The paper sets out to prove that, while
some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians
cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and
must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions.


Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER


I have read it, and nowhere does it even suggest a link
between vegetarians and the collateral deaths caused
by farmers in crop production. You've read something
into it that doesn't exist.

that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in
crop production.


Irrelevant.


No, it is not. Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by farmers
in crop production. Read it again without imagining the words
"collateral" and "deaths" exist in it.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:09 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matheny said your wife was a good ride.


Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

No, it does not.


Yes, it does.



Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production, and after you've done that show where his
article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
them.


His article doesn't explicitly do that. Based on my
extension of his mechanism, *I* did it. The expected
utility argument extends perfectly well to cover
"vegans" purchases of commercially grown produce, and
the deaths of animals in the field. Matheny didn't
need to cover it; I took care of it for him.



The paper sets out to prove that, while
some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians
cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and
must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions.


Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER



I have read it,


You did not. You did cut-and-paste from the abstract.
You only read the abstract.


that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in
crop production.


Irrelevant.



No, it is not.


Yes, it is irrelevant.

Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by farmers
in crop production.


It doesn't matter. He let the "expected utility" cat
out of the bag, and it ran right up and scratched your
claim of no responsibility to shreds.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:10 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice.


1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
outcome doesn't change.



Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity


There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
isn't.



2. There IS a choice.



The only other choice


There is not "only" one other choice.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:10 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice.


1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
outcome doesn't change.


Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
as being way less morally wrong than willful
complicity.

2. There IS a choice.


The only other choice (assuming one
can't afford to homestead) is death
from starvation. That can't possibly
be seen as a viable choice! Surely
you must agree.


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





  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:23 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice.

1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
outcome doesn't change.



Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity


There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
isn't.


Then forced complicity is not really a form
of complicity. More like its opposite.

2. There IS a choice.



The only other choice


There is not "only" one other choice.


I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget, that leaves only death
or buying commercial. Have I left
anything out? (keep in mind that eating
meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)



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



  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:27 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice.

1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
outcome doesn't change.


Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity


There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
isn't.



Then forced complicity


There is no such thing.


2. There IS a choice.


The only other choice


There is not "only" one other choice.



I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget,


Claiming not to be able to afford to do the right thing
does not exculpate you for doing the wrong thing.

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:30 PM
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...

I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget, that leaves only death
or buying commercial. Have I left
anything out? (keep in mind that eating
meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)


Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options were
eating meat and death? Just curious...


  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:32 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.


Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production, and after you've done that show where his
article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
them.


His article doesn't explicitly do that.


Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.

Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.


Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat." What you
should have written was that YOUR extension of it
makes that link rather than the article itself. You lied
again, Jon, and every time you do it you dump whatever
argument you're carrying down the toilet.

[..]
Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by
farmers in crop production.


It doesn't matter.


It does if you want your lie to be believed, you stupid
fool.

[..]
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 07:37 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity


There is no such thing.


Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.


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
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder usual suspect Vegan 0 14-08-2005 02:37 PM
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water Jay Santos Vegan 0 31-12-2004 05:36 AM
dreck nash is a crybaby liar usual suspect Vegan 6 23-05-2004 07:16 PM
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 Jonathan Ball Vegan 1 11-05-2004 08:30 AM
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context Jonathan Ball Vegan 31 03-11-2003 07:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 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