Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > rick wrote:
> >
> > wrote in message
> roups.com...
> >>
> >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks
> >>>and
> >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.
> >>
> >>=====================
> >>[..]
>
> No one seriously disputes the fact of collateral deaths
> in agricultural. A professor at Oreon State
> University, Stephen Davis, has written a paper on the
> topic, suggesting that CDs might mean a "vegan" diet is
> not the lowest-death diet one might follow. There used
> to be a rice farmer in Texas who participated here and
> posted under the name "diderot", who wrote at length
> about the types and (rough) numbers of animals that
> were killed in the process of cultivating and
> harvesting rice.
>

Good morning Rudy. Indeed, a "vegan" diet might not be the lowest-CD
diet one might follow. Yet another example is if you buy all your
"vegan" food from someone who uses the profit to wage war.

I'm not even sure what a "vegan" diet is, but I'm assuming it means
that when food choices are made a strong preference is given to
non-animal comestibles. Coorect?

> >
> > Even though some of these animal deaths might truly be avoidable,
it is
> > not the same as eating the flesh of an animal killed only to
satisfy
> > some urgent need to eat meat.
>
> It actually is much worse, because the meat eater
> doesn't pretend that by NOT eating something, he has
> thereby attained some state of virtue.
>
> This is what every "vegan" does. They all begin by
> committing a classical logical fallacy: the fallacy of
> Denying the Antecedent:
>
> if I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die
>

Indeed, you have presented this logical fallacy quite well. But is
this what -every- "vegan" thinks? Not necessarily.


> But you DO cause animals to suffer and die: the
> animals who are chopped to bits in the course of
> producing vegetable crops, and the animals that are
> deliberately killed around food storage facilities to
> prevent loss due to eating and contamination.
>
> The problem with "veganism" is that the stupid,
> ****witted rule - "don't consume animal parts" - is NOT
> based on any legitimate moral principle.
>

What about the principle of taking care of your health?
Anyway, I agree that is a stupid rule - it isn't a rule but a guideline
- one with many exceptions that SHOULD be acknowledged by so-called
"vegans". I for one am very willing to acknowledge them, though I
might see more exceptions than others like ScentedNectar or Pearl.


> But the rule
> is the totality of "veganism", and we clearly can see
> that it does not lead to a zero-death outcome.
>
> "vegans" next back away from their demonstrably false
> claim that they don't kill animals, and actually make
> their moral position worse, because they then engage in
> a despicable, deceitful counting game. They claim that
> although they do cause animal deaths, they cause fewer
> of them than meat eaters. This is deceitful, because
> they have never counted, and don't ever intend to
> count. It is despicable because it makes perfectly
> clear that what they are about is their self-exaltation
> over others whom they demonized in the first place.
>

Agreed, sort of. The problem is that we are being too general. One
can't count all the CDs of "meat" or "vegetables".. insead we should
compare for individual items. E.g., what about this texas boiler vs.
this organic brocolli? What about this cup of starbucks vs. this cup
of organic fair trade?


> First of all, virtue is NEVER shown by means of a
> comparison with others; no worthwhile philosophy of
> ethics, at any stage in the history of philosophy, has
> ever said that you are virtuous if you do less of some
> bad thing than someone else. This is because virtue
> consists SOLELY in adhering to some set of moral
> principles - and we have already seen that "veganism"
> has NO principle at its base.
>

We haven't seen that. We've seen some advocates of "veganism" speaking
false principlels; this doesn't mean no good principles exist.


> We can further see why the counting game is invalid by
> conducting this little thought experiment. Suppose you
> cause 50 animal deaths a week, and your meat-eating
> neighbor causes 100. You strut around patting yourself
> on the back because the ratio of his deaths to yours
> looks pretty good for you: 2:1. Now, suppose due to
> some changes in the technology of agriculture, his diet
> causes 300 deaths per week, while yours increases its
> death toll to 100 per week. Wow! The ratio is even
> more in your favor now: 3:1! But...WHAT THE ****ING
> HELL: You now are causing TWICE as many deaths as you
> used to cause. The ratio has gotten decidedly better
> for you, but it simply CANNOT be a morally good outcome
> that you are now causing twice as many deaths as before.
>
> Comparing yourself to others as a basis for
> establishing your virtue simply cannot be a valid basis
> for virtue. Virtue consists ONLY in adhering to good,
> sound moral principles, and we have seen that
> "veganism" has none.
>

Well stated, except for that last clause.

> >
> > You are trying to paint the act of eating brown rice, other grains
and
> > soy products as morbid and cavalier exercises in dietary excess.
>
> No, he isn't. He is saying you have NO basis for
> declaring yourself "virtuous" with respect to your
> impact on animals. He is right.
>
> >
> > You couldn't be more wrong.
>
> Sorry; he is absolutely right.
>

I guess I'm going to go with "he's right" on this one too. I feel that
generally anyone who declares themselves "virtuous" is probably
confused on some level, it is simply too much of a generality to use
without context. Also, there has indeed been NO basis given for me to
know what your "impact on animals" is. That you avoid eating them when
possible is a start, but who knows you could be slaughtering them
wholesale in your spare time.

> >
> > Simply stated - i'll pass. You don't seem to have the intellectual
> > faculties to follow a simple argument, or parse a simple sentence.
And
> > if your dull attacks are any indication your derived and irrelevant
> > constructions are wholly pointless and spineless, and they are,
then
> > there isn't much to refute.
>
> He may not write scintillating prose, but his points
> are generally right. "veganism" is morally bankrupt.
>

Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism" means. The
only way to define it that makes sense to me does not imply moral
bankrupcy, it implies a taste which prefers plants as foods. Quite a
natural tendancy for primates such as ourselves.

Bon Appetit - shevek

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > rick wrote:
> >
> > wrote in message
> roups.com...
> >>
> >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks
> >>>and
> >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.
> >>
> >>=====================
> >>[..]
>
> No one seriously disputes the fact of collateral deaths
> in agricultural. A professor at Oreon State
> University, Stephen Davis, has written a paper on the
> topic, suggesting that CDs might mean a "vegan" diet is
> not the lowest-death diet one might follow. There used
> to be a rice farmer in Texas who participated here and
> posted under the name "diderot", who wrote at length
> about the types and (rough) numbers of animals that
> were killed in the process of cultivating and
> harvesting rice.
>

Good morning Rudy. Indeed, a "vegan" diet might not be the lowest-CD
diet one might follow. Yet another example is if you buy all your
"vegan" food from someone who uses the profit to wage war.

I'm not even sure what a "vegan" diet is, but I'm assuming it means
that when food choices are made a strong preference is given to
non-animal comestibles. Coorect?

> >
> > Even though some of these animal deaths might truly be avoidable,
it is
> > not the same as eating the flesh of an animal killed only to
satisfy
> > some urgent need to eat meat.
>
> It actually is much worse, because the meat eater
> doesn't pretend that by NOT eating something, he has
> thereby attained some state of virtue.
>
> This is what every "vegan" does. They all begin by
> committing a classical logical fallacy: the fallacy of
> Denying the Antecedent:
>
> if I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die
>

Indeed, you have presented this logical fallacy quite well. But is
this what -every- "vegan" thinks? Not necessarily.


> But you DO cause animals to suffer and die: the
> animals who are chopped to bits in the course of
> producing vegetable crops, and the animals that are
> deliberately killed around food storage facilities to
> prevent loss due to eating and contamination.
>
> The problem with "veganism" is that the stupid,
> ****witted rule - "don't consume animal parts" - is NOT
> based on any legitimate moral principle.
>

What about the principle of taking care of your health?
Anyway, I agree that is a stupid rule - it isn't a rule but a guideline
- one with many exceptions that SHOULD be acknowledged by so-called
"vegans". I for one am very willing to acknowledge them, though I
might see more exceptions than others like ScentedNectar or Pearl.


> But the rule
> is the totality of "veganism", and we clearly can see
> that it does not lead to a zero-death outcome.
>
> "vegans" next back away from their demonstrably false
> claim that they don't kill animals, and actually make
> their moral position worse, because they then engage in
> a despicable, deceitful counting game. They claim that
> although they do cause animal deaths, they cause fewer
> of them than meat eaters. This is deceitful, because
> they have never counted, and don't ever intend to
> count. It is despicable because it makes perfectly
> clear that what they are about is their self-exaltation
> over others whom they demonized in the first place.
>

Agreed, sort of. The problem is that we are being too general. One
can't count all the CDs of "meat" or "vegetables".. insead we should
compare for individual items. E.g., what about this texas boiler vs.
this organic brocolli? What about this cup of starbucks vs. this cup
of organic fair trade?


> First of all, virtue is NEVER shown by means of a
> comparison with others; no worthwhile philosophy of
> ethics, at any stage in the history of philosophy, has
> ever said that you are virtuous if you do less of some
> bad thing than someone else. This is because virtue
> consists SOLELY in adhering to some set of moral
> principles - and we have already seen that "veganism"
> has NO principle at its base.
>

We haven't seen that. We've seen some advocates of "veganism" speaking
false principlels; this doesn't mean no good principles exist.


> We can further see why the counting game is invalid by
> conducting this little thought experiment. Suppose you
> cause 50 animal deaths a week, and your meat-eating
> neighbor causes 100. You strut around patting yourself
> on the back because the ratio of his deaths to yours
> looks pretty good for you: 2:1. Now, suppose due to
> some changes in the technology of agriculture, his diet
> causes 300 deaths per week, while yours increases its
> death toll to 100 per week. Wow! The ratio is even
> more in your favor now: 3:1! But...WHAT THE ****ING
> HELL: You now are causing TWICE as many deaths as you
> used to cause. The ratio has gotten decidedly better
> for you, but it simply CANNOT be a morally good outcome
> that you are now causing twice as many deaths as before.
>
> Comparing yourself to others as a basis for
> establishing your virtue simply cannot be a valid basis
> for virtue. Virtue consists ONLY in adhering to good,
> sound moral principles, and we have seen that
> "veganism" has none.
>

Well stated, except for that last clause.

> >
> > You are trying to paint the act of eating brown rice, other grains
and
> > soy products as morbid and cavalier exercises in dietary excess.
>
> No, he isn't. He is saying you have NO basis for
> declaring yourself "virtuous" with respect to your
> impact on animals. He is right.
>
> >
> > You couldn't be more wrong.
>
> Sorry; he is absolutely right.
>

I guess I'm going to go with "he's right" on this one too. I feel that
generally anyone who declares themselves "virtuous" is probably
confused on some level, it is simply too much of a generality to use
without context. Also, there has indeed been NO basis given for me to
know what your "impact on animals" is. That you avoid eating them when
possible is a start, but who knows you could be slaughtering them
wholesale in your spare time.

> >
> > Simply stated - i'll pass. You don't seem to have the intellectual
> > faculties to follow a simple argument, or parse a simple sentence.
And
> > if your dull attacks are any indication your derived and irrelevant
> > constructions are wholly pointless and spineless, and they are,
then
> > there isn't much to refute.
>
> He may not write scintillating prose, but his points
> are generally right. "veganism" is morally bankrupt.
>

Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism" means. The
only way to define it that makes sense to me does not imply moral
bankrupcy, it implies a taste which prefers plants as foods. Quite a
natural tendancy for primates such as ourselves.

Bon Appetit - shevek

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > rick wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote in message
> > roups.com...
> > >>
> > >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks
> > >>>and
> > >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.
> > >>
> > >>=====================
> > >>[..]
> >
> > No one seriously disputes the fact of collateral deaths
> > in agricultural. A professor at Oreon State
> > University, Stephen Davis, has written a paper on the
> > topic, suggesting that CDs might mean a "vegan" diet is
> > not the lowest-death diet one might follow. There used
> > to be a rice farmer in Texas who participated here and
> > posted under the name "diderot", who wrote at length
> > about the types and (rough) numbers of animals that
> > were killed in the process of cultivating and
> > harvesting rice.
> >
>
> Good morning Rudy. Indeed, a "vegan" diet might not be the lowest-CD
> diet one might follow. Yet another example is if you buy all your
> "vegan" food from someone who uses the profit to wage war.
>
> I'm not even sure what a "vegan" diet is, but I'm assuming it means
> that when food choices are made a strong preference is given to
> non-animal comestibles. Correct?

A vegan diet is a diet that contains no animal products.

> > > Even though some of these animal deaths might truly be avoidable,
> it is
> > > not the same as eating the flesh of an animal killed only to
> satisfy
> > > some urgent need to eat meat.
> >
> > It actually is much worse, because the meat eater
> > doesn't pretend that by NOT eating something, he has
> > thereby attained some state of virtue.
> >
> > This is what every "vegan" does. They all begin by
> > committing a classical logical fallacy: the fallacy of
> > Denying the Antecedent:
> >
> > if I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die
> >
> > I do not eat meat;
> >
> > therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die
> >
>
> Indeed, you have presented this logical fallacy quite well. But is
> this what -every- "vegan" thinks? Not necessarily.

He said they all "begin" by thinking this. Once vegans are
informed of the reality of collateral deaths in agriculture
they lose that notion, then they begin to equivocate.

> > But you DO cause animals to suffer and die: the
> > animals who are chopped to bits in the course of
> > producing vegetable crops, and the animals that are
> > deliberately killed around food storage facilities to
> > prevent loss due to eating and contamination.
> >
> > The problem with "veganism" is that the stupid,
> > ****witted rule - "don't consume animal parts" - is NOT
> > based on any legitimate moral principle.
> >
>
> What about the principle of taking care of your health?

That's not a moral principle.

> Anyway, I agree that is a stupid rule - it isn't a rule but a guideline
> - one with many exceptions that SHOULD be acknowledged by so-called
> "vegans". I for one am very willing to acknowledge them, though I
> might see more exceptions than others like ScentedNectar or Pearl.

"Vegans" grant themselves exceptions all the time but
never lose the idea that they have acheived a kind of
moral plateau by their thinking.
>
>
> > But the rule
> > is the totality of "veganism", and we clearly can see
> > that it does not lead to a zero-death outcome.
> >
> > "vegans" next back away from their demonstrably false
> > claim that they don't kill animals, and actually make
> > their moral position worse, because they then engage in
> > a despicable, deceitful counting game. They claim that
> > although they do cause animal deaths, they cause fewer
> > of them than meat eaters. This is deceitful, because
> > they have never counted, and don't ever intend to
> > count. It is despicable because it makes perfectly
> > clear that what they are about is their self-exaltation
> > over others whom they demonized in the first place.
> >
>
> Agreed, sort of. The problem is that we are being too general. One
> can't count all the CDs of "meat" or "vegetables".. insead we should
> compare for individual items. E.g., what about this texas boiler vs.
> this organic brocolli? What about this cup of starbucks vs. this cup
> of organic fair trade?

Exactly!!! All food should be compared with respect to
the amount of harm it causes.

> > First of all, virtue is NEVER shown by means of a
> > comparison with others; no worthwhile philosophy of
> > ethics, at any stage in the history of philosophy, has
> > ever said that you are virtuous if you do less of some
> > bad thing than someone else. This is because virtue
> > consists SOLELY in adhering to some set of moral
> > principles - and we have already seen that "veganism"
> > has NO principle at its base.
> >
>
> We haven't seen that. We've seen some advocates of "veganism" speaking
> false principlels; this doesn't mean no good principles exist.

The definition of "veganism" is simple, non-consumption of
animal products. Since that rule fails to account for collateral
deaths it cannot be based on a coherent principle.

> > We can further see why the counting game is invalid by
> > conducting this little thought experiment. Suppose you
> > cause 50 animal deaths a week, and your meat-eating
> > neighbor causes 100. You strut around patting yourself
> > on the back because the ratio of his deaths to yours
> > looks pretty good for you: 2:1. Now, suppose due to
> > some changes in the technology of agriculture, his diet
> > causes 300 deaths per week, while yours increases its
> > death toll to 100 per week. Wow! The ratio is even
> > more in your favor now: 3:1! But...WHAT THE ****ING
> > HELL: You now are causing TWICE as many deaths as you
> > used to cause. The ratio has gotten decidedly better
> > for you, but it simply CANNOT be a morally good outcome
> > that you are now causing twice as many deaths as before.
> >
> > Comparing yourself to others as a basis for
> > establishing your virtue simply cannot be a valid basis
> > for virtue. Virtue consists ONLY in adhering to good,
> > sound moral principles, and we have seen that
> > "veganism" has none.
> >
>
> Well stated, except for that last clause.
>
> > >
> > > You are trying to paint the act of eating brown rice, other grains
> and
> > > soy products as morbid and cavalier exercises in dietary excess.
> >
> > No, he isn't. He is saying you have NO basis for
> > declaring yourself "virtuous" with respect to your
> > impact on animals. He is right.
> >
> > >
> > > You couldn't be more wrong.
> >
> > Sorry; he is absolutely right.
> >
>
> I guess I'm going to go with "he's right" on this one too. I feel that
> generally anyone who declares themselves "virtuous" is probably
> confused on some level, it is simply too much of a generality to use
> without context. Also, there has indeed been NO basis given for me to
> know what your "impact on animals" is. That you avoid eating them when
> possible is a start, but who knows you could be slaughtering them
> wholesale in your spare time.
>
> > >
> > > Simply stated - i'll pass. You don't seem to have the intellectual
> > > faculties to follow a simple argument, or parse a simple sentence.
> And
> > > if your dull attacks are any indication your derived and irrelevant
> > > constructions are wholly pointless and spineless, and they are,
> then
> > > there isn't much to refute.
> >
> > He may not write scintillating prose, but his points
> > are generally right. "veganism" is morally bankrupt.
> >
>
> Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism" means.

Veganism means abstinence from "animal products".

If you don't even know what the term means how
can you offer an opinion on it?



[..]

Wow! You guys/girls must be mentally ill. Sorry. :-(

Wow! You guys/girls must be mentally ill. Sorry. :-(

CM1 wrote:
> This is off TOPIC,we are talking about BUMS!!!There are groups where
> this belongs but this isn't one of them.

Sez you anyway.

Well go ahead and cry me a mountain of crocodile tears then. You can't
stop me from posting this here, besides it is relevant.

CM1 wrote:
> This is off TOPIC,we are talking about BUMS!!!There are groups where
> this belongs but this isn't one of them.

Sez you anyway.

Well go ahead and cry me a mountain of crocodile tears then. You can't
stop me from posting this here, besides it is relevant.

wrote:
> Wow! You guys/girls must be mentally ill. Sorry. :-(

That was not an intelligent response. In fact, it was a total
whiff-off.

You really can't defend "veganism", can you? Is it because you know,
in your dirty heart, that it's indefensible? Or, is it that YOU know
YOU don't have any ability?

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > rick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > roups.com...
> > > >>
> > > >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book
attacks
> > > >>>and
> > > >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.
> > > >>
> > > >>=====================
> > > >>[..]
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism" means.
>
> Veganism means abstinence from "animal products".
>
> If you don't even know what the term means how
> can you offer an opinion on it?
>
>

Good question. It has been pointed out here that one can't really
abstain from "animal products". After all, we are animals - even
vegetables rely on animals to grow, for nitrogen in the soil and CO2 in
the air.

I think veganism would be better defined as a dietary preference.

> wrote
> Wow! You guys/girls must be mentally ill. Sorry. :-(

Wow, that's an even bigger whiff-off than I expected!

wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > rick wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > roups.com...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book
> attacks
> > > > >>>and
> > > > >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and
soft.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>=====================
> > > > >>[..]
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism" means.
> >
> > Veganism means abstinence from "animal products".
> >
> > If you don't even know what the term means how
> > can you offer an opinion on it?
> >
> >
>
> Good question. It has been pointed out here that one can't really
> abstain from "animal products". After all, we are animals - even
> vegetables rely on animals to grow, for nitrogen in the soil and CO2
in
> the air.
>
> I think veganism would be better defined as a dietary preference.

It supposedly means not consuming anything made from animal parts
(meat, wool, leather, etc.) nor things made by animals (honey), nor
things made where the process involved animal parts (cosmetics tested
on animals). Of course, this last one means "vegans" must NEVER, EVER
take prescription medicines, as all prescription drugs are tested on
animals in the initial phase of testing to obtain regulatory approval.
Of course, virtually no "vegan" anywhere would forego a life-saving
prescription drug.

I also have to wonder what "vegans" think of people using animals in
agricultural production, as still occurs a lot in the third world.
This surely MUST be viewed as exploitation, as the animals do not give
informed consent to be used in this manner.

"Derek" > wrote
> On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700, wrote:
>
> >> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
> >> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
> >> be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your
> >> handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.
> >
> >Potent observation.
>
> More a snide remark, really, but probably true. Without
> the convenience of a keyboard, Rick would certainly
> be utterly incomprehensible.

Ad hominem attack noted.

He may be extremely articulate in person, yet a poor typist
and/or a poor speller. I have known such people. I wonder
if you can carry on a decent conversation in person...


> >Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack
> >on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this:
> >
> >http://www.lessmeat.com
>
> In a broad sense, yes, so the meatie-centric tent do their
> best to address that death imbalance by referring their
> critics to the collateral deaths of small animals associated
> with the production of their own food: veg.

Was the reference to size intended to mitigate the importance
of collateral deaths, if not why mention it?

> Meatarians

No such word, and the suggested parallel construction
with "vegetarian" fails. The use of nonsense words is
just one more bit of vegan rhetoric.

> kill vicariously for food, and their task is to force through
> the proposition that vegans kill vicariously for food as well.

No force is needed, the proposition is self-evident.

> >The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something
> >better to do. But i could be wrong.
> >
> >i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie apologists
> >here quite absurd.
>
> Tactically, yes.

The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming.
Veganism falls before it, witness the empty responses by our new
friend. You know it too, but you have chosen to mount your silly
counters to it, presumably as some form of intellectual exercise.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
> > Dutch wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > rick wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > >
roups.com...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book
> > attacks
> > > > > >>>and
> > > > > >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and
> soft.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>=====================
> > > > > >>[..]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism" means.
> > >
> > > Veganism means abstinence from "animal products".
> > >
> > > If you don't even know what the term means how
> > > can you offer an opinion on it?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Good question. It has been pointed out here that one can't really
> > abstain from "animal products". After all, we are animals - even
> > vegetables rely on animals to grow, for nitrogen in the soil and
CO2
> in
> > the air.
> >
> > I think veganism would be better defined as a dietary preference.
>
> It supposedly means not consuming anything made from animal parts
> (meat, wool, leather, etc.) nor things made by animals (honey), nor
> things made where the process involved animal parts (cosmetics tested
> on animals). Of course, this last one means "vegans" must NEVER,
EVER
> take prescription medicines, as all prescription drugs are tested on
> animals in the initial phase of testing to obtain regulatory
approval.
> Of course, virtually no "vegan" anywhere would forego a life-saving
> prescription drug.
>
> I also have to wonder what "vegans" think of people using animals in
> agricultural production, as still occurs a lot in the third world.
> This surely MUST be viewed as exploitation, as the animals do not
give
> informed consent to be used in this manner.



That supposed definition sure does have a lot of flaws, as you point
out.

Another one - perhaps eating flowering plants is taking advantage of
the pollenators (things made by animals) ?

Indeed, if someone avoids honey because it was collected by animals -
they should avoid wheat which was collected by human animals.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wow! You guys/girls must be mentally ill. Sorry. :-(
=====================
Nice dodge, killer. You ran away even faster than most of the
ignorant vegan wannabes do.
Must be that you're even less able to state your lunacy than
others, eh fool?



>

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > rick wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > roups.com...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book
> attacks
> > > > >>>and
> > > > >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>=====================
> > > > >>[..]
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism" means.
> >
> > Veganism means abstinence from "animal products".
> >
> > If you don't even know what the term means how
> > can you offer an opinion on it?
> >
> >
>
> Good question. It has been pointed out here that one can't really
> abstain from "animal products". After all, we are animals - even
> vegetables rely on animals to grow, for nitrogen in the soil and CO2 in
> the air.

Just one more example of the irrationality of it...

> I think veganism would be better defined as a dietary preference.

No, that's vegetarianism. Veganism includes not wearing leather or
silk, using beeswax or other products that contain animal parts. The
presumption *clearly* is that by removing the *visible evidence* of
animal death from one's life, a death-free existence is attained. This
is believed implicitly and stated explicitly on many vegan publications.
This expresses the fallacy mentioned by Rudy to a tee.

> wrote
> Indeed, if someone avoids honey because it was collected by animals -
> they should avoid wheat which was collected by human animals.

No, because humans can give consent.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > rick wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote in message
>> > > roups.com...
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the
>> > > >>>book
> attacks
>> > > >>>and
>> > > >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless
>> > > >>>and soft.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>=====================
>> > > >>[..]
>> > >
>> >
>> > Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism"
>> > means.
>>
>> Veganism means abstinence from "animal products".
>>
>> If you don't even know what the term means how
>> can you offer an opinion on it?
>>
>>
>
> Good question. It has been pointed out here that one can't
> really
> abstain from "animal products". After all, we are animals -
> even
> vegetables rely on animals to grow, for nitrogen in the soil
> and CO2 in
> the air.
>
> I think veganism would be better defined as a dietary
> preference.
=================
Only for those too lazy or too ignorant to know the real meaning.
Here's the meaning, as defined by the guy who MADE the word up...
"...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
wholly or in part from animals..."
http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

From the same site..
"... Vegan Nomenclature If you are thinking to yourself, "But
I'm a vegan for health reasons" or "I'm a vegan for environmental
reasons," please reconsider how you label yourself. Unlike the
word vegetarian, the word vegan specifically implies moral
concern for animals, and this concern extends to all areas of
life, not just diet. If you do not believe in animal equality,
please consider referring to yourself as someone who doesn't eat
animal products, as one who follows a plant-based diet, or as one
who follows a vegan diet. Additionally, anyone who eats honey,
yet refers to herself as a vegan, makes life difficult for other
vegans--it's like having someone who eats fish and calls herself
a vegetarian. When a vegetarian comes along, it is much harder
for her to explain that fish is not acceptable for
vegetarians..."






>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > rick wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote in message
>> > > roups.com...
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the
>> > > >>>book
> attacks
>> > > >>>and
>> > > >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless
>> > > >>>and soft.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>=====================
>> > > >>[..]
>> > >
>> >
>> > Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism"
>> > means.
>>
>> Veganism means abstinence from "animal products".
>>
>> If you don't even know what the term means how
>> can you offer an opinion on it?
>>
>>
>
> Good question. It has been pointed out here that one can't
> really
> abstain from "animal products". After all, we are animals -
> even
> vegetables rely on animals to grow, for nitrogen in the soil
> and CO2 in
> the air.
>
> I think veganism would be better defined as a dietary
> preference.
=================
Only for those too lazy or too ignorant to know the real meaning.
Here's the meaning, as defined by the guy who MADE the word up...
"...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
wholly or in part from animals..."
http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

From the same site..
"... Vegan Nomenclature If you are thinking to yourself, "But
I'm a vegan for health reasons" or "I'm a vegan for environmental
reasons," please reconsider how you label yourself. Unlike the
word vegetarian, the word vegan specifically implies moral
concern for animals, and this concern extends to all areas of
life, not just diet. If you do not believe in animal equality,
please consider referring to yourself as someone who doesn't eat
animal products, as one who follows a plant-based diet, or as one
who follows a vegan diet. Additionally, anyone who eats honey,
yet refers to herself as a vegan, makes life difficult for other
vegans--it's like having someone who eats fish and calls herself
a vegetarian. When a vegetarian comes along, it is much harder
for her to explain that fish is not acceptable for
vegetarians..."






>

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Derek" > wrote
>> On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
>> >> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
>> >> be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that
>> >> your
>> >> handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.
>> >
>> >Potent observation.
>>
>> More a snide remark, really, but probably true. Without
>> the convenience of a keyboard, Rick would certainly
>> be utterly incomprehensible.
>
> Ad hominem attack noted.
>
> He may be extremely articulate in person, yet a poor typist
> and/or a poor speller. I have known such people. I wonder
> if you can carry on a decent conversation in person...
> ====================
I am a poor typist, but the main problem lately has been spitting
crap in the keyboard from the outragious things vegans continue
to say! My keyboard is currently having trouble with R, F, and
C keys. Since they are in the same column basically, I'm
thinking there's something that is common from the soda that last
went down the keys.



snip...

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Derek" > wrote
>> On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
>> >> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
>> >> be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that
>> >> your
>> >> handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.
>> >
>> >Potent observation.
>>
>> More a snide remark, really, but probably true. Without
>> the convenience of a keyboard, Rick would certainly
>> be utterly incomprehensible.
>
> Ad hominem attack noted.
>
> He may be extremely articulate in person, yet a poor typist
> and/or a poor speller. I have known such people. I wonder
> if you can carry on a decent conversation in person...
> ====================
I am a poor typist, but the main problem lately has been spitting
crap in the keyboard from the outragious things vegans continue
to say! My keyboard is currently having trouble with R, F, and
C keys. Since they are in the same column basically, I'm
thinking there's something that is common from the soda that last
went down the keys.



snip...

It's not relevent in this group moron!

CM1 wrote:
> It's not relevent in this group moron!

Just because you are from all appearances extremely inarticulate and
duly misinformed does not mean that this topic is not relevant to the
alt.society.homeless usenet group.

i choose to make it relevant. Duh!

Your hateful diatribe coupled with your trademark clueless meanderings
speaks for itself.

Besides, i'm waiting for you to add something of relevance here
yourself, instead of your completely worthless by the book childish
insults, instead of just calling everyone you disagree with a worthless
bum. You seek only to marginalize discussions and promote discord, or
so it would seem, all the while spitting vile and incourageously
labelling others, with your hateful and accusatory tone, as your only
means to deflect guilt and mitigate blame. And as an avoidance gesture.


And it should be noted that it happens that you fit in rather well with
this out to lunch pro-meatie crowd at the vegan newsgroup. Trolls all.
How sad. ;-)

CM1 wrote:
> It's not relevent in this group moron!

Just because you are from all appearances extremely inarticulate and
duly misinformed does not mean that this topic is not relevant to the
alt.society.homeless usenet group.

i choose to make it relevant. Duh!

Your hateful diatribe coupled with your trademark clueless meanderings
speaks for itself.

Besides, i'm waiting for you to add something of relevance here
yourself, instead of your completely worthless by the book childish
insults, instead of just calling everyone you disagree with a worthless
bum. You seek only to marginalize discussions and promote discord, or
so it would seem, all the while spitting vile and incourageously
labelling others, with your hateful and accusatory tone, as your only
means to deflect guilt and mitigate blame. And as an avoidance gesture.


And it should be noted that it happens that you fit in rather well with
this out to lunch pro-meatie crowd at the vegan newsgroup. Trolls all.
How sad. ;-)

wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > rick wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> roups.com...
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book
> > > attacks
> > > > > > >>>and
> > > > > > >>>hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and
> > soft.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>=====================
> > > > > > >>[..]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism"
means.
> > > >
> > > > Veganism means abstinence from "animal products".
> > > >
> > > > If you don't even know what the term means how
> > > > can you offer an opinion on it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Good question. It has been pointed out here that one can't
really
> > > abstain from "animal products". After all, we are animals - even
> > > vegetables rely on animals to grow, for nitrogen in the soil and
> CO2
> > in
> > > the air.
> > >
> > > I think veganism would be better defined as a dietary preference.
> >
> > It supposedly means not consuming anything made from animal parts
> > (meat, wool, leather, etc.) nor things made by animals (honey), nor
> > things made where the process involved animal parts (cosmetics
tested
> > on animals). Of course, this last one means "vegans" must NEVER,
> EVER
> > take prescription medicines, as all prescription drugs are tested
on
> > animals in the initial phase of testing to obtain regulatory
> approval.
> > Of course, virtually no "vegan" anywhere would forego a life-saving
> > prescription drug.
> >
> > I also have to wonder what "vegans" think of people using animals
in
> > agricultural production, as still occurs a lot in the third world.
> > This surely MUST be viewed as exploitation, as the animals do not
> give
> > informed consent to be used in this manner.
>
>
>
> That supposed definition sure does have a lot of flaws, as you point
> out.

On the contrary - I think it's a GREAT definition, because it shows how
fatally flawed "veganism" as any kind of moral response to an alleged
moral problem. As soon as you see that "veganism" consists of nothing
more than adhering to a principle-free rule - "don't consume animal
parts" - you are well on your way to seeing that "veganism" is
ethically bankrupt and has nothing to offer.

>
> Another one - perhaps eating flowering plants is taking advantage of
> the pollenators (things made by animals) ?
>
> Indeed, if someone avoids honey because it was collected by animals -
> they should avoid wheat which was collected by human animals.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he?
Thanks for demonstrating YOUR ethics, ability to pose a rational
argument, and brilliant command of the English language.

Laurie

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

>> That's why i'm a vegan.
>
us> Wrong again. You're a vegan because you're too mentally and morally weak
> to do things that actually matter; you prefer mindless pontificating to
> practicing what you preach. Keep reading.
Now, you can read minds?

Laurie

On Mon, 2 May 2005 11:42:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
>> >> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
>> >> be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your
>> >> handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.
>> >
>> >Potent observation.
>>
>> More a snide remark, really, but probably true. Without
>> the convenience of a keyboard, Rick would certainly
>> be utterly incomprehensible.
>
>Ad hominem attack noted.
>
>He may be extremely articulate in person, yet a poor typist
>and/or a poor speller.

I was referring to his handwriting, you imbecile. Can't
you read?

> I have known such people.

Blimey!

>I wonder if you can carry on a decent conversation in person...

You don't wonder about that at all.

>> >Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack
>> >on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this:
>> >
>> >http://www.lessmeat.com
>>
>> In a broad sense, yes, so the meatie-centric tent do their
>> best to address that death imbalance by referring their
>> critics to the collateral deaths of small animals associated
>> with the production of their own food: veg.
>
>Was the reference to size intended to mitigate the importance
>of collateral deaths,

No.

>if not why mention it?

Because the field animals that usually get caught up in
farm machinery or poisoned with pesticides are generally
of the smallish variety. Mind you, the dolphins and other
cetacean bycatches associated *solely* with meatarians
are often quite huge by comparison, if size is the issue
with you here.

[About 2.3 billion pounds of sea life were discarded in
the U.S. in 2000 alone, and thousands of the ocean's
most charismatic species - including sea turtles, marine
mammals, sharks and seabirds - are killed each year
by fishing nets, lines and hooks. These deaths have
implications for both marine populations and marine
food webs.

"Considering the documented decline in global fisheries,
this kind of waste is unacceptable. But because this
travesty is unseen by most people, it continues," said
Dr. Crowder.

Experts agree that bottom trawls are one of the worst
offenders, entrapping

**vast numbers of non-targeted animals.**

"The first time I was on a trawler, I was appalled to see
that for every pound of shrimp caught there were 20
pounds of sharks, rays, crabs, and starfish killed. The
shrimpers called this bycatch 'trawl trash' - I call it
'biodiversity'," noted Elliott Norse of the Marine
Conservation Biology Institute. "Of course I recognize
in some trawls it could be only one pound - in others
100 pounds for every pound of shrimp."

**This bycatch is not the only collateral damage**

associated with fishing. Many experts agreed that habitat
destruction that some fishing gears cause is even more
ecologically damaging than the harm caused by bycatch.]
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/innews/destfish2003.htm

[Greenpeace has joined forces with the UK- based
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action
against fisheries found to be responsible for these
cetacean bycatches.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm

As you can see, Greenpeace and the Whale and Dolphin
Conservation Society readily acknowledge that fisheries
must be held responsible and punished for the collateral
deaths they cause, and the same must be said of the CD-
causing farmer growing crops.

>> Meatarians
>
>No such word, and the suggested parallel construction
>with "vegetarian" fails.

Obviously not, since even you picked it up easily enough.

>> kill vicariously for food, and their task is to force through
>> the proposition that vegans kill vicariously for food as well.
>
>No force is needed, the proposition is self-evident.

No, it isn't. Though animals die during crop production,
they are not at the behest of the vegan. Though
animals die during farmed meat production, they are
at the behest of the meatarian.

>> >The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something
>> >better to do. But i could be wrong.
>> >
>> >i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie apologists
>> >here quite absurd.
>>
>> Tactically, yes.
>
>The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming.

Yet earlier you wrote that, "Since the phenomenon is
virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental
credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n
beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

They're still just as immeasurable as ever they were, so
I've no reason to believe you're at all sincere on this
issue while trying to blame vegans now.

>Veganism falls before it

Rather, the collateral deaths argument hoists you on
your own petard, since your diet accrues the most.

"The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing,
it enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns
that their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering.
Antis attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting
veg*n diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually
unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental
credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n
beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

Like you say, "Antis *attempt* to parlay this into
completely discrediting veg*n diet claims.", but that
attempt always fails.

CM1 wrote:
> It's not relevent in this group moron!

Just because you are from all appearances extremely inarticulate and
duly misinformed does not mean that this topic is not relevant to the
alt.society.homeless usenet group.

i choose to make it relevant. Duh!

Your hateful diatribe coupled with your trademark clueless meanderings
speaks for itself. Besides, i'm waiting for you to add something of
relevance here yourself, instead of your completely worthless by the
book childish insults, instead of just calling everyone you disagree
with a worthless lazy bum.

You seek only to marginalize discussions and promote discord, or so it
would seem, all the while spitting vile and incourageously labelling
others, with your hateful and accusatory tone, as your only means to
deflect guilt and mitigate blame. And as an avoidance gesture.

And it should be noted that it happens that you fit in rather well with
this out to lunch pro-meatie crowd at the vegan newsgroup. Trolls all.
How sad. ;-)

> someone stated:
> that the vegan diet causes less animal suffering.

If i am not eating the flesh of a dead animal, whose entire life
consisted of nothing but horrific torture abitrary suffering and
wholesale mistreatment, then it is abundantly clear and extremely
obvious to anyone that eating a vegan, ie. non-animal diet, causes less
suffering, and therefore is more compassionate.

i don't see why the meatarians/meatie apologists here blatantly fail to
recognize this extremely cogent fact.

Larry Fruity blabbered:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> That's why i'm a vegan.
> >
> us> Wrong again. You're a vegan because you're too mentally and
morally weak
> > to do things that actually matter; you prefer mindless
pontificating to
> > practicing what you preach. Keep reading.
> Now, you can read minds?

He doesn't need to read minds, Fruity. The mental illness and rank
hypocrisy of "vegans" is fully demonstrated. If a person declares
himself "vegan", he has announced that he is mentally ill and a
hypocrite.

wrote:
> > someone stated:
> > that the vegan diet causes less animal suffering.
>
> If i am not eating the flesh of a dead animal, whose entire life
> consisted of nothing but horrific torture abitrary suffering and
> wholesale mistreatment, then it is abundantly clear and extremely
> obvious to anyone that eating a vegan, ie. non-animal diet, causes
less
> suffering, and therefore is more compassionate.

No. What about the horrific death-by-shredding of the animals of the
field who are chopped to bits in the course of producing the food YOU
eat? How is that compassionate?

It's all about the disposition of the corpses, isn't it? Because you
leave the animals killed for you diet to rot in the field, rather than
eating them, you consider yourself "compassionate". You aren't.


>
> i don't see why the meatarians/meatie apologists here blatantly fail
to
> recognize this extremely cogent fact.

It isn't a fact. It's a flatulence.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> someone stated:
>> that the vegan diet causes less animal suffering.
>
> If i am not eating the flesh of a dead animal, whose entire
> life
> consisted of nothing but horrific torture abitrary suffering
> and
> wholesale mistreatment,
=====================
LOL You really don't have a clue do you? Yopu've let others do
all your thinking for you, so now all you have to do is spew the
same ignorant lys over and over.



then it is abundantly clear and extremely
> obvious to anyone that eating a vegan, ie. non-animal diet,
> causes less
> suffering, and therefore is more compassionate.
=================
Nice strawmen youve lined up there fool. Too bad they've all
been knocked down...


>
> i don't see why the meatarians/meatie apologists here blatantly
> fail to
> recognize this extremely cogent fact.
=================
Maybe because it's an extremely blatant ly, killer. Do try to
come up with more than just trite, wornout lys, fool.


>

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > rick wrote:
> > > > > > > >[...]
>
> On the contrary - I think it's a GREAT definition, because it shows
how
> fatally flawed "veganism" as any kind of moral response to an alleged
> moral problem. As soon as you see that "veganism" consists of
nothing
> more than adhering to a principle-free rule - "don't consume animal
> parts" - you are well on your way to seeing that "veganism" is
> ethically bankrupt and has nothing to offer.
>

As soon as YOU see that "veganism" consists of nothing more than a
PREFERENCE for adhering to a principle-free rule "don't consume animal
parts" - you WILL BE well on your way to eating some tasty foods.

In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground about
huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling yourself
"vegan" often nets you a better meal.

That's really all there is to it!

Bon appetit -

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > rick wrote:
> > > > > > > >[...]
>
> On the contrary - I think it's a GREAT definition, because it shows
how
> fatally flawed "veganism" as any kind of moral response to an alleged
> moral problem. As soon as you see that "veganism" consists of
nothing
> more than adhering to a principle-free rule - "don't consume animal
> parts" - you are well on your way to seeing that "veganism" is
> ethically bankrupt and has nothing to offer.
>

As soon as YOU see that "veganism" consists of nothing more than a
PREFERENCE for adhering to a principle-free rule "don't consume animal
parts" - you WILL BE well on your way to eating some tasty foods.

In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground about
huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling yourself
"vegan" often nets you a better meal.

That's really all there is to it!

Bon appetit -

wrote:
<...>
> I'm not even sure what a "vegan" diet is,

It's an eating disorder.

<...>
>>This is what every "vegan" does. They all begin by
>>committing a classical logical fallacy: the fallacy of
>>Denying the Antecedent:
>>
>> if I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die
>
> Indeed, you have presented this logical fallacy quite well. But is
> this what -every- "vegan" thinks?

Yes. See "pinnochiojones'" denials.

> Not necessarily.

Yes. Necessarily. It is the doctrine upon which veganism exists. Don't
confuse veganism for vegetarianism (whether or not it includes certain
foods). Veganism is a philosophy about animal rights, it is NOT about food:

Those who avoid animal products for reasons of
health (eg, due to allergies, or to avoid
cholesterol), rather than compassion sometimes
describe themselves as "dietary vegans". However,
popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak argues that
this term is inappropriate because veganism is by
definition about helping animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan

There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
shoes.
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

One may be a strict vegetarian for health reasons, but by definition a
vegan is concerned about animal rights and living by a peculiar philosophy.

>>But you DO cause animals to suffer and die: the
>>animals who are chopped to bits in the course of
>>producing vegetable crops, and the animals that are
>>deliberately killed around food storage facilities to
>>prevent loss due to eating and contamination.
>>
>>The problem with "veganism" is that the stupid,
>>****witted rule - "don't consume animal parts" - is NOT
>>based on any legitimate moral principle.
>
> What about the principle of taking care of your health?

That has NOTHING whatsoever to do with veganism. Vegetarians and
flexitarians may be health-oriented, but vegans aren't.

> Anyway, I agree that is a stupid rule - it isn't a rule but a guideline
> - one with many exceptions that SHOULD be acknowledged by so-called
> "vegans". I for one am very willing to acknowledge them, though I
> might see more exceptions than others like ScentedNectar or Pearl.

Then you're not a vegan.

>>But the rule
>>is the totality of "veganism", and we clearly can see
>>that it does not lead to a zero-death outcome.
>>
>>"vegans" next back away from their demonstrably false
>>claim that they don't kill animals, and actually make
>>their moral position worse, because they then engage in
>>a despicable, deceitful counting game. They claim that
>>although they do cause animal deaths, they cause fewer
>>of them than meat eaters. This is deceitful, because
>>they have never counted, and don't ever intend to
>>count. It is despicable because it makes perfectly
>>clear that what they are about is their self-exaltation
>>over others whom they demonized in the first place.
>
> Agreed, sort of. The problem is that we are being too general. One
> can't count all the CDs of "meat" or "vegetables".. insead we should
> compare for individual items. E.g., what about this texas boiler vs.
> this organic brocolli? What about this cup of starbucks vs. this cup
> of organic fair trade?

No, try this instead: what about local foods in season versus stuff
shipped in from faraway? The whole idea of a least harm principle (LHP)
diet should count ALL deaths, not just the ones that end up as food. If
all deaths count, one can include meat in one's diet and cause less
harm. That's especially true if the meat is from large grazed ruminants,
self-caught fish, wild-game. Reducing consumption of grains would also
reduce harm you personally cause animals, as would growing your produce.
But the inclusion of meat in one's diet, in and of itself, doesn't add
significantly to a body count; those who object to meat on that ground
are in a sense objecting to the death of one more (or what I've
previously called "objecting only to the 1001st death" because vegans
refuse to count deaths 1-1000 caused by their own diets).

>>First of all, virtue is NEVER shown by means of a
>>comparison with others; no worthwhile philosophy of
>>ethics, at any stage in the history of philosophy, has
>>ever said that you are virtuous if you do less of some
>>bad thing than someone else. This is because virtue
>>consists SOLELY in adhering to some set of moral
>>principles - and we have already seen that "veganism"
>>has NO principle at its base.
>
> We haven't seen that. We've seen some advocates of "veganism" speaking
> false principlels; this doesn't mean no good principles exist.

Show us some then.

>>We can further see why the counting game is invalid by
>>conducting this little thought experiment. Suppose you
>>cause 50 animal deaths a week, and your meat-eating
>>neighbor causes 100. You strut around patting yourself
>>on the back because the ratio of his deaths to yours
>>looks pretty good for you: 2:1. Now, suppose due to
>>some changes in the technology of agriculture, his diet
>>causes 300 deaths per week, while yours increases its
>>death toll to 100 per week. Wow! The ratio is even
>>more in your favor now: 3:1! But...WHAT THE ****ING
>>HELL: You now are causing TWICE as many deaths as you
>>used to cause. The ratio has gotten decidedly better
>>for you, but it simply CANNOT be a morally good outcome
>>that you are now causing twice as many deaths as before.
>>
>>Comparing yourself to others as a basis for
>>establishing your virtue simply cannot be a valid basis
>>for virtue. Virtue consists ONLY in adhering to good,
>>sound moral principles, and we have seen that
>>"veganism" has none.
>
> Well stated, except for that last clause.

Wrong. Veganism is about passing the buck. Complain about one animal
death which results in 1000 meals, but ignore 1000 dead animals which
die in the course of food production. The same is true with respect to
the arguments about use of resources (e.g., advocating consumption of
soy-based meat substitutes even though they require more inputs per
pound of product than meat itself does).

Veganism may look good on the surface, but it just doesn't translate in
the real world.

<...>
>>Sorry; he is absolutely right.
>
> I guess I'm going to go with "he's right" on this one too. I feel that
> generally anyone who declares themselves "virtuous" is probably
> confused on some level, it is simply too much of a generality to use
> without context. Also, there has indeed been NO basis given for me to
> know what your "impact on animals" is. That you avoid eating them when
> possible is a start, but who knows you could be slaughtering them
> wholesale in your spare time.

The OP's question about brown rice indicates as much. The OP doesn't
realize that rice farming is not bloodless or compassionate for animals.
Some more honest vegans have addressed this.
[i]t appears that rice, when sown and harvested mechanically,
takes the greatest toll on higher animals, especially
amphibians. This is because rice paddies can support large
populations of animals in a relatively small area. Again,
accurate figures are not available for the numbers of animals
killed in rice production, and some (but by no means all)
organic rice growers provide valuable habitat for migratory
birds and other large animals, working to avoid lethal clashes
with them. Still, if you believe that a frog's life counts as
much as a bird's, consumption of commercially grown rice (with
the rare, expensive exception of hand-harvested wild rice) is
problematic at best.
(from "Some Hard Truths for Vegans": http://veganic.net/Xtra.html)

<...>
>>He may not write scintillating prose, but his points
>>are generally right. "veganism" is morally bankrupt.
>
> Perhaps so. Again, I don't really know what "veganism" means.

See above. Distinguish between vegetarianism (for health reasons) and
veganism. Veganism is NOT about food or diets, it's an animal
rights-based philosophy.

> The
> only way to define it that makes sense to me does not imply moral
> bankrupcy, it implies a taste which prefers plants as foods.

That's vegetarianism, not veganism.

> Quite a natural tendancy for primates such as ourselves.

Primates, such as humans, are natural omnivores.

wrote:
> Wow! You guys/girls must be mentally ill. Sorry. :-(

I see you're left incapable of substantive responses and must now resort
to ad hominems. I'm not surprised.

wrote:
<...>
> I think veganism would be better defined as a dietary preference.

Why and on what grounds?

Those who avoid animal products for reasons of
health (eg, due to allergies, or to avoid
cholesterol), rather than compassion sometimes
describe themselves as "dietary vegans". However,
popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak argues that
this term is inappropriate because veganism is by
definition about helping animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan

There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
shoes.
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

Veganism is a philosopy, a religion. It has little (or nothing) to do
with what you eat, just what you believe. If you believe animals are
harmed and accordingly don't eat them, then you're a vegan. If you're
concerned with your own tastes and health without an overriding concern
for animal rights, you're just a vegetarian.

wrote:
>>It's not relevent in this group moron!
>
> Just because you are from all appearances extremely inarticulate and
> duly misinformed

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

<...>
> And it should be noted that it happens that you fit in rather well with
> this out to lunch pro-meatie crowd at the vegan newsgroup.

Take a look at your cross-posts sometime, dummy. And while you're at it,
stop ****ing that old strawman up the ass: noting that meat can be
healthful or be part of a least-harm diet isn't "pro-meat." It's just
being honest.

> Trolls all.

You don't know what a troll is.

> How sad. ;-)

You sure are. How old are you, 11?

wrote:
>>It's not relevent in this group moron!
>
> Just because you are from all appearances extremely inarticulate and
> duly misinformed

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

<...>
> And it should be noted that it happens that you fit in rather well with
> this out to lunch pro-meatie crowd at the vegan newsgroup.

Take a look at your cross-posts sometime, dummy. And while you're at it,
stop ****ing that old strawman up the ass: noting that meat can be
healthful or be part of a least-harm diet isn't "pro-meat." It's just
being honest.

> Trolls all.

You don't know what a troll is.

> How sad. ;-)

You sure are. How old are you, 11?

Larry Fruity wrote:
>>>That's why i'm a vegan.
>>
>>Wrong again. You're a vegan because you're too mentally and morally weak
>>to do things that actually matter; you prefer mindless pontificating to
>>practicing what you preach. Keep reading.
>
> Now, you can read minds?

Paranormal activities aren't required to understand vegans and why
they're vegans. If you need some assistance in understanding paranormal
issues, consult with Lesley. She buys into such pseudoscience. Then
again, so do you. ****.