I am interested in the reasons vegans have for avoiding insects and insect
products. I do not believe even strict vegans think *all* animal life
must not be killed, so at some point a value judgement is made as to which
animals may be killed. I want to understand how people make that
decision. If you think even microscopic animals may not be killed,
please explain how you avoid directly or indirectly killing them.

Please rank in order of value of life:

Insects
Segmented worms
Copepods
Tardigrades
Rotifers
Flatworms
Roundworms
Jellyfish
(any other animal types you want to add)

Where do you set the cutoff for morally acceptable killing? Why is it
acceptable to kill some animals but not others? Does the reason for
killing make any difference?

"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message
news
> I am interested in the reasons vegans have for avoiding insects and insect
> products. I do not believe even strict vegans think *all* animal life
> must not be killed, so at some point a value judgement is made as to which
> animals may be killed. I want to understand how people make that
> decision. If you think even microscopic animals may not be killed,
> please explain how you avoid directly or indirectly killing them.
>
> Please rank in order of value of life:
>
> Insects
> Segmented worms
> Copepods
> Tardigrades
> Rotifers
> Flatworms
> Roundworms
> Jellyfish
> (any other animal types you want to add)
>
> Where do you set the cutoff for morally acceptable killing? Why is it
> acceptable to kill some animals but not others? Does the reason for
> killing make any difference?

To me the difference is in ability
to avoid the deaths combined
with what role the animals play.
For instance, if I ever became
infested with itch mites, I would
not hesitate to take measures
to kill them, as they are behaving
parasitically and causing me
problems. I also would not
hesitate to kill aphids which are
competing with me for my food.
Other than situations like that,
there are some deaths that are
not likeable, but unavoidable,
like field animals harmed by
farm machinery. That's a case
where I wish there was a way to
avoid it, but I realize that there
isn't unless growing all ones
own food in a more careful
manner. Some types of bug
deaths I find distasteful, such
as when people kill butterflies
merely to add them to their
collections, yet clothes moths
I don't find their deaths
distasteful. I guess it all boils
down to pests and competition
for items like food and clothes
make the killing ok, but
gratuitous killing does not seem
ok.


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

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:32:56 -0400, Scented Nectar wrote:

> manner. Some types of bug
> deaths I find distasteful, such
> as when people kill butterflies
> merely to add them to their
> collections, yet clothes moths
> I don't find their deaths
> distasteful. I guess it all boils
> down to pests and competition
> for items like food and clothes
> make the killing ok, but
> gratuitous killing does not seem
> ok.

How about raising insects for food? Insects don't even have proper
brains, only ganglia distributed throughout the body. Most insects are
happy in dark and cramped spaces, and have a higher conversion efficiency
than vertebrates. I think it is probably painless to kill insects by
freezing, and if not then high pressure steam would kill them almost
instantly. Why do vegans object to this?

"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:32:56 -0400, Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > manner. Some types of bug
> > deaths I find distasteful, such
> > as when people kill butterflies
> > merely to add them to their
> > collections, yet clothes moths
> > I don't find their deaths
> > distasteful. I guess it all boils
> > down to pests and competition
> > for items like food and clothes
> > make the killing ok, but
> > gratuitous killing does not seem
> > ok.
>
> How about raising insects for food? Insects don't even have proper
> brains, only ganglia distributed throughout the body. Most insects are
> happy in dark and cramped spaces, and have a higher conversion efficiency
> than vertebrates. I think it is probably painless to kill insects by
> freezing, and if not then high pressure steam would kill them almost
> instantly. Why do vegans object to this?

I don't know about anyone else, but I
think we were designed to get a bit
of extra protein by way of grubs, etc.
I personally could not eat them, as
aesthetically I am repulsed, but many
other primates do eat them. In fact a
number of human cultures do too. I
believe it's probably healthy. But then
there's the question of causing the
death of another animal. That, to me,
is secondary. I am vegetarian for
health reasons first off. The
benefits to the animals is just a
bonus, so if I wasn't repulsed by the
eating of bugs, I would do it for
health despite the fact that an animal
is killed. I would however, want the
life and death of those bugs to be as
painless as possible. Maybe if bugs
were bigger they wouldn't be so
repulsive. People eat shrimp and
crabs all the time and they don't
seem as repulsive as bugs even
though they look like giant ones.


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

"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message
news
>I am interested in the reasons vegans have for avoiding insects
>and insect
> products. I do not believe even strict vegans think *all*
> animal life
> must not be killed, so at some point a value judgement is made
> as to which
> animals may be killed. I want to understand how people make
> that
> decision. If you think even microscopic animals may not be
> killed,
> please explain how you avoid directly or indirectly killing
> them.
>
> Please rank in order of value of life:
>
> Insects
> Segmented worms
> Copepods
> Tardigrades
> Rotifers
> Flatworms
> Roundworms
> Jellyfish
> (any other animal types you want to add)
>
> Where do you set the cutoff for morally acceptable killing?
> Why is it
> acceptable to kill some animals but not others? Does the
> reason for
> killing make any difference?
========================
Why would they be concerned about bugs and such while they
contribute to the death and suffering of millions upon millions
of real animals. Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish.
Their entire food chain of crop production is all about killing
animals. The only thing they 'worry' about is having any little
micro-bits of meat in their food. They care nothing about the
animal dying, as long as they don't have to eat it!

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:07:42 +0000, rick wrote:

> Why would they be concerned about bugs and such while they
> contribute to the death and suffering of millions upon millions
> of real animals. Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish.
> Their entire food chain of crop production is all about killing
> animals. The only thing they 'worry' about is having any little
> micro-bits of meat in their food. They care nothing about the
> animal dying, as long as they don't have to eat it!

I'm not concerned about bugs at all (except for rare ones, as I support
biodiversity), but some vegans clearly are. I want to know how we can
assign value to life. The purpose of my original post was to illustrate
how the "all animal life is equal" philosophy is never followed in
practice, and should be considered invalid. This seriously complicates
the CDs "counting game", as everyone I've asked considers a common mouse
death as much less serious than a cow death, but if we heavily value
biodiversity some CDs may be much more serious.

There are other factors to consider when evaluating how wrong a death is:
how painful it was, how good a life the creature had, the purpose for
which the animal was killed, whether the animal actively competes with us,
whether the animal would otherwise follow a boon/bust population cycle,
etc.

I'm interested in whether it is possible to construct a logical and self
consistent moral philosophy that takes all of this into account, and what
lifestyle it would consider optimal.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:57:00 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:

> I want to know how we can assign value to life.

In short, by observing its moral status as something
that holds a right against moral agents that can do
it wrong by capriciously killing it. Rather than being
an end to some other means, like a tool or piece of
clothing, animals, like us are a means to themselves
rather than utilities, and it's on that basis that real
value, as opposed to utility value, inheres in them.

The question of whether we can assign value to
human life has been answered with a resounding
yes by all who ask, but whether that value inheres
in animals to the extent that such beings also hold
a right against moral agents isn't quite so clear to
most enquirers.

>The purpose of my original post was to illustrate
>how the "all animal life is equal" philosophy is never followed in
>practice, and should be considered invalid.

A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered
invalid simply because its adherents sometimes
fail to follow it precisely, or because others refuse
to accept it in the first place.

>This seriously complicates
>the CDs "counting game", as everyone I've asked considers a common mouse
>death as much less serious than a cow death, but if we heavily value
>biodiversity some CDs may be much more serious.

An animal's size doesn't add or take anything away
from its inherent value. If it did, elephants would
have more than we do. Also, mice and voles aren't
the only collateral deaths to be associated with food
production, and if we are to allow size to "complicate
the CDs counting game", then what of the sharks
and dolphins killed while fishing for shrimp?

[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

>There are other factors to consider when evaluating how wrong a death is:
>how painful it was,

I disagree. Please read the following I lifted from
the book, The Animal Rights Debate. It covers
this issue well, and Tom Regan puts it much better
than I can.

[… it is important to understand why, according
to the rights view, and according to Kant's view
as well, causing others to suffer is not the
fundamental moral wrong. The fundamental moral
wrong is that someone is treated with a lack of
respect. The suffering they are caused compounds
the wrong done, making a bad thing worse,
sometimes with tragic results. But that they are
made to suffer is itself a **consequence** of their
disrespectful treatment, not equivalent to such
treatment; as such, causing the innocent to suffer
is not the same as, is not identical with, disrespectful
treatment. Some examples will help clarify this
important point.

People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some
victims meet their end only after prolonged torture;
others are murdered without having suffered at all.
For example, a drink might be laced with an
undetectable lethal drug; then, without knowing
what has happened, the victim dies painlessly,
never having regained consciousness. If the
wrongness of the murder depended on how much
the victim suffered, we would be obliged to say
that painless murders are not wrong. But this is
absurd. How, then, can we account for why the
murder of the innocent is wrong even when the
victims do not suffer? And how can this account
be extended to cases where those who are murdered
suffer a great deal?

The rights view answers these questions as follows.
In cases in which innocent people are murdered
painlessly, their right to be treated with respect is
violated; that is what makes their murder wrong.
In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect,
only in these cases the wrong done is compounded
by how much the victims suffer. The suffering and
other harms people are made to endure at the hands
of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the
world. Still, according to the rights view, this
suffering and these other harms occur ** as a
consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much
as we would wish them away, the suffering and other
harms are not themselves the fundamental wrong.]
**Tom's emphasis**
Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199

>how good a life the creature had, the purpose for
>which the animal was killed, whether the animal actively competes with us,
>whether the animal would otherwise follow a boon/bust population cycle,
>etc.

I don't believe that any of those considerations
warrant the capricious killing of beings with
inherent value, except maybe "the purpose for
which the animal was killed."

>I'm interested in whether it is possible to construct a logical and self
>consistent moral philosophy that takes all of this into account, and what
>lifestyle it would consider optimal.

If by "optimal" you mean to say "which diet is
associated with the least collateral deaths", then
the vegan diet would be the more optimal since
it accrues the least when compared honestly
with a meat-centric diet.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:29:59 +0100, Derek wrote:

> The question of whether we can assign value to
> human life has been answered with a resounding
> yes by all who ask, but whether that value inheres
> in animals to the extent that such beings also hold
> a right against moral agents isn't quite so clear to
> most enquirers.

A jellyfish is an animal. Jellyfish do not have brains, hearts, blood, a
central nervous system, or even a complete digestive system. It's life
involves mostly drifting about doing nothing, and it's interaction with
it's environment is minimal.

An amoeba is a protist. Unlike a jellyfish it only has one cell, and
it's body is even simpler. However, it is capable of actively moving
about.

Why does the jellyfish have animal rights, but the amoeba lack them?

> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply because
> its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or because others
> refuse to accept it in the first place.

If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive. Religions
suffer from the same problem, but their followers at least acknowledge
their failings, or try to justify them. Most vegans claim all animals
have intrinsic rights and then ignore the microscopic ones.

> An animal's size doesn't add or take anything away from its inherent
> value. If it did, elephants would have more than we do. Also, mice and

So why don' vegans care about rotifers or nematodes?

> voles aren't the only collateral deaths to be associated with food
> production, and if we are to allow size to "complicate the CDs counting
> game", then what of the sharks and dolphins killed while fishing for
> shrimp?

This is well known, and good reason to consider net caught fish morally
inferior to line caught.

>>There are other factors to consider when evaluating how wrong a death
>>is: how painful it was,
>
>I disagree. Please read the following I lifted from
>the book, The Animal Rights Debate. It covers
>this issue well, and Tom Regan puts it much better
>than I can.
<snip>

This makes sense if you follow purely Kantian ethics. This is very
interesting, I hadn't though about it that way before.

>>how good a life the creature had, the purpose for which the animal was
>>killed, whether the animal actively competes with us, whether the animal
>>would otherwise follow a boon/bust population cycle, etc.
>
> I don't believe that any of those considerations warrant the capricious
> killing of beings with inherent value, except maybe "the purpose for
> which the animal was killed."

Arguably all the other factors are contained within "the purpose for
> which the animal was killed."

>>I'm interested in whether it is possible to construct a logical and self
>>consistent moral philosophy that takes all of this into account, and
>>what lifestyle it would consider optimal.
>
> If by "optimal" you mean to say "which diet is associated with the least
> collateral deaths", then the vegan diet would be the more optimal since
> it accrues the least when compared honestly with a meat-centric diet.

That definition of optimal depends on the assumption that animal death
count is important above all else. While it is possible to argue that, it
is inconsistent with real life vegans' callous attitude to microscopic
animal life.

I also have not seen any actual numbers proving that the typical vegan
diet results in lower death count than the grazing large herbivore model.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:49:07 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:29:59 +0100, Derek wrote:
>
>> The question of whether we can assign value to
>> human life has been answered with a resounding
>> yes by all who ask, but whether that value inheres
>> in animals to the extent that such beings also hold
>> a right against moral agents isn't quite so clear to
>> most enquirers.
>
>A jellyfish is an animal. Jellyfish do not have brains, hearts, blood, a
>central nervous system, or even a complete digestive system. It's life
>involves mostly drifting about doing nothing, and it's interaction with
>it's environment is minimal.
>
>An amoeba is a protist. Unlike a jellyfish it only has one cell, and
>it's body is even simpler. However, it is capable of actively moving
>about.
>
>Why does the jellyfish have animal rights, but the amoeba lack them?

If the jellyfish is as non-sentient and brainless as
you claim, then it's difficult to believe that such a
seemingly lifeless being can be wronged, and
therefore might not be viewed as a candidate
for rights by even the most ardent animal rights
advocates, but my belief is that sentience and
physical differences mean very little where
rights are concerned. The top half of my post
which you snipped away in your reply answers
why I believe such animals, irrespective of
their physical capabilities, hold inherent value
nonetheless.
<unsnip>
In short, by observing its moral status as something
that holds a right against moral agents that can do
it wrong by capriciously killing it. Rather than being
an end to some other means, like a tool or piece of
clothing, animals, like us are a means to themselves
rather than utilities, and it's on that basis that real
value, as opposed to utility value, inheres in them.
<endsnip>

>> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply because
>> its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or because others
>> refuse to accept it in the first place.
>
>If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive. Religions
>suffer from the same problem, but their followers at least acknowledge
>their failings, or try to justify them.

Again, rather than consider the philosophy you
make the error of focusing on the failings of its
adherents and then declare that the philosophy
is invalid. Many vegans acknowledge the fact
that, in a World where it is practically impossible
to divest oneself of all animal products and
derivatives, they "understand that veganism is not
about personal perfection or "purity," but rather
the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of
and cruelty to animals."

[The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was
coined by Donald Watson in 1944, and was at
once adopted by the group who founded The
Vegan Society in England later that year. The
Vegan Society was the first organized secular
group to promote a compassionate lifestyle.
Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted
as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:

"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.

In its Articles of Association, the legal documents
of the Society, a slightly different version is
presented:

"Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
living which seeks to exclude - as far as is
possible and practical - all forms of exploitation
of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or
any other purpose; and by extension, promotes
the development and use of animal-free
alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals,
and the environment."

Both interpretations begin by stating that
veganism is a "way of life," and "a philosophy."
Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects of
compassionate living, because in vegan practice
no one area is more significant than another; all
are expected to be implemented simultaneously.
In the second version, a disclaimer about
practicality has been inserted, revealing that the
founders acknowledged the impossibility of totally
divesting oneself of all animal products and
derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is
also critical because it helps practitioners
understand that veganism is not about personal
perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance
and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to
animals.]
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

>Most vegans claim all animals
>have intrinsic rights and then ignore the microscopic ones.

Ipse dixit and false.

>> An animal's size doesn't add or take anything away from its inherent
>> value. If it did, elephants would have more than we do. Also, mice and
>
>So why don' vegans care about rotifers or nematodes?

Ipse dixit and false.

>> voles aren't the only collateral deaths to be associated with food
>> production, and if we are to allow size to "complicate the CDs counting
>> game", then what of the sharks and dolphins killed while fishing for
>> shrimp?
>
>This is well known, and good reason to consider net caught fish morally
>inferior to line caught.

And good reason to consider that the morally better
option again would be not to catch any at all.

>>>There are other factors to consider when evaluating how wrong a death
>>>is: how painful it was,
>>
>>I disagree. Please read the following I lifted from
>>the book, The Animal Rights Debate. It covers
>>this issue well, and Tom Regan puts it much better
>>than I can.
><snip>
>
>This makes sense if you follow purely Kantian ethics. This is very
>interesting, I hadn't though about it that way before.
>
>>>how good a life the creature had, the purpose for which the animal was
>>>killed, whether the animal actively competes with us, whether the animal
>>>would otherwise follow a boon/bust population cycle, etc.
>>
>> I don't believe that any of those considerations warrant the capricious
>> killing of beings with inherent value, except maybe "the purpose for
>> which the animal was killed."
>
>Arguably all the other factors are contained within "the purpose for
>> which the animal was killed."
>
>>>I'm interested in whether it is possible to construct a logical and self
>>>consistent moral philosophy that takes all of this into account, and
>>>what lifestyle it would consider optimal.
>>
>> If by "optimal" you mean to say "which diet is associated with the least
>> collateral deaths", then the vegan diet would be the more optimal since
>> it accrues the least when compared honestly with a meat-centric diet.
>
>That definition of optimal depends on the assumption that animal death
>count is important above all else.

It isn't. The counting game, though in the vegan's
favour, means nothing.

>While it is possible to argue that, it
>is inconsistent with real life vegans' callous attitude to microscopic
>animal life.
>
>I also have not seen any actual numbers proving that the typical vegan
>diet results in lower death count than the grazing large herbivore model.

Some studies have been made, but even they
admittedly rely on guesswork. Here's something
(below) that you might like to read from a long-
time opponent of vegans on these animal-related
forums that explains the position of meat-eaters
who wrongly insist on playing the counting game;

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:09:21 +0100, Derek wrote:


> If the jellyfish is as non-sentient and brainless as
> you claim, then it's difficult to believe that such a
> seemingly lifeless being can be wronged, and
> therefore might not be viewed as a candidate
> for rights by even the most ardent animal rights
> advocates, but my belief is that sentience and
> physical differences mean very little where
> rights are concerned. The top half of my post
> which you snipped away in your reply answers
> why I believe such animals, irrespective of
> their physical capabilities, hold inherent value
> nonetheless.
> <unsnip>
> In short, by observing its moral status as something
> that holds a right against moral agents that can do
> it wrong by capriciously killing it. Rather than being
> an end to some other means, like a tool or piece of
> clothing, animals, like us are a means to themselves
> rather than utilities, and it's on that basis that real
> value, as opposed to utility value, inheres in them.
> <endsnip>

What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.

>>> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply because
>>> its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or because others
>>> refuse to accept it in the first place.
>>
>>If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive. Religions
>>suffer from the same problem, but their followers at least acknowledge
>>their failings, or try to justify them.
>
> Again, rather than consider the philosophy you
> make the error of focusing on the failings of its
> adherents and then declare that the philosophy
> is invalid. Many vegans acknowledge the fact
> that, in a World where it is practically impossible
> to divest oneself of all animal products and
> derivatives, they "understand that veganism is not
> about personal perfection or "purity," but rather
> the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of
> and cruelty to animals."
>
> [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was
> coined by Donald Watson in 1944, and was at
> once adopted by the group who founded The
> Vegan Society in England later that year. The
> Vegan Society was the first organized secular
> group to promote a compassionate lifestyle.
> Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted
> as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:
>
> "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.
>
> In its Articles of Association, the legal documents
> of the Society, a slightly different version is
> presented:
>
> "Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
> living which seeks to exclude - as far as is
> possible and practical - all forms of exploitation
> of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or
> any other purpose; and by extension, promotes
> the development and use of animal-free
> alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals,
> and the environment."
>
> Both interpretations begin by stating that
> veganism is a "way of life," and "a philosophy."
> Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects of
> compassionate living, because in vegan practice
> no one area is more significant than another; all
> are expected to be implemented simultaneously.
> In the second version, a disclaimer about
> practicality has been inserted, revealing that the
> founders acknowledged the impossibility of totally
> divesting oneself of all animal products and
> derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is

If microscopic animals are considered to have rights, then it is
impossible even in some idealised low human population primitive world.
If microscopic animals are not considered to have rights, then why do
insects have rights?

> also critical because it helps practitioners
> understand that veganism is not about personal
> perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance
> and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to
> animals.]
> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

Why is "reverence for life" exclusive with killing it? Death is a natural
part of life.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:13:34 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:09:21 +0100, Derek wrote:
>
>> If the jellyfish is as non-sentient and brainless as
>> you claim, then it's difficult to believe that such a
>> seemingly lifeless being can be wronged, and
>> therefore might not be viewed as a candidate
>> for rights by even the most ardent animal rights
>> advocates, but my belief is that sentience and
>> physical differences mean very little where
>> rights are concerned. The top half of my post
>> which you snipped away in your reply answers
>> why I believe such animals, irrespective of
>> their physical capabilities, hold inherent value
>> nonetheless.
>> <unsnip>
>> In short, by observing its moral status as something
>> that holds a right against moral agents that can do
>> it wrong by capriciously killing it. Rather than being
>> an end to some other means, like a tool or piece of
>> clothing, animals, like us are a means to themselves
>> rather than utilities, and it's on that basis that real
>> value, as opposed to utility value, inheres in them.
>> <endsnip>
>
>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.

And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
and insects could be a good place if one must
draw a line anywhere.

>>>> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply because
>>>> its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or because others
>>>> refuse to accept it in the first place.
>>>
>>>If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive. Religions
>>>suffer from the same problem, but their followers at least acknowledge
>>>their failings, or try to justify them.
>>
>> Again, rather than consider the philosophy you
>> make the error of focusing on the failings of its
>> adherents and then declare that the philosophy
>> is invalid. Many vegans acknowledge the fact
>> that, in a World where it is practically impossible
>> to divest oneself of all animal products and
>> derivatives, they "understand that veganism is not
>> about personal perfection or "purity," but rather
>> the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of
>> and cruelty to animals."
>>
>> [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was
>> coined by Donald Watson in 1944, and was at
>> once adopted by the group who founded The
>> Vegan Society in England later that year. The
>> Vegan Society was the first organized secular
>> group to promote a compassionate lifestyle.
>> Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted
>> as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:
>>
>> "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.
>>
>> In its Articles of Association, the legal documents
>> of the Society, a slightly different version is
>> presented:
>>
>> "Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
>> living which seeks to exclude - as far as is
>> possible and practical - all forms of exploitation
>> of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or
>> any other purpose; and by extension, promotes
>> the development and use of animal-free
>> alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals,
>> and the environment."
>>
>> Both interpretations begin by stating that
>> veganism is a "way of life," and "a philosophy."
>> Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects of
>> compassionate living, because in vegan practice
>> no one area is more significant than another; all
>> are expected to be implemented simultaneously.
>> In the second version, a disclaimer about
>> practicality has been inserted, revealing that the
>> founders acknowledged the impossibility of totally
>> divesting oneself of all animal products and
>> derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is
>
>If microscopic animals are considered to have rights, then it is
>impossible even in some idealised low human population primitive world.
>If microscopic animals are not considered to have rights, then why do
>insects have rights?

That paragraph doesn't follow from what you've
inserted it into. Did you read it?

>> also critical because it helps practitioners
>> understand that veganism is not about personal
>> perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance
>> and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to
>> animals.]
>> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
>
>Why is "reverence for life" exclusive with killing it? Death is a natural
>part of life.

Then I take it you would have no argument against
those who might want to take your life capriciously,
being that death is a natural part in life.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:

>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>
> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
> and insects could be a good place if one must
> draw a line anywhere.

As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming. Many insects are
suitable for mass production, and considering their superior conversion
efficiency this could result in a very cheap and therefore popular source
of animal protein. It could be processed into burgers or hotdogs to avoid
negative cultural bias. This could greatly reduce the number of deaths of
animals with rights.

>>>>> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply
>>>>> because its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or
>>>>> because others refuse to accept it in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive. Religions
>>>>suffer from the same problem, but their followers at least acknowledge
>>>>their failings, or try to justify them.
>>>
>>> Again, rather than consider the philosophy you make the error of
>>> focusing on the failings of its adherents and then declare that the
>>> philosophy is invalid. Many vegans acknowledge the fact that, in a
>>> World where it is practically impossible to divest oneself of all
>>> animal products and derivatives, they "understand that veganism is not
>>> about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance and
>>> elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals."
>>>
>>> [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was coined by Donald Watson in
>>> 1944, and was at once adopted by the group who founded The Vegan
>>> Society in England later that year. The Vegan Society was the first
>>> organized secular group to promote a compassionate lifestyle. Their
>>> definition of "veganism," which is accepted as the decisive standard
>>> worldwide, is as follows:
>>>
>>> "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.
>>>
>>> In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the Society, a
>>> slightly different version is presented:
>>>
>>> "Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
>>> living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical
>>> - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
>>> clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the
>>> development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of
>>> humans, animals, and the environment."
>>>
>>> Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a "way of
>>> life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects
>>> of compassionate living, because in vegan practice no one area is
>>> more significant than another; all are expected to be implemented
>>> simultaneously. In the second version, a disclaimer about
>>> practicality has been inserted, revealing that the founders
>>> acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting oneself of all
>>> animal products and derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is
>>
>>If microscopic animals are considered to have rights, then it is
>>impossible even in some idealised low human population primitive world.
>>If microscopic animals are not considered to have rights, then why do
>>insects have rights?
>
> That paragraph doesn't follow from what you've inserted it into. Did you
> read it?

It follows perfectly. It is pointing out that the "modern world"
disclaimer implies that in some older world perfect veganism would be
possible, which if all animals have rights is not the case. As you seem
to acknowledge that not all animals have rights, it is now redundant.

>>> also critical because it helps practitioners understand that veganism
>>> is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the
>>> avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals.]
>>> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
>>
>>Why is "reverence for life" exclusive with killing it? Death is a
>>natural part of life.
>
> Then I take it you would have no argument against those who might want
> to take your life capriciously, being that death is a natural part in
> life.

Humans can plan population growth to match available resources. Many
animals will breed to exceed resources, until the population crashes.
Therefore killing (and eating) excess could be considered "reverence for
life" by stabilising the ecosystem of animals which evolved to breed
under heavy predation.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>
>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>
>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>> draw a line anywhere.
>
>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.

Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
wish to become vegans"?

>Many insects are
>suitable for mass production, and considering their superior conversion
>efficiency this could result in a very cheap and therefore popular source
>of animal protein.

Insects aren't animals, so any protein gained from
farming them certainly won't be a "popular source
of animal protein", as you've just claimed.

>It could be processed into burgers or hotdogs to avoid
>negative cultural bias. This could greatly reduce the number of deaths of
>animals with rights.

Or, better still, a diet on veg would reduce them
on its own without having to eat insects.

>>>>>> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply
>>>>>> because its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or
>>>>>> because others refuse to accept it in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive. Religions
>>>>>suffer from the same problem, but their followers at least acknowledge
>>>>>their failings, or try to justify them.
>>>>
>>>> Again, rather than consider the philosophy you make the error of
>>>> focusing on the failings of its adherents and then declare that the
>>>> philosophy is invalid. Many vegans acknowledge the fact that, in a
>>>> World where it is practically impossible to divest oneself of all
>>>> animal products and derivatives, they "understand that veganism is not
>>>> about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance and
>>>> elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals."
>>>>
>>>> [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was coined by Donald Watson in
>>>> 1944, and was at once adopted by the group who founded The Vegan
>>>> Society in England later that year. The Vegan Society was the first
>>>> organized secular group to promote a compassionate lifestyle. Their
>>>> definition of "veganism," which is accepted as the decisive standard
>>>> worldwide, is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>> In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the Society, a
>>>> slightly different version is presented:
>>>>
>>>> "Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
>>>> living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical
>>>> - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
>>>> clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the
>>>> development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of
>>>> humans, animals, and the environment."
>>>>
>>>> Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a "way of
>>>> life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects
>>>> of compassionate living, because in vegan practice no one area is
>>>> more significant than another; all are expected to be implemented
>>>> simultaneously. In the second version, a disclaimer about
>>>> practicality has been inserted, revealing that the founders
>>>> acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting oneself of all
>>>> animal products and derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is
>>>
>>>If microscopic animals are considered to have rights, then it is
>>>impossible even in some idealised low human population primitive world.
>>>If microscopic animals are not considered to have rights, then why do
>>>insects have rights?
>>
>> That paragraph doesn't follow from what you've inserted it into. Did you
>> read it?
>
>It follows perfectly.

No, it doesn't. It's a non sequitur.

>As you seem to acknowledge that not all animals have rights

False. Are you going to start lying to get your point
accepted?

>>>> also critical because it helps practitioners understand that veganism
>>>> is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the
>>>> avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals.]
>>>> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
>>>
>>>Why is "reverence for life" exclusive with killing it? Death is a
>>>natural part of life.
>>
>> Then I take it you would have no argument against those who might want
>> to take your life capriciously, being that death is a natural part in
>> life.
>
>Humans can plan population growth to match available resources.

Another non sequitur. Being that you're of the opinion
that "reverence for life" isn't exclusive with killing it,
and that death is a natural part of life, I say again,
"Then I take it you would have no argument against
those who might want to take your life capriciously,
being that death is a natural part in life."

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>
>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>
>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>
>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>
> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
> wish to become vegans"?

Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
for them.

>>Many insects are
>>suitable for mass production, and considering their superior conversion
>>efficiency this could result in a very cheap and therefore popular source
>>of animal protein.
>
> Insects aren't animals, so any protein gained from
> farming them certainly won't be a "popular source
> of animal protein", as you've just claimed.

Insects are animals.

>>It could be processed into burgers or hotdogs to avoid
>>negative cultural bias. This could greatly reduce the number of deaths of
>>animals with rights.
>
> Or, better still, a diet on veg would reduce them
> on its own without having to eat insects.

If insects don't have rights (or aren't even animals as you falsely
claim), how would this be better?

>>>>>>> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply
>>>>>>> because its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or
>>>>>>> because others refuse to accept it in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive. Religions
>>>>>>suffer from the same problem, but their followers at least acknowledge
>>>>>>their failings, or try to justify them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, rather than consider the philosophy you make the error of
>>>>> focusing on the failings of its adherents and then declare that the
>>>>> philosophy is invalid. Many vegans acknowledge the fact that, in a
>>>>> World where it is practically impossible to divest oneself of all
>>>>> animal products and derivatives, they "understand that veganism is not
>>>>> about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance and
>>>>> elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals."
>>>>>
>>>>> [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was coined by Donald Watson in
>>>>> 1944, and was at once adopted by the group who founded The Vegan
>>>>> Society in England later that year. The Vegan Society was the first
>>>>> organized secular group to promote a compassionate lifestyle. Their
>>>>> definition of "veganism," which is accepted as the decisive standard
>>>>> worldwide, is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> "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.
>>>>>
>>>>> In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the Society, a
>>>>> slightly different version is presented:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
>>>>> living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical
>>>>> - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
>>>>> clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the
>>>>> development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of
>>>>> humans, animals, and the environment."
>>>>>
>>>>> Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a "way of
>>>>> life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects
>>>>> of compassionate living, because in vegan practice no one area is
>>>>> more significant than another; all are expected to be implemented
>>>>> simultaneously. In the second version, a disclaimer about
>>>>> practicality has been inserted, revealing that the founders
>>>>> acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting oneself of all
>>>>> animal products and derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is
>>>>
>>>>If microscopic animals are considered to have rights, then it is
>>>>impossible even in some idealised low human population primitive world.
>>>>If microscopic animals are not considered to have rights, then why do
>>>>insects have rights?
>>>
>>> That paragraph doesn't follow from what you've inserted it into. Did you
>>> read it?
>>
>>It follows perfectly.
>
> No, it doesn't. It's a non sequitur.

It is responding to a specific part of the paragraph, not all of it.

>>As you seem to acknowledge that not all animals have rights
>
> False. Are you going to start lying to get your point
> accepted?

While dodging about my main point, you implied that jellyfish have no
rights. My "seem to" covers your indecisiveness.

>>>>> also critical because it helps practitioners understand that veganism
>>>>> is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the
>>>>> avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals.]
>>>>> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
>>>>
>>>>Why is "reverence for life" exclusive with killing it? Death is a
>>>>natural part of life.
>>>
>>> Then I take it you would have no argument against those who might want
>>> to take your life capriciously, being that death is a natural part in
>>> life.
>>
>>Humans can plan population growth to match available resources.
>
> Another non sequitur. Being that you're of the opinion
> that "reverence for life" isn't exclusive with killing it,
> and that death is a natural part of life, I say again,
> "Then I take it you would have no argument against
> those who might want to take your life capriciously,
> being that death is a natural part in life."

Not a non sequitur at all, just looking at the bigger picture or an
entire ecosystem rather than an individual life. Killing not being
exclusive with reverence for life does not make it moral in all situations.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:42:02 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>
>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>
>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>
>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>> wish to become vegans"?
>
>Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>for them.

You've now changed from

[it makes sense to farm insects for vegans
because the majority of humans do not want
to become vegans] or words to that effect,

to

[it makes sense to farm insects for vegans
because they care about animals and want
to reduce the collateral deaths associated
with food production] or words to that effect.

Neither is acceptable, but it would be nice if
you could stick with just the one reason instead
of using a second when pressed to explain the
first.

>>>Many insects are
>>>suitable for mass production, and considering their superior conversion
>>>efficiency this could result in a very cheap and therefore popular source
>>>of animal protein.
>>
>> Insects aren't animals, so any protein gained from
>> farming them certainly won't be a "popular source
>> of animal protein", as you've just claimed.
>
>Insects are animals.

No, they are not.

>>>It could be processed into burgers or hotdogs to avoid
>>>negative cultural bias. This could greatly reduce the number of deaths of
>>>animals with rights.
>>
>> Or, better still, a diet on veg would reduce them
>> on its own without having to eat insects.
>
>If insects don't have rights (or aren't even animals as you falsely
>claim), how would this be better?

Because insects aren't required as a food source, so
it would be better not to farm them and continue
eating vegetables instead.

>>>>>>>> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply
>>>>>>>> because its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or
>>>>>>>> because others refuse to accept it in the first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive. Religions
>>>>>>>suffer from the same problem, but their followers at least acknowledge
>>>>>>>their failings, or try to justify them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, rather than consider the philosophy you make the error of
>>>>>> focusing on the failings of its adherents and then declare that the
>>>>>> philosophy is invalid. Many vegans acknowledge the fact that, in a
>>>>>> World where it is practically impossible to divest oneself of all
>>>>>> animal products and derivatives, they "understand that veganism is not
>>>>>> about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance and
>>>>>> elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was coined by Donald Watson in
>>>>>> 1944, and was at once adopted by the group who founded The Vegan
>>>>>> Society in England later that year. The Vegan Society was the first
>>>>>> organized secular group to promote a compassionate lifestyle. Their
>>>>>> definition of "veganism," which is accepted as the decisive standard
>>>>>> worldwide, is as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the Society, a
>>>>>> slightly different version is presented:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
>>>>>> living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical
>>>>>> - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
>>>>>> clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the
>>>>>> development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of
>>>>>> humans, animals, and the environment."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a "way of
>>>>>> life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects
>>>>>> of compassionate living, because in vegan practice no one area is
>>>>>> more significant than another; all are expected to be implemented
>>>>>> simultaneously. In the second version, a disclaimer about
>>>>>> practicality has been inserted, revealing that the founders
>>>>>> acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting oneself of all
>>>>>> animal products and derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is
>>>>>
>>>>>If microscopic animals are considered to have rights, then it is
>>>>>impossible even in some idealised low human population primitive world.
>>>>>If microscopic animals are not considered to have rights, then why do
>>>>>insects have rights?
>>>>
>>>> That paragraph doesn't follow from what you've inserted it into. Did you
>>>> read it?
>>>
>>>It follows perfectly.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It's a non sequitur.
>
>It is responding to a specific part of the paragraph, not all of it.

It had nothing to do with any part of the paragraph.
It's a non sequitur.

>>>As you seem to acknowledge that not all animals have rights
>>
>> False. Are you going to start lying to get your point
>> accepted?
>
>While dodging about my main point, you implied that jellyfish have no
>rights.

False. I wrote;

"If the jellyfish is as non-sentient and brainless as
you claim, then it's difficult to believe that such a
seemingly lifeless being can be wronged, and
therefore might not be viewed as a candidate
for rights by even the most ardent animal rights
advocates, but my belief is that sentience and
physical differences mean very little where
rights are concerned. The top half of my post
which you snipped away in your reply answers
why I believe such animals, irrespective of
their physical capabilities, hold inherent value
nonetheless.
<unsnip>
In short, by observing its moral status as something
that holds a right against moral agents that can do
it wrong by capriciously killing it. Rather than being
an end to some other means, like a tool or piece of
clothing, animals, like us are a means to themselves
rather than utilities, and it's on that basis that real
value, as opposed to utility value, inheres in them.
<endsnip>"

So you ARE lying, just as I thought you were going
to and warned about.

>>>>>> also critical because it helps practitioners understand that veganism
>>>>>> is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the
>>>>>> avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals.]
>>>>>> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is "reverence for life" exclusive with killing it? Death is a
>>>>>natural part of life.
>>>>
>>>> Then I take it you would have no argument against those who might want
>>>> to take your life capriciously, being that death is a natural part in
>>>> life.
>>>
>>>Humans can plan population growth to match available resources.
>>
>> Another non sequitur. Being that you're of the opinion
>> that "reverence for life" isn't exclusive with killing it,
>> and that death is a natural part of life, I say again,
>> "Then I take it you would have no argument against
>> those who might want to take your life capriciously,
>> being that death is a natural part in life."
>
>Not a non sequitur at all

Yes it is, so why don't you address what I wrote
instead of trying to dodge it with non sequiturs?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:08:31 +0100, Derek wrote:

> You've now changed from
>
> [it makes sense to farm insects for vegans
> because the majority of humans do not want
> to become vegans] or words to that effect,
>
> to
>
> [it makes sense to farm insects for vegans
> because they care about animals and want
> to reduce the collateral deaths associated
> with food production] or words to that effect.
>
> Neither is acceptable, but it would be nice if
> you could stick with just the one reason instead
> of using a second when pressed to explain the
> first.

The second meaning was intended, although my initial post may have been
unclear. I would have thought the vegan "reverence for life" would make
the morality of reducing even deaths you are not responsible for obvious.
If animals are not insects why is it not acceptable?

>>>>Many insects are
>>>>suitable for mass production, and considering their superior
>>>>conversion efficiency this could result in a very cheap and therefore
>>>>popular source of animal protein.
>>>
>>> Insects aren't animals, so any protein gained from farming them
>>> certainly won't be a "popular source of animal protein", as you've
>>> just claimed.
>>
>>Insects are animals.
>
> No, they are not.

Scientifically insects are classified as animals. An informal survey of
people I know results in 100% classifying insects as animals. I'm sure a
formal controlled study of public opinion would also result in "insects
are animals" being the overwhelmingly most popular results. Your "insects
are not animals" argument is highly non-standard and has no place in this
debate.


>>>>It could be processed into burgers or hotdogs to avoid negative
>>>>cultural bias. This could greatly reduce the number of deaths of
>>>>animals with rights.
>>>
>>> Or, better still, a diet on veg would reduce them on its own without
>>> having to eat insects.
>>
>>If insects don't have rights (or aren't even animals as you falsely
>>claim), how would this be better?
>
> Because insects aren't required as a food source, so it would be better
> not to farm them and continue eating vegetables instead.

Because meat is tasty, if insects do not have rights it would be better to
eat them.

>>>>>>>>> A philosophy needn't be abandoned or considered invalid simply
>>>>>>>>> because its adherents sometimes fail to follow it precisely, or
>>>>>>>>> because others refuse to accept it in the first place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If it is purely abstract no, but veganism is prescriptive.
>>>>>>>>Religions suffer from the same problem, but their followers at
>>>>>>>>least acknowledge their failings, or try to justify them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, rather than consider the philosophy you make the error of
>>>>>>> focusing on the failings of its adherents and then declare that
>>>>>>> the philosophy is invalid. Many vegans acknowledge the fact that,
>>>>>>> in a World where it is practically impossible to divest oneself of
>>>>>>> all animal products and derivatives, they "understand that
>>>>>>> veganism is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather
>>>>>>> the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to
>>>>>>> animals."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was coined by Donald Watson
>>>>>>> in 1944, and was at once adopted by the group who founded The
>>>>>>> Vegan Society in England later that year. The Vegan Society was
>>>>>>> the first organized secular group to promote a compassionate
>>>>>>> lifestyle. Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted as
>>>>>>> the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the
>>>>>>> Society, a slightly different version is presented:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
>>>>>>> living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and
>>>>>>> practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to,
>>>>>>> animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and by
>>>>>>> extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free
>>>>>>> alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the
>>>>>>> environment."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a "way of
>>>>>>> life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet over other
>>>>>>> aspects of compassionate living, because in vegan practice no one
>>>>>>> area is more significant than another; all are expected to be
>>>>>>> implemented simultaneously. In the second version, a disclaimer
>>>>>>> about practicality has been inserted, revealing that the founders
>>>>>>> acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting oneself of
>>>>>>> all animal products and derivatives in the modern world. This
>>>>>>> phrase is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If microscopic animals are considered to have rights, then it is
>>>>>>impossible even in some idealised low human population primitive
>>>>>>world. If microscopic animals are not considered to have rights,
>>>>>>then why do insects have rights?
>>>>>
>>>>> That paragraph doesn't follow from what you've inserted it into. Did
>>>>> you read it?
>>>>
>>>>It follows perfectly.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. It's a non sequitur.
>>
>>It is responding to a specific part of the paragraph, not all of it.
>
> It had nothing to do with any part of the paragraph. It's a non
> sequitur.

It has everything to do with "the impossibility of totally divesting
oneself of all animal products and derivatives in the modern world.",
which is part of the paragraph.

>>>>As you seem to acknowledge that not all animals have rights
>>>
>>> False. Are you going to start lying to get your point accepted?
>>
>>While dodging about my main point, you implied that jellyfish have no
>>rights.
>
> False. I wrote;
>
> "If the jellyfish is as non-sentient and brainless as
> you claim, then it's difficult to believe that such a seemingly
> lifeless being can be wronged, and therefore might not be viewed as a
> candidate for rights by even the most ardent animal rights advocates,
> but my belief is that sentience and physical differences mean very
> little where rights are concerned. The top half of my post which you
> snipped away in your reply answers why I believe such animals,
> irrespective of their physical capabilities, hold inherent value
> nonetheless.
> <unsnip>
> In short, by observing its moral status as something that holds a
> right against moral agents that can do it wrong by capriciously
> killing it. Rather than being an end to some other means, like a tool
> or piece of clothing, animals, like us are a means to themselves
> rather than utilities, and it's on that basis that real value, as
> opposed to utility value, inheres in them. <endsnip>"
>
> So you ARE lying, just as I thought you were going to and warned about.

It applies to "it's difficult to believe that such a seemingly lifeless
being can be wronged, and therefore might not be viewed as a candidate for
rights by even the most ardent animal rights advocates.", and therefore I
am not lying and you are lying by falsely claiming I am lying.

>>>>>>> also critical because it helps practitioners understand that
>>>>>>> veganism is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather
>>>>>>> the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to
>>>>>>> animals.] http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is "reverence for life" exclusive with killing it? Death is a
>>>>>>natural part of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I take it you would have no argument against those who might
>>>>> want to take your life capriciously, being that death is a natural
>>>>> part in life.
>>>>
>>>>Humans can plan population growth to match available resources.
>>>
>>> Another non sequitur. Being that you're of the opinion that "reverence
>>> for life" isn't exclusive with killing it, and that death is a natural
>>> part of life, I say again, "Then I take it you would have no argument
>>> against
>>> those who might want to take your life capriciously, being that death
>>> is a natural part in life."
>>
>>Not a non sequitur at all
>
> Yes it is, so why don't you address what I wrote instead of trying to
> dodge it with non sequiturs?

I am fully aware of your animal rights argument, I am suggesting
alternative ethical theories. However, it's not a critical part of my
argument.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:01:54 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:08:31 +0100, Derek wrote:
>
>> You've now changed from
>>
>> [it makes sense to farm insects for vegans
>> because the majority of humans do not want
>> to become vegans] or words to that effect,
>>
>> to
>>
>> [it makes sense to farm insects for vegans
>> because they care about animals and want
>> to reduce the collateral deaths associated
>> with food production] or words to that effect.
>>
>> Neither is acceptable, but it would be nice if
>> you could stick with just the one reason instead
>> of using a second when pressed to explain the
>> first.
>
>The second meaning was intended

They were both intended. You moved from
one to the other because you couldn't cope
with trying to address the first.

>>>>>Many insects are
>>>>>suitable for mass production, and considering their superior
>>>>>conversion efficiency this could result in a very cheap and therefore
>>>>>popular source of animal protein.
>>>>
>>>> Insects aren't animals, so any protein gained from farming them
>>>> certainly won't be a "popular source of animal protein", as you've
>>>> just claimed.
>>>
>>>Insects are animals.
>>
>> No, they are not.
>
>Scientifically insects are classified as animals.

No, they are not. You clearly haven't a clue
what you're talking about.

>An informal survey of
>people I know results in 100% classifying insects as animals.

Hah! Then they are as stupid as you, obviously.
Insects are not animals.

>>>>>As you seem to acknowledge that not all animals have rights
>>>>
>>>> False. Are you going to start lying to get your point accepted?
>>>
>>>While dodging about my main point, you implied that jellyfish have no
>>>rights.
>>
>> False. I wrote;
>>
>> "If the jellyfish is as non-sentient and brainless as
>> you claim, then it's difficult to believe that such a seemingly
>> lifeless being can be wronged, and therefore might not be viewed as a
>> candidate for rights by even the most ardent animal rights advocates,
>> but my belief is that sentience and physical differences mean very
>> little where rights are concerned. The top half of my post which you
>> snipped away in your reply answers why I believe such animals,
>> irrespective of their physical capabilities, hold inherent value
>> nonetheless.
>> <unsnip>
>> In short, by observing its moral status as something that holds a
>> right against moral agents that can do it wrong by capriciously
>> killing it. Rather than being an end to some other means, like a tool
>> or piece of clothing, animals, like us are a means to themselves
>> rather than utilities, and it's on that basis that real value, as
>> opposed to utility value, inheres in them. <endsnip>"
>>
>> So you ARE lying, just as I thought you were going to and warned about.
>
>It applies to "it's difficult to believe that such a seemingly lifeless
>being can be wronged, and therefore might not be viewed as a candidate for
>rights by even the most ardent animal rights advocates.",

And continues with, " but ***my belief*** is that sentience
and physical differences mean very little where rights are
concerned.", you punk liar.

>and therefore I
>am not lying and you are lying by falsely claiming I am lying.

Yes, you are certainly lying by half-quoting me. Bad effort.

>>>>>>>> also critical because it helps practitioners understand that
>>>>>>>> veganism is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather
>>>>>>>> the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to
>>>>>>>> animals.] http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why is "reverence for life" exclusive with killing it? Death is a
>>>>>>>natural part of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I take it you would have no argument against those who might
>>>>>> want to take your life capriciously, being that death is a natural
>>>>>> part in life.
>>>>>
>>>>>Humans can plan population growth to match available resources.
>>>>
>>>> Another non sequitur. Being that you're of the opinion that "reverence
>>>> for life" isn't exclusive with killing it, and that death is a natural
>>>> part of life, I say again, "Then I take it you would have no argument
>>>> against
>>>> those who might want to take your life capriciously, being that death
>>>> is a natural part in life."
>>>
>>>Not a non sequitur at all
>>
>> Yes it is, so why don't you address what I wrote instead of trying to
>> dodge it with non sequiturs?
>
>I am fully aware of your animal rights argument

Yet another non sequitur from a punk liar instead
of dealing with what's been put in front of him.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:06:50 +0100, Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:01:54 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:08:31 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>
>>> You've now changed from
>>>
>>> [it makes sense to farm insects for vegans
>>> because the majority of humans do not want
>>> to become vegans] or words to that effect,
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> [it makes sense to farm insects for vegans
>>> because they care about animals and want
>>> to reduce the collateral deaths associated
>>> with food production] or words to that effect.
>>>
>>> Neither is acceptable, but it would be nice if
>>> you could stick with just the one reason instead
>>> of using a second when pressed to explain the
>>> first.
>>
>>The second meaning was intended
>
> They were both intended. You moved from
> one to the other because you couldn't cope
> with trying to address the first.

If you read what I actually said:
>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming. Many insects are

The implication being that the insects are to be food for non-vegans. My
apologies for non making it clear enough to withstand your
misinterpretation.

>suitable for mass production, and considering their superior conversion
>efficiency this could result in a very cheap and therefore popular source
>of animal protein. It could be processed into burgers or hotdogs to
>avoid negative cultural bias. This could greatly reduce the number of
>deaths of animals with rights.

>>>>>>Many insects are
>>>>>>suitable for mass production, and considering their superior
>>>>>>conversion efficiency this could result in a very cheap and therefore
>>>>>>popular source of animal protein.
>>>>>
>>>>> Insects aren't animals, so any protein gained from farming them
>>>>> certainly won't be a "popular source of animal protein", as you've
>>>>> just claimed.
>>>>
>>>>Insects are animals.
>>>
>>> No, they are not.
>>
>>Scientifically insects are classified as animals.
>
> No, they are not. You clearly haven't a clue
> what you're talking about.

Class Insecta, Phylum Arthropoda, Kingdom Animalia. You clearly have no
idea what you are talking about.

>>An informal survey of
>>people I know results in 100% classifying insects as animals.
>
> Hah! Then they are as stupid as you, obviously.
> Insects are not animals.

Yes, everyone I know is so retarded that they use the common English
meaning! Why can't I be smart enough to automatically know how to speak
crazy vegan language!?

>>>>>>As you seem to acknowledge that not all animals have rights
>>>>>
>>>>> False. Are you going to start lying to get your point accepted?
>>>>
>>>>While dodging about my main point, you implied that jellyfish have no
>>>>rights.
>>>
>>> False. I wrote;
>>>
>>> "If the jellyfish is as non-sentient and brainless as
>>> you claim, then it's difficult to believe that such a seemingly
>>> lifeless being can be wronged, and therefore might not be viewed as a
>>> candidate for rights by even the most ardent animal rights advocates,
>>> but my belief is that sentience and physical differences mean very
>>> little where rights are concerned. The top half of my post which you
>>> snipped away in your reply answers why I believe such animals,
>>> irrespective of their physical capabilities, hold inherent value
>>> nonetheless.
>>> <unsnip>
>>> In short, by observing its moral status as something that holds a
>>> right against moral agents that can do it wrong by capriciously
>>> killing it. Rather than being an end to some other means, like a tool
>>> or piece of clothing, animals, like us are a means to themselves
>>> rather than utilities, and it's on that basis that real value, as
>>> opposed to utility value, inheres in them. <endsnip>"
>>>
>>> So you ARE lying, just as I thought you were going to and warned about.
>>
>>It applies to "it's difficult to believe that such a seemingly lifeless
>>being can be wronged, and therefore might not be viewed as a candidate for
>>rights by even the most ardent animal rights advocates.",
>
> And continues with, " but ***my belief*** is that sentience
> and physical differences mean very little where rights are
> concerned.", you punk liar.

Yes, because if I don't address every single point you might have written
that automatically makes me liar. Do you work for the meat industry or
are you just trolling?

>>and therefore I
>>am not lying and you are lying by falsely claiming I am lying.
>
> Yes, you are certainly lying by half-quoting me. Bad effort.

Mike Robinson wrote:
> I am interested in the reasons vegans have for avoiding insects and insect
> products. I do not believe even strict vegans think *all* animal life
> must not be killed, so at some point a value judgement is made as to which
> animals may be killed. I want to understand how people make that
> decision. If you think even microscopic animals may not be killed,
> please explain how you avoid directly or indirectly killing them.
>
> Please rank in order of value of life:
>
> Insects
> Segmented worms
> Copepods
> Tardigrades
> Rotifers
> Flatworms
> Roundworms
> Jellyfish
> (any other animal types you want to add)
>
> Where do you set the cutoff for morally acceptable killing? Why is it
> acceptable to kill some animals but not others? Does the reason for
> killing make any difference?

Each animal (including man or insects) has a different set of interests.
There will be under certain circumstances unavoidable conflicts of interest.

EG:

(1) A man has bugs on a crop, but can avoid a conflict by planting more
crops or sacrificial crops.

(2) A man has bugs on crop, and will unavoidably starve if bugs are not
killed. - Therefore kill bugs.

(3) A man can avoid a conflict of his interest of being healthy and the
animals' in staying alive by eating vegetables.

(4) In a very remote location it may be in the environmental and the
wider interest to hunt an occasional animal than import lots of
vegetables / fruit etc.


Consider the interests of all those affected and all acheivable
alternatives, and then decide on the balance of interests.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:46:47 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:

>If you read what I actually said

I have read what you've said, and you've lied and twisted
on every issue put forward, so I'll leave you to waste
someone else's time instead.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:15:07 +0100, Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:46:47 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>
>>If you read what I actually said
>
> I have read what you've said, and you've lied and twisted
> on every issue put forward, so I'll leave you to waste
> someone else's time instead.

SPNACK

"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>
>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>
>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>
>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>> wish to become vegans"?
>
> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
> for them.

If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.

"Lucius Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Robinson" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson
>>> > wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral
>>>>>>status detector?
>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating
>>>>>>from moral status
>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe
>>>>>>moral status in
>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to
>>>>>>other
>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it
>>>>would make
>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>
>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>
>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense
>> to me to
>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly
>> responsible
>> for them.
>
> If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce
> animal deaths.
> Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to
> eat. =======================
Millions and millions are killed now for your food. You just
aren't eating them...



>

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>
>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>
>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>> for them.
>
>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.

Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
regard insects as animals either. The meat
pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
will try anything to push their product, even if
that meat comes from bugs.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:25:50 +0100, Derek wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>
>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>
>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>> for them.
>>
>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>
> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
> regard insects as animals either. The meat
> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
> will try anything to push their product, even if
> that meat comes from bugs.

It shows that I forgot to type "animals with rights". The point being
that if not all animals have rights, we should concentrate on eating the
ones that don't.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:55:03 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:25:50 +0100, Derek wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news >>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>
>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>>
>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>> that meat comes from bugs.
>
>It shows that I forgot to type "animals with rights".

It shows that you're a lying imbecile. That's what.
And you got caught. That's another.

"rick" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "Lucius Hunt" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>
>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>
>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>> for them.
>>
>> If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>> Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat. =======================
> Millions and millions are killed now for your food. You just aren't eating them...
>
So its right and proper to kill more because we're already killing millions of them?
That doesn't make any sense to me.
>>
>
>

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>
>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>
>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>> for them.
>>
>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>
> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
> regard insects as animals either. The meat
> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
> will try anything to push their product, even if
> that meat comes from bugs.
>
Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables. There's no need to
eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:27:03 +0100, Lucius Hunt wrote:

>
> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news >>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>
>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>>
>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>> that meat comes from bugs.
>>
> Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables. There's no need to
> eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw

There's no need to eat meat, but you're in the minority finding it
revolting. The vast majority of humans find eating meat enjoyable, and if
certain types of animals have no rights, then it would be best to eat meat
from those animals.

There's no *need* for you to use a computer, yet you accepted the
environmental damage caused by it's manufacture and use.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:27:03 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news >>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>
>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>>
>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>> that meat comes from bugs.
>>
>Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables. There's no need to
>eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw

So, if you don't mind my asking, did you choose to
abstain from meat for ethical reasons?

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:36:09 +0100, Lucius Hunt wrote:

>
> "rick" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>
>> "Lucius Hunt" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> "Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news >>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>
>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>> If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>> Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat. =======================
>> Millions and millions are killed now for your food. You just aren't eating them...
>>
> So its right and proper to kill more because we're already killing millions of them?
> That doesn't make any sense to me.

Right and proper to switch from killing animals with rights to killing
animals with no rights.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:27:03 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news >>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>>>> for them.
>>>>
>>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>>>
>>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>>> that meat comes from bugs.
>>>
>>Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables. There's no need to
>>eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw
>
> So, if you don't mind my asking, did you choose to
> abstain from meat for ethical reasons?
>
It's a very long, boring story. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons because I have

a conscience and know exactly how animals are raised and slaughtered. I don't eat

anything that was forced to suffer and die and be put in tidy parcels for me. I walk

on by or avoid the meat section completely and head straight for the salad stuff.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:13:18 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:27:03 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>>>>
>>>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>>>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>>>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>>>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>>>> that meat comes from bugs.
>>>>
>>>Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables. There's no need to
>>>eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw
>>
>> So, if you don't mind my asking, did you choose to
>> abstain from meat for ethical reasons?
>>
>It's a very long, boring story. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons because I have
>a conscience and know exactly how animals are raised and slaughtered. I don't eat
>anything that was forced to suffer and die and be put in tidy parcels for me. I walk
>on by or avoid the meat section completely and head straight for the salad stuff.

Same here, if I'm forced into actually doing the shopping
on rare occasions. The meat pushers here aren't likely to
let you get away with declaring your lifestyle choices
without badgering you into buying meat though, so it might
be wise to "walk on by or avoid the meat section completely
and head straight for the salad stuff" here too, if you get my
meaning.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:13:18 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:27:03 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news >>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>>>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>>>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>>>>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>>>>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>>>>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>>>>> that meat comes from bugs.
>>>>>
>>>>Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables. There's no need to
>>>>eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw
>>>
>>> So, if you don't mind my asking, did you choose to
>>> abstain from meat for ethical reasons?
>>>
>>It's a very long, boring story. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons because I have
>>a conscience and know exactly how animals are raised and slaughtered. I don't eat
>>anything that was forced to suffer and die and be put in tidy parcels for me. I walk
>>on by or avoid the meat section completely and head straight for the salad stuff.
>
> Same here, if I'm forced into actually doing the shopping
> on rare occasions. The meat pushers here aren't likely to
> let you get away with declaring your lifestyle choices
> without badgering you into buying meat though, so it might
> be wise to "walk on by or avoid the meat section completely
> and head straight for the salad stuff" here too, if you get my
> meaning.

Funny that. I was just about to offer the same advice to you. ;-) I don't let trolls bother
me. I walk on by and head straight for the salad stuff.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:43:04 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:13:18 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:27:03 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message news >>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating from moral status
>>>>>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it would make
>>>>>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense to me to
>>>>>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not directly responsible
>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce animal deaths.
>>>>>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to eat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>>>>>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>>>>>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>>>>>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>>>>>> that meat comes from bugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables. There's no need to
>>>>>eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw
>>>>
>>>> So, if you don't mind my asking, did you choose to
>>>> abstain from meat for ethical reasons?
>>>>
>>>It's a very long, boring story. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons because I have
>>>a conscience and know exactly how animals are raised and slaughtered. I don't eat
>>>anything that was forced to suffer and die and be put in tidy parcels for me. I walk
>>>on by or avoid the meat section completely and head straight for the salad stuff.
>>
>> Same here, if I'm forced into actually doing the shopping
>> on rare occasions. The meat pushers here aren't likely to
>> let you get away with declaring your lifestyle choices
>> without badgering you into buying meat though, so it might
>> be wise to "walk on by or avoid the meat section completely
>> and head straight for the salad stuff" here too, if you get my
>> meaning.
>
>Funny that. I was just about to offer the same advice to you. ;-)
>I don't let trolls bother me. I walk on by and head straight for the
>salad stuff.

Another good point and well-accepted, Lucius.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:43:04 +0100, Lucius Hunt wrote:

> Funny that. I was just about to offer the same advice to you. ;-) I don't let trolls bother
> me. I walk on by and head straight for the salad stuff.

Trolls? Me?

The reasoning behind creating this thread is this.

For religious/spiritual reasons, I was uncomfortable with eating
meat. Despite this, I find meat delicious and it makes maintaining a
nutritious diet much easier.

I considered vegetarianism, but after thinking about it carefully I
realized that the deaths caused by egg/diary production make vegetarianism
not much better than an omnivore diet.

This means I would have to become a vegan. Veganism is based upon the
idea of animal rights, so I then had to think about why animals have or do
not have rights, and which animals have them.

Some animals obviously have rights (humans), so very probably do (apes,
cetaceans), and for most it is doubtful. However, it would be extremely
immoral to accidentally assume an animal does not have rights when it
does, so it is better to set the bar too low than too high. Therefore it
makes sense to assume all vertebrates have rights. However, I can think
of no reason to assume insects and simpler animals have rights. (Although
looking at the larger scale "ecosystem rights", which Derek apparently
rejects, it does not sound crazy to assign an insect hive rights, so the
vegan honey prohibition can remain. This is not really important, because
there are plenty of edible non-hive building insects.)

The logical consequence of this is that vegans who enjoy the taste of meat
should eat insects, and vegans who care about animals with rights
dying, even if they are not directly responsible for it, should promote
insect farming.

Eating non-hiving building insects should be considered vegan.

I am not currently vegan because I do not yet have the cooking and
nutrition skills to do it and stay healthy and continue to enjoy food. I
am transitioning to a vegetarian diet as an intermediate step, and will
hopefully soon start breeding insects as my sole source of animal protein.
However, after reading all the insane crap trolls like Derek post, it is
despite the pro-vegan agenda here, not because of it.

"Lucius Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Derek" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt"
>> > wrote:
>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral
>>>>>>>>status detector?
>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating
>>>>>>>>from moral status
>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe
>>>>>>>>moral status in
>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it
>>>>>>>>to other
>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it
>>>>>>would make
>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>
>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense
>>>> to me to
>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not
>>>> directly responsible
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce
>>>animal deaths.
>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to
>>>eat.
>>
>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>> that meat comes from bugs.
>>
> Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables. There's
> no need to
> eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw =====================
The animals still die by the millions, killer. btw, I suggest
you check out your labels, you're still eating bug-bits...


>

"Lucius Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Derek" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:27:03 +0100, "Lucius Hunt"
>> > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:01:26 +0100, "Lucius Hunt"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>"Mike Robinson" > wrote in message
>>>>>news >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a
>>>>>>>>>>moral status detector?
>>>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating
>>>>>>>>>>from moral status
>>>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to
>>>>>>>>>>observe moral status in
>>>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it
>>>>>>>>>>to other
>>>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the
>>>>>>>>>>line.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans,
>>>>>>>>it would make
>>>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes
>>>>>> sense to me to
>>>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not
>>>>>> directly responsible
>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce
>>>>>animal deaths.
>>>>>Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them
>>>>>to eat.
>>>>
>>>> Good point, Lucius, and it shows that he doesn't
>>>> regard insects as animals either. The meat
>>>> pushers on these vegan and vegetarian forums
>>>> will try anything to push their product, even if
>>>> that meat comes from bugs.
>>>>
>>>Revolting!! I get all I need from fruit and vegetables.
>>>There's no need to
>>>eat meat --- or bugs. Good thread btw
>>
>> So, if you don't mind my asking, did you choose to
>> abstain from meat for ethical reasons?
>>
> It's a very long, boring story. I'm a vegetarian for ethical
> reasons because I have
>
> a conscience and know exactly how animals are raised and
> slaughtered.
===========================
They die ar moe humane deaths than the animals you kill for your
veggies, hypocrite.



I don't eat
>
> anything that was forced to suffer and die and be put in tidy
> parcels for me.
=======================
Yes, you do, killer.


I walk
>
> on by or avoid the meat section completely and head straight
> for the salad stuff.
> ================
Which killed more animals than some meat selections. hanks for
proving once again it's all about a simple rule for simple minds,
'eat no meat.' It has nothing to do with animal death and
suffering...


>

"Lucius Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Lucius Hunt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike Robinson" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:05 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:58:53 +0100, Mike Robinson
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:02 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What does moral status look like? Can you build a moral
>>>>>>>>status detector?
>>>>>>>>We deduce moral status of other humans by extrapolating
>>>>>>>>from moral status
>>>>>>>>in ourselves. As sentience is what allows us to observe
>>>>>>>>moral status in
>>>>>>>>ourselves, it is a valid consideration for assigning it
>>>>>>>>to other
>>>>>>>>creatures. The question becomes where to draw the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And remains an open question to most. Jellyfish
>>>>>>> and insects could be a good place if one must
>>>>>>> draw a line anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As the majority of humans do not wish to become vegans, it
>>>>>>would make
>>>>>>sense for vegans to start large scale insect farming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it make sense to farm insects for vegans
>>>>> on the basis that "the majority of humans do not
>>>>> wish to become vegans"?
>>>>
>>>> Because if you care about animal deaths, then it makes sense
>>>> to me to
>>>> attempt to reduce animals deaths even if you are not
>>>> directly responsible
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>> If insects are animals how will farming them to eat reduce
>>> animal deaths.
>>> Milions of millions of them will be killed if we farm them to
>>> eat. =======================
>> Millions and millions are killed now for your food. You just
>> aren't eating them...
>>
> So its right and proper to kill more because we're already
> killing millions of them?
> That doesn't make any sense to me.
======================
No fool, as usual you have comprehension problems. Trademark of
all veggies here. YOU are already killing millions and millions
of animals for YOUR diet and lifestyle. I'm not talk about meat
animals at all, hypocrite. The ignoane o veggies is truly
amazing.


>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I think its ok to kill it if you're going to eat it. If I kill
something I eat it. If I go fishing and catch a fish I eat it. My
neighbor shoots cats. I tell him this is wrong because he doesn't eat
the meat. He says they are a nuisance and they crap all over the place.
I agree but I would think that they would have some good meat on them
and some Chinese guy somewhere probably has a good recipe for them.
Like sweet and sour cat or General Thous Cat or Cat suey or something
like that. There are starving children in foreign lands and he is
wasting food. I think this is wrong.