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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tyrone Biggums wrote:
>>Read it and weep, gullible dolt.

>
> The sample is ridiculous.


Ipse dixit and completely IGNORANT. The sample wasn't 65 people, as you
stupidly suggest. Keep reading if you haven't killfiled me yet, moron.

> I have 15+ years of research experience.


In what field? And why do you not comprehend the nature of the
meta-analysis of this study?

> 65 people representing millions all over the world, races, social/economic
> factors, environment, etc. etc. etc.


Whoa, dumb ass. The study was a meta-analysis of previous studies: "110
homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were
analysed."

The *MEDIAN SIZE* was 65 -- but the studies had anywhere from 10 to 1573
participants. And before you get all carried away in mocking that which
you clearly didn't comprehend, keep in mind these were studies which
purportedly showed benefits of homeopathy (i.e., sugar pills). This
meta-analysis found that "there was weak evidence for a specific effect
of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of
conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion
that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects."

> This "study" is a sad joke


No, it's actually illustrative.

> and proves nothing.


You mean aside from the fact that sugar pills have can have a placebo
effect (if they have any effect at all)?

> Try again.


YOU try again, dummy. It wasn't a "study of 65 people," it was a
meta-analysis of 110 homeopathy studies compared to 110 allopathic
studies with a median size of 65 participants (range of 10-1573). You
didn't even comprehend that, did you, pussy.

> Oh, and you need to go back to my KF too.


Is ignorance really bliss?
  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek wrote:

> On 11 Sep 2005 04:21:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 10 Sep 2005 10:23:05 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 7 Sep 2005 12:47:44 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >> >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan
> >> >> >> >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you
> >> >> >> >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with
> >> >> >> >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still
> >> >> >> >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing
> >> >> >> >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that
> >> >> >> >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get
> >> >> >> >> you to where you want to be.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
> >> >> >> >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
> >> >> >> >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
> >> >> >> >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence.
> >> >> >> >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the
> >> >> >> >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified
> >> >> >> >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without
> >> >> >> >> killing animals;
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand
> >> >> >> if only you knew the difference between per se and
> >> >> >> per accidens.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I understand the difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's clear from your response here that you do not.
> >> >>
> >> >> >BTW, both meat and vegetables
> >> >> >can theoretically exist without killing animals.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their
> >> >> food from road kill or from animals that have died
> >> >> from natural causes, but the meat being discussed
> >> >> here is the type which is sourced from animals
> >> >> killed for their meat. The deaths of these animals
> >> >> are per se, while the deaths of animals associated
> >> >> with crop production are per accidens. If you'd
> >> >> understood these terms like you said you had, you
> >> >> would not have made this error.
> >> >
> >> >It appears to me that you are operating a double
> >> >standard here. You claim that the deaths associated
> >> >with the meat industry are per-se on the grounds
> >> >that we are talking about meat that has been sourced
> >> >from animals deliberately killed for their meat but
> >> >still claim that those associated with crop production
> >> >are per-accidens, even if the vegetables have been
> >> >sprayed with chemicals *deliberately* designed to kill
> >> >animals.
> >>
> >> You're confusing "accident" with "per accidens", believing
> >> that, just because the crops are intentionally sprayed with
> >> chemicals to kill animals (non-accidentally), the deaths
> >> cannot therefore be per accidens, and this is where you're
> >> going wrong. Look further up this page where I initially
> >> explained the terms "per se" and "per accidens".

>
> No comment? And you say you aren't trying to waste my
> time, after my having to explain it again only for you to
> ignore again?


I did not ignore it. I just didn't see the need to respond
paragraph by paragraph. I have no dispute with the above
paragraph and no comment to make on it.

> >> "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
> >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
> >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
> >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."


Based upon the defintion you have given me, I have shown that the
deaths associated with meat production are per accidens because
the killing of an animal is not always absolutely necessary for
the meat's existence.

> >> Where farmed meat is concerned, the deaths of animals
> >> is a property that is always necessary for that object's
> >> existence; you cannot source farmed meat without killing
> >> the animals.

> >
> >Pedant point:

>
> There's nothing pedant about it.
>
> >You can. Just wait for the animal to die of
> >natural causes.

>
> Exactly.
>
> >> Those deaths are per se: a property that is
> >> always absolutely necessary for THAT meat's existence.
> >>
> >> Where crops are concerned, the deaths of animals (CD's)
> >> are not necessary for that object's existence; you can
> >> source veg without killing animals. The deaths that are
> >> caused by crop producers are per accidens: a property
> >> that isn't necessary for the vegetables we eat to exist.

> >
> >OK. I understand the disctinction. I still dispute its significance.

>
> You don't understand the distinction, and therefore
> you cannot dispute it; you merely don't see it, that's
> all, but then that's your failing rather than mine.


The distinction does not actually exist in the way that you define
your terms. Even you defined your terms more carefully, such that
the distinction did exist, it would mean f*** all!

> >> >> >> >but
> >> >> >> >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly
> >> >> >> >as a result of animal research would have been discovered
> >> >> >> >without?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is
> >> >> >a dodge", or so I have been reliably informed:-)
> >> >>
> >> >> You need to support your claim, and my question
> >> >> asks for that support. You cannot exclude the very
> >> >> real possibility that the drugs found using animal
> >> >> research might still have been found without it, or
> >> >> that they may have been discovered even earlier.
> >> >> The onus on you is to support your claim.
> >> >
> >> >I believe the onus is on you for two reasons:
> >> >
> >> >1. I was not making any claim. You made the claim that
> >> >drugs could exist without killing animals in medical
> >> >research and I challenged you on it.
> >>
> >> Drugs can exist and be found without killing animals.

> >
> >I'm not disputing that.

>
> Then why did you challenge me to support the claim
> that "drugs could exist without killing animals in medical
> research" by writing,
> "You made the claim that drugs could exist without
> killing animals in medical research and I challenged
> you on it."


You made the claim that the deaths associated with medicinal
drugs were always per accidens because the drugs could exist
without the animal experiments. I disputed that this was
true for those drugs that were discovered as a result of
medical knowledge resulting from animal experiments. I never
claimed there would be no drugs without animal experiments.

> You did dispute that they can, and now that I've given
> you two examples showing they can, you're now trying
> to claim that you're not disputing that they can by writing,
> "I'm not disputing that."
>
> You're just wasting our time, going round in circles
> contradicting yourself.


No contradictions. I asked "How can you be so sure that the
drugs discovered, partly as a result of animal research could
have existed without?" I did not ask you to show that at least
one drug had been developed without animal research.
>
> >> [Two examples of drugs developed without animal
> >> research are penicillin and the smallpox vaccine.
> >>
> >> The smallpox vaccine was developed by a scientist
> >> who noticed that everyone in a particular village had
> >> contracted smallpox except one person: the milkmaid.
> >> It appeared that the milkmaid had been exposed to
> >> cowpox through her daily contact with cows, and her
> >> body developed antigens against the cowpox and
> >> those antigens were effective against the smallpox.
> >> Cowpox is closely related to smallpox, but much
> >> milder. The scientist began exposing healthy people
> >> to cowpox (without testing his theory on animals) and
> >> found that those people became immune to smallpox.
> >>
> >> Penicillin was discovered accidentally by a scientist
> >> who noticed that germs would not grow on certain
> >> areas of certain petri dishes in his lab. Upon testing
> >> these areas, he found that those areas contained
> >> penicillin.
> >>
> >> Just because a drug or treatment was developed using
> >> animal research doesn't mean it couldn't have been
> >> developed *without* animal research.]

> >
> >True but neither does it mean that the drug could have
> >been developed without animal research.

>
> If course it does, you stupid idiot,


How does the fact that a drug is developed *using*
animal research does not *prove* that the same drug
could have been developed *without* using animal research?
That is what you've just claimed, as you would know if you
had taken the trouble to read what I actually wrote.

> and further down this
> page you even admit that they can by writing, "The fact
> that drugs have been discovered without animal research
> shows that any deaths associated with those particular
> drugs are per-accidens."


What part of the phrase "those particular drugs" do you
not understand?

> What the **** is the matter with you, you imbecile?


Nothing. What is the matter with you?

> >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/vivisec.htm
> >>
> >> Those are just two examples where drugs can and do
> >> exist without killing animals. Ancient drugs and remedies
> >> found in rainforest areas are other examples where the
> >> deaths of animals weren't necessary. So, the deaths
> >> currently associated with drug production are not
> >> necessary for the existence of drugs, and are therefore
> >> per accidens.

> >
> >The fact that drugs have been discovered without animal
> >research shows that any deaths associated with those
> >particular drugs are per-accidens.

>
> No, it shows that the deaths associated with drug
> discovery and production are per accidens - period.


Only if the fact that food can exist without animal deaths
show that the deaths associated with the production of food
are per accidens - period! To make a distinction between
meat and vegetables while refusing to make a distinction
between animal research derived knowledge and other knowledge
is selective to the point of intellectual dishonesty.

> >It does not show that
> >the deaths associated with modern drugs, developed using
> >animal experiments, are per accidens.

>
> Wrong. You've already conceded the fact that drugs
> can and are found without animal research, and are
> thus per accidens by writing,
> "The fact that drugs have been discovered without
> animal research shows that any deaths associated
> with those particular drugs are per-accidens."
>
> You're all over the place.


See above.

> >> >> >> >> the properties they carry are "per accidens"
> >> >> >> >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods,
> >> >> >> >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now
> >> >> >> >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in
> >> >> >> >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy
> >> >> >> >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens".
> >> >> >> >> What would be the ethical choice between the two?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that
> >> >> >> >needed to be done.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was
> >> >> >> needed, and nor have you answered the question
> >> >> >> put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions
> >> >> >> of your own is a dodge.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The distinction between harm done per se and harm done
> >> >> >per accidens is not so important.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's crucial, because without that distinction you
> >> >> cannot compare the moral status behind these
> >> >> goods. As with everything about you, you have
> >> >> no coherent principle or reasoning behind your
> >> >> position.
> >> >
> >> >Although I have admitted I have no way to classify
> >> >the moral status of goods as "right" or "wrong"
> >>
> >> Exactly: because you haven't grasped the distinction
> >> between per se and per accidens, even though you
> >> thought you did.

> >
> >IMHO the distinction between per se and per accidens does not
> >enable one to classify the moral status of goods as
> >"right" or "wrong", even when understood correctly.

>
> Being that you admittedly don't understand the terms


I understand the terms as you defined them.

> or see their relevance, your opinion on them is irrelevant.


My opinion of them is that they are irrelevant from the ethical
point of view.

> >> >I can still compare them in relative terms according
> >> >to the actual consequences of their production.
> >>
> >> Then according to you, the moral status of farmed
> >> meat is good if the consequences of its production
> >> can be shown to be good. Conversely, the moral
> >> status of veg must be bad if the consequences of its
> >> production is bad.

> >
> >Correct.

>
> Then you have no argument against the meat eater
> for what he eats, because according to him the
> consequence of its production is good.


Non-sequiter. I can argue that the consequences of
its production are not good.

> And you
> have no defence against him either, because he can
> show you that the consequences of veg production
> is bad.


Non-sequiter. I can argue that the consequences of
their production are preferable to the consequences
of the production of alternative forms of nutrition.

> As we can see, you have no guiding principle
> behind your diet, and you have no argument against
> the meat eater for his. You're simply wasting your
> time and theirs.


This is false as you would expect from a conclusion
derived from a couple of non-sequiters.
>
> >> >> >What matters is the consequences
> >> >>
> >> >> No. The consequences of an action cannot judge
> >> >> whether that act was good or bad. An action can
> >> >> only be judged on the principle involved behind it.
> >> >> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> >> >
> >> >In my view a good system of ethics is one that seeks
> >> >to enhance the quality of life for all beings able to
> >> >appreciate it. You can formulate any prinicple such
> >> >as your distinction between per-se and per-accidens
> >> >but what practical purpose does that serve?
> >>
> >> Since when was it required that a philosophical
> >> concept must have a practical purpose?

> >
> >Philosophical concepts do not necessarily need to
> >serve a practical purpose

>
> Then why try to dismiss Aristotle's philosophical
> concept by asking what practical purpose it can
> serve if you're now saying that "Philosophical
> concepts do not necessarily need to serve a
> practical purpose", time-waster?


If you had read my full quote then you would already
know the answer to that question.
>
> >but ethics

>
> You don't understand ethics.


You hypocrite! If I don't respond to every paragraph
you write you accuse me of timewasting but when you
see a paragraph that is more convinient to ignore then
you snip it. Allow me to reinstate it.

Ethics is supposed to be a practical branch of philosophy,
not merely a way of justifying one's dietary prejudices.

> >> >> >> >If you consumed plantation sugar
> >> >> >> >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for
> >> >> >> >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical,
> >> >> >> >"in essence" nature of the sugar?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Neither.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar
> >> >> >was not responsible for supporting the slave trade
> >> >> >then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not
> >> >> >responsible for supporting the meat industry.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, because the deaths associated with the meat
> >> >> industry are per se while the deaths associated
> >> >> with sugar are per accidens. You clearly haven't
> >> >> grasped any of this at all.
> >> >
> >> >Again, if you wish to make a distinction between
> >> >meat obtained by scavenging and meat obtained by
> >> >the deliberate killing of an animal then it seems
> >> >inconsistent to make no distinction between sugar
> >> >obtained using willing labour and sugar obtained
> >> >using forced labour.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't inconsistent at all. A valid moral distinction
> >> can be made between scavenged and farmed meat.

> >
> >Agreed.

>
> Thank you.


You're welcome.

> >> Scavenged meat can be sourced from animals that
> >> haven't been killed by us in order to get it, while
> >> farmed meat cannot exist without our first killing the
> >> animal to get it. Get it?

> >
> >Yes. Buying meat from the butcher gives farmers a commercial
> >incentive to keep killing animals. Scavenging meat does not.

>
> Thank you.
>
> >> You're in a mess. Sort yourself out by trying to
> >> retain some of what I've explained.

> >
> >I understand the disctinction between per se and
> >per essence.

>
> No, you still don't.
>
> >but until you can show that the ethics,
> >you have built upon the distinction have a more
> >noble purpose than justifying your dietary prejudices
> >I shall continue to treat it as worthless.

>
> Then your ignorance over these terms has made
> you arrogant about them as well.


Since you clearly have no way of explaining how the
ethics you have decided to adopt can lead to a better
society, I suppose it is only natural that you should
choose to make a snide remark instead.

  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>>
>> > Please try to imagine that you
>> > believed that the farming of animals was inherently wrong and
>> > that veganism was a solution without flaw.

>>
>> I have no desire or need to imagine, I have thought long and hard about
>> it,
>> and I have concluded that it's a deeply flawed moral conclusion. You are
>> confusing political ideals with diet. I suggest that *you* need to
>> imagine
>> that the idea that farming animals is wrong is misguided, a mistake, a
>> wrong
>> turn honestly made in the quest for a moral life.
>>
>> I don't have time to respond in detail right now, I 'm going away for a
>> week
>> and I have to get ready, but I'm looking forward to exploring this issue
>> in
>> greater depth with you when I return.
>>
>> cheers

>
> OK. I'll look forward to that.


One thing I know from experience speaking to vegans is that whatever I say
you are going to resist it automatically and vehemently, such is the nature
of this idea you have embraced. So I would just ask that you do one thing
that takes intellectual integrity, make an honest effort to consider the
possibility that what I say *may* be true, even it sounds wrong to you. If
it is going to happen at all, your "liberation" is going to involve some
pain.

It's difficult to know where to begin. I think veganism has it's roots in
the political emancipation movements, i.e. it *appears* logical on the
surface that the liberation of minorities, women, children and so on should
be followed by the liberation of animals, but it isn't logical at all. In
order to view the world the way vegans do it is necessary to nominate a few
species of animals as *worthy* of consideration and be totally blind to all
other animals. I'll give you one example, I own a square mile farm on the
prairies, I just returned from the harvest. On the summer fallow portion of
my land there is now a population of tiny frogs, I didn't count them, but
there must be millions of them. The tenant who farms the land is required to
suppress the weedson that land before seeding in the spring so he will be
treating it with herbicide which will likely kill those frogs, along with
any bugs, rodents and anything that predates on them. This is part of the
legacy of wheat, i.e. bread. Mice are just as social and intelligent as
cattle, yet my farmer will be poisoning many of them to preserve the grain
he is putting into bins this year. Where is the logic in the vegan ideal
that says that it is immoral to kill the cattle he keeps in pasture yet
remain mute about the million frogs on my grain field? I'll leave it at that
for now to hear your reaction.


  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote

[..]

>> >> Where crops are concerned, the deaths of animals (CD's)
>> >> are not necessary for that object's existence; you can
>> >> source veg without killing animals. The deaths that are
>> >> caused by crop producers are per accidens: a property
>> >> that isn't necessary for the vegetables we eat to exist.
>> >
>> >OK. I understand the disctinction. I still dispute its significance.

>>
>> You don't understand the distinction, and therefore
>> you cannot dispute it; you merely don't see it, that's
>> all, but then that's your failing rather than mine.

>
> The distinction does not actually exist in the way that you define
> your terms. Even you defined your terms more carefully, such that
> the distinction did exist, it would mean f*** all!


Exactly right. Theoretically, vegetables can be obtained without killing any
animals, so can meat, no distinction.

[..]

>> You don't understand ethics.

>
> You hypocrite! If I don't respond to every paragraph
> you write you accuse me of timewasting but when you
> see a paragraph that is more convinient to ignore then
> you snip it.


Unethical snippage and quoting out of context are Derek's trademarks.

> Allow me to reinstate it.
>
> Ethics is supposed to be a practical branch of philosophy,
> not merely a way of justifying one's dietary prejudices.


Well put!

[..]

> Since you clearly have no way of explaining how the
> ethics you have decided to adopt can lead to a better
> society, I suppose it is only natural that you should
> choose to make a snide remark instead.


Again you have hit the nail on the head, setting up for the snide remark is
Derek's whole raison d'être.


  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> Where crops are concerned, the deaths of animals (CD's)
> >> >> are not necessary for that object's existence; you can
> >> >> source veg without killing animals. The deaths that are
> >> >> caused by crop producers are per accidens: a property
> >> >> that isn't necessary for the vegetables we eat to exist.
> >> >
> >> >OK. I understand the disctinction. I still dispute its significance.
> >>
> >> You don't understand the distinction, and therefore
> >> you cannot dispute it; you merely don't see it, that's
> >> all, but then that's your failing rather than mine.

> >
> > The distinction does not actually exist in the way that you define
> > your terms. Even you defined your terms more carefully, such that
> > the distinction did exist, it would mean f*** all!

>
> Exactly right. Theoretically, vegetables can be obtained without killing

any
> animals, so can meat, no distinction.


The only way I see that meat can
be obtained without any killing, is
if you surgically remove a cow's leg
and, leaving the animal alive after,
eat the leg.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

> [..]
>
> >> You don't understand ethics.

> >
> > You hypocrite! If I don't respond to every paragraph
> > you write you accuse me of timewasting but when you
> > see a paragraph that is more convinient to ignore then
> > you snip it.

>
> Unethical snippage and quoting out of context are Derek's trademarks.
>
> > Allow me to reinstate it.
> >
> > Ethics is supposed to be a practical branch of philosophy,
> > not merely a way of justifying one's dietary prejudices.

>
> Well put!
>
> [..]
>
> > Since you clearly have no way of explaining how the
> > ethics you have decided to adopt can lead to a better
> > society, I suppose it is only natural that you should
> > choose to make a snide remark instead.

>
> Again you have hit the nail on the head, setting up for the snide remark

is
> Derek's whole raison d'être.
>
>





  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >>
> >> > Please try to imagine that you
> >> > believed that the farming of animals was inherently wrong and
> >> > that veganism was a solution without flaw.
> >>
> >> I have no desire or need to imagine, I have thought long and hard about
> >> it,
> >> and I have concluded that it's a deeply flawed moral conclusion. You are
> >> confusing political ideals with diet. I suggest that *you* need to
> >> imagine
> >> that the idea that farming animals is wrong is misguided, a mistake, a
> >> wrong
> >> turn honestly made in the quest for a moral life.
> >>
> >> I don't have time to respond in detail right now, I 'm going away for a
> >> week
> >> and I have to get ready, but I'm looking forward to exploring this issue
> >> in
> >> greater depth with you when I return.
> >>
> >> cheers

> >
> > OK. I'll look forward to that.

>
> One thing I know from experience speaking to vegans is that whatever I say
> you are going to resist it automatically and vehemently, such is the nature
> of this idea you have embraced. So I would just ask that you do one thing
> that takes intellectual integrity, make an honest effort to consider the
> possibility that what I say *may* be true, even it sounds wrong to you. If
> it is going to happen at all, your "liberation" is going to involve some
> pain.
>
> It's difficult to know where to begin. I think veganism has it's roots in
> the political emancipation movements, i.e. it *appears* logical on the
> surface that the liberation of minorities, women, children and so on should
> be followed by the liberation of animals, but it isn't logical at all. In
> order to view the world the way vegans do it is necessary to nominate a few
> species of animals as *worthy* of consideration and be totally blind to all
> other animals. I'll give you one example, I own a square mile farm on the
> prairies, I just returned from the harvest. On the summer fallow portion of
> my land there is now a population of tiny frogs, I didn't count them, but
> there must be millions of them. The tenant who farms the land is required to
> suppress the weedson that land before seeding in the spring so he will be
> treating it with herbicide which will likely kill those frogs, along with
> any bugs, rodents and anything that predates on them. This is part of the
> legacy of wheat, i.e. bread. Mice are just as social and intelligent as
> cattle, yet my farmer will be poisoning many of them to preserve the grain
> he is putting into bins this year. Where is the logic in the vegan ideal
> that says that it is immoral to kill the cattle he keeps in pasture yet
> remain mute about the million frogs on my grain field? I'll leave it at that
> for now to hear your reaction.


Where to begin? First of all I should note that, unlike the vast
majortity
of vegans, I do make a qualitative distinciton between humans and
animals
and between different classes of animal.

I don't actually believe there is any sound logical reason to be
morallly outraged by the cow killed for her meat while turning a blind
eye to the
rodent's killed in your grain field but the emotional response towards
the
two is somewhat different. When I think of eating a piece of beef, I
kind
of imagine myself ending the life of the cow and feel uncomfortable
about
destroying something of such value. When I think about vegetables being
sprayed with chemicals, I know on a rational level that this will cause
animal deaths which are entirely predictable and therefore can be
considered
deliberate but because the victims aren't targetted directly and aren't
part of the bread I don't make the connection between their deaths
and the bread on an emotional level. Please note the above is not a
vindication of vegan ethics. It is simply an explaination of why I
choose
not to eat meat.

Ethically I do not claim a qualitative difference between vegan and
non-vegan foods. I consider that all foods come with an associated
moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
animal suffering caused to produce the food. organic vegetables
hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
the case.

BTW is it absolutely necessary for your tenant to kill the mice
to protect his grain? I mean, can't he store it somewhere the
mice can't get to?

  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
causes.

  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
> causes.


That's true. I forgot about that one.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
> causes.


Road-kill


  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:


[..]

>> One thing I know from experience speaking to vegans is that whatever I
>> say
>> you are going to resist it automatically and vehemently, such is the
>> nature
>> of this idea you have embraced. So I would just ask that you do one thing
>> that takes intellectual integrity, make an honest effort to consider the
>> possibility that what I say *may* be true, even it sounds wrong to you.
>> If
>> it is going to happen at all, your "liberation" is going to involve some
>> pain.
>>
>> It's difficult to know where to begin. I think veganism has it's roots in
>> the political emancipation movements, i.e. it *appears* logical on the
>> surface that the liberation of minorities, women, children and so on
>> should
>> be followed by the liberation of animals, but it isn't logical at all. In
>> order to view the world the way vegans do it is necessary to nominate a
>> few
>> species of animals as *worthy* of consideration and be totally blind to
>> all
>> other animals. I'll give you one example, I own a square mile farm on the
>> prairies, I just returned from the harvest. On the summer fallow portion
>> of
>> my land there is now a population of tiny frogs, I didn't count them, but
>> there must be millions of them. The tenant who farms the land is required
>> to
>> suppress the weedson that land before seeding in the spring so he will be
>> treating it with herbicide which will likely kill those frogs, along with
>> any bugs, rodents and anything that predates on them. This is part of the
>> legacy of wheat, i.e. bread. Mice are just as social and intelligent as
>> cattle, yet my farmer will be poisoning many of them to preserve the
>> grain
>> he is putting into bins this year. Where is the logic in the vegan ideal
>> that says that it is immoral to kill the cattle he keeps in pasture yet
>> remain mute about the million frogs on my grain field? I'll leave it at
>> that
>> for now to hear your reaction.

>
> Where to begin? First of all I should note that, unlike the vast
> majortity
> of vegans, I do make a qualitative distinciton between humans and
> animals
> and between different classes of animal.


Everyone does, vegans pretend either that such distinctions do not exist or
misconstrue them.

> I don't actually believe there is any sound logical reason to be
> morallly outraged by the cow killed for her meat while turning a blind
> eye to the
> rodent's killed in your grain field but the emotional response towards
> the
> two is somewhat different. When I think of eating a piece of beef, I
> kind
> of imagine myself ending the life of the cow and feel uncomfortable
> about
> destroying something of such value. When I think about vegetables being
> sprayed with chemicals, I know on a rational level that this will cause
> animal deaths which are entirely predictable and therefore can be
> considered
> deliberate but because the victims aren't targetted directly and aren't
> part of the bread I don't make the connection between their deaths
> and the bread on an emotional level. Please note the above is not a
> vindication of vegan ethics. It is simply an explaination of why I
> choose
> not to eat meat.


That all coincides with my belief that veganism is an emotional response
rather than a rational one. If you choose to allow your emotions to overrule
your reason that is your choice, but vegans have a habit of insisting that
others must to behave this way or else be considered some sort of ghoul.

> Ethically I do not claim a qualitative difference between vegan and
> non-vegan foods.


You're saying the words, but I question if you really believe that at this
point.

> I consider that all foods come with an associated
> moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
> the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
> animal suffering caused to produce the food.


Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must do to
obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that there is
no moral cost.

> organic vegetables
> hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
> factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
> much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
> the case.


You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in animal
deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is preached
and practiced.

> BTW is it absolutely necessary for your tenant to kill the mice
> to protect his grain?


Absolutely? Probably not.

> I mean, can't he store it somewhere the
> mice can't get to?


Practically? Yes. Farming is barely economically viable as it is.




  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:

>
> [..]
>
> >> One thing I know from experience speaking to vegans is that whatever I
> >> say
> >> you are going to resist it automatically and vehemently, such is the
> >> nature
> >> of this idea you have embraced. So I would just ask that you do one thing
> >> that takes intellectual integrity, make an honest effort to consider the
> >> possibility that what I say *may* be true, even it sounds wrong to you.
> >> If
> >> it is going to happen at all, your "liberation" is going to involve some
> >> pain.
> >>
> >> It's difficult to know where to begin. I think veganism has it's roots in
> >> the political emancipation movements, i.e. it *appears* logical on the
> >> surface that the liberation of minorities, women, children and so on
> >> should
> >> be followed by the liberation of animals, but it isn't logical at all. In
> >> order to view the world the way vegans do it is necessary to nominate a
> >> few
> >> species of animals as *worthy* of consideration and be totally blind to
> >> all
> >> other animals. I'll give you one example, I own a square mile farm on the
> >> prairies, I just returned from the harvest. On the summer fallow portion
> >> of
> >> my land there is now a population of tiny frogs, I didn't count them, but
> >> there must be millions of them. The tenant who farms the land is required
> >> to
> >> suppress the weedson that land before seeding in the spring so he will be
> >> treating it with herbicide which will likely kill those frogs, along with
> >> any bugs, rodents and anything that predates on them. This is part of the
> >> legacy of wheat, i.e. bread. Mice are just as social and intelligent as
> >> cattle, yet my farmer will be poisoning many of them to preserve the
> >> grain
> >> he is putting into bins this year. Where is the logic in the vegan ideal
> >> that says that it is immoral to kill the cattle he keeps in pasture yet
> >> remain mute about the million frogs on my grain field? I'll leave it at
> >> that
> >> for now to hear your reaction.

> >
> > Where to begin? First of all I should note that, unlike the vast
> > majortity
> > of vegans, I do make a qualitative distinciton between humans and
> > animals
> > and between different classes of animal.

>
> Everyone does, vegans pretend either that such distinctions do not exist or
> misconstrue them.
>
> > I don't actually believe there is any sound logical reason to be
> > morallly outraged by the cow killed for her meat while turning a blind
> > eye to the
> > rodent's killed in your grain field but the emotional response towards
> > the
> > two is somewhat different. When I think of eating a piece of beef, I
> > kind
> > of imagine myself ending the life of the cow and feel uncomfortable
> > about
> > destroying something of such value. When I think about vegetables being
> > sprayed with chemicals, I know on a rational level that this will cause
> > animal deaths which are entirely predictable and therefore can be
> > considered
> > deliberate but because the victims aren't targetted directly and aren't
> > part of the bread I don't make the connection between their deaths
> > and the bread on an emotional level. Please note the above is not a
> > vindication of vegan ethics. It is simply an explaination of why I
> > choose
> > not to eat meat.

>
> That all coincides with my belief that veganism is an emotional response
> rather than a rational one.


My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
emotional responses and veganism is no exception.

> If you choose to allow your emotions to overrule
> your reason that is your choice, but vegans have a habit of insisting that
> others must to behave this way or else be considered some sort of ghoul.
>
> > Ethically I do not claim a qualitative difference between vegan and
> > non-vegan foods.

>
> You're saying the words, but I question if you really believe that at this
> point.
>
> > I consider that all foods come with an associated
> > moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
> > the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
> > animal suffering caused to produce the food.

>
> Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must do to
> obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that there is
> no moral cost.


Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
How about undesirable consequences?

> > organic vegetables
> > hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
> > factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
> > much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
> > the case.

>
> You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in animal
> deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is preached
> and practiced.


That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
right lines.

> > BTW is it absolutely necessary for your tenant to kill the mice
> > to protect his grain?

>
> Absolutely? Probably not.
>
> > I mean, can't he store it somewhere the
> > mice can't get to?

>
> Practically? Yes. Farming is barely economically viable as it is.


  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> > There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
> > causes.

>
> Road-kill


Strictly speaking an animal still has to be killed in
order to provide meat via road-kill.

  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>> > There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of
>> > natural
>> > causes.

>>
>> Road-kill

>
> Strictly speaking an animal still has to be killed in
> order to provide meat via road-kill.
>======================

But it wasn't killed to provide food, so using the vegan excuse
machine, that would make the death ok, since they like to totally
ignore the death and suffering they cause by claiming those
deaths aren't intentional. It's as if somehow the animals aren't
quite as dead that way as when you kill them to eat them.



  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky wrote:
> The only way I see that meat can
> be obtained without any killing, is
> if you surgically remove a cow's leg
> and, leaving the animal alive after,
> eat the leg.


Why surgically remove it? Anyway, you're not thinking of scavenging.
Then again, you're not known for thinking in the first place.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky wrote:
>>There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
>>causes.

>
> That's true. I forgot about that one.


You didn't "forget," you just didn't think. Dummy.


  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pesco-vegan wrote:
>>>There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
>>>causes.

>>
>>Road-kill

>
> Strictly speaking an animal still has to be killed in
> order to provide meat via road-kill.


It should be considered "ethical" by most standards so long as you're
not the one who swerved to hit it.
  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>> > There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
>> > causes.

>>
>> Road-kill

>
> Strictly speaking an animal still has to be killed in
> order to provide meat via road-kill.


It's an animal that was already dead from an unintentional cause, therefore
it does not need to be killed for the purpose of obtaining food/eating.
Another example would be animals killed by a natural disaster.



  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"useless cesspool" > wrote in message
...

> You didn't "forget,"


I forgot, moron. Does that really upset
you so much or do you just miss me?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh shut up, Useless.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:


> My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
> emotional responses and veganism is no exception.


That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it is
not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.

It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
ethics. I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
of what ethics really are. Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
mistake.

[..]

>> > I consider that all foods come with an associated
>> > moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
>> > the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
>> > animal suffering caused to produce the food.

>>
>> Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must do
>> to
>> obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that there
>> is
>> no moral cost.

>
> Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
> How about undesirable consequences?


Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
adherents naively imagine.

>> > organic vegetables
>> > hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
>> > factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
>> > much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
>> > the case.

>>
>> You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
>> animal
>> deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
>> preached
>> and practiced.

>
> That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
> reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
> statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
> right lines.


Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why not
apply complex and adaptable solutions? You have realized that consuming
fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why stop
thinking there?




  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky wrote:
>>You didn't "forget,"

>
> I forgot


No, you didn't think.

> Does that really upset you so much


I'm not upset.

> or do you just miss me?


You were gone?
  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> > Dutch wrote:

>
> > My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
> > emotional responses and veganism is no exception.

>
> That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it is
> not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
> needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.


In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
conclusions.

> It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
> ethics.


It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.

> I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
> of what ethics really are.


I doubt that.

> Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
> mistake.
>
> [..]
>
> >> > I consider that all foods come with an associated
> >> > moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
> >> > the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
> >> > animal suffering caused to produce the food.
> >>
> >> Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must do
> >> to
> >> obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that there
> >> is
> >> no moral cost.

> >
> > Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
> > How about undesirable consequences?

>
> Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
> benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
> complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
> adherents naively imagine.


Agreed.

> >> > organic vegetables
> >> > hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
> >> > factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
> >> > much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
> >> > the case.
> >>
> >> You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
> >> animal
> >> deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
> >> preached
> >> and practiced.

> >
> > That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
> > reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
> > statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
> > right lines.

>
> Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why not
> apply complex and adaptable solutions?


A simple rule is better than nothing. Complex and adaptable solutions
are better still.

> You have realized that consuming
> fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why stop
> thinking there?


Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
lifestyle
but are not necessary for such. I just choose to avoid them.

  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky wrote:
> Oh


Dummy.
  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>> > Dutch wrote:

>>
>> > My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
>> > emotional responses and veganism is no exception.

>>
>> That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it
>> is
>> not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
>> needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.

>
> In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
> what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
> conclusions.


"Feeling what is right" *is* the act of weighing one's own interests against
the interests of the outside world. There is no separate process.

>> It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
>> ethics.

>
> It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.


That's strange, when a sentence begins with, "My belief is that ethics
are..." that indicates a definition of ethics is to follow.

>> I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
>> of what ethics really are.

>
> I doubt that.


Your comments lead me to that conclusion. You have admitted that you are
basing your idea of ethics on "feelings" and aesthetic considerations
instead of using a rational process, did that tendency come first, or did
"veganism" exacorbate it?

>> Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
>> mistake.


"Veganism" will deplete your ability to think rationally.

>> [..]
>>
>> >> > I consider that all foods come with an associated
>> >> > moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
>> >> > the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
>> >> > animal suffering caused to produce the food.
>> >>
>> >> Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must
>> >> do
>> >> to
>> >> obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that
>> >> there
>> >> is
>> >> no moral cost.
>> >
>> > Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
>> > How about undesirable consequences?

>>
>> Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
>> benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
>> complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
>> adherents naively imagine.

>
> Agreed.
>
>> >> > organic vegetables
>> >> > hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
>> >> > factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
>> >> > much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
>> >> > the case.
>> >>
>> >> You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
>> >> animal
>> >> deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
>> >> preached
>> >> and practiced.
>> >
>> > That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
>> > reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
>> > statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
>> > right lines.

>>
>> Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why
>> not
>> apply complex and adaptable solutions?

>
> A simple rule is better than nothing.


Who is advocating "nothing"?

> Complex and adaptable solutions
> are better still.


Veganism is not complex or adaptable, it is binary and rigid. "Do not
consume animal products." The only flexibility within it is a crass one of
convenience, not principle, ""Do not consume animal products, unless it's
too much trouble to do otherwise.."

>> You have realized that consuming
>> fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why
>> stop
>> thinking there?

>
> Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
> lifestyle
> but are not necessary for such.


If you understand and believe that then you should not call yourself a
vegan.

> I just choose to avoid them.



  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >> > My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
> >> > emotional responses and veganism is no exception.
> >>
> >> That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it
> >> is
> >> not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
> >> needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.

> >
> > In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
> > what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
> > conclusions.

>
> "Feeling what is right" *is* the act of weighing one's own interests against
> the interests of the outside world. There is no separate process.
>
> >> It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
> >> ethics.

> >
> > It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.

>
> That's strange, when a sentence begins with, "My belief is that ethics
> are..." that indicates a definition of ethics is to follow.
>
> >> I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
> >> of what ethics really are.

> >
> > I doubt that.

>
> Your comments lead me to that conclusion. You have admitted that you are
> basing your idea of ethics on "feelings" and aesthetic considerations
> instead of using a rational process,


I do try to be rational most of the time. I am simply introducing the
theory that most people develop their moral conclusions first and the
justifying arguments second, more than they would care to admit or are
even
consciously aware

> did that tendency come first, or did
> "veganism" exacorbate it?
>
> >> Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
> >> mistake.

>
> "Veganism" will deplete your ability to think rationally.


I don't think that follows.

> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> > I consider that all foods come with an associated
> >> >> > moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
> >> >> > the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
> >> >> > animal suffering caused to produce the food.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must
> >> >> do
> >> >> to
> >> >> obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that
> >> >> there
> >> >> is
> >> >> no moral cost.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
> >> > How about undesirable consequences?
> >>
> >> Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
> >> benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
> >> complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
> >> adherents naively imagine.

> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> >> > organic vegetables
> >> >> > hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
> >> >> > factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
> >> >> > much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
> >> >> > the case.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
> >> >> animal
> >> >> deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
> >> >> preached
> >> >> and practiced.
> >> >
> >> > That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
> >> > reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
> >> > statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
> >> > right lines.
> >>
> >> Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why
> >> not
> >> apply complex and adaptable solutions?

> >
> > A simple rule is better than nothing.

>
> Who is advocating "nothing"?
>
> > Complex and adaptable solutions
> > are better still.

>
> Veganism is not complex or adaptable, it is binary and rigid. "Do not
> consume animal products." The only flexibility within it is a crass one of
> convenience, not principle, ""Do not consume animal products, unless it's
> too much trouble to do otherwise.."


Having thought this over a bit more I now agree with you. AIUI the
guiding principle behind veganism is that animals deserve the same
rights we claim for ourselves. In that case following the rule of
veganism is not the same as following the guiding principle behind
that rule.

> >> You have realized that consuming
> >> fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why
> >> stop
> >> thinking there?

> >
> > Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
> > lifestyle
> > but are not necessary for such.

>
> If you understand and believe that then you should not call yourself a
> vegan.


I am planning a name change soon. I am considering something
even more oxymoronic like carno-vegan. If you avoid animal
products for aesthetic reasons rather than moral ones, are you
not still a vegan? In my case the point is moot anyway. Eating
fish disqualifies me from calling myself a vegan.

> > I just choose to avoid them.




  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
>> >> > emotional responses and veganism is no exception.
>> >>
>> >> That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but
>> >> it
>> >> is
>> >> not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's
>> >> own
>> >> needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside
>> >> world.
>> >
>> > In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
>> > what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
>> > conclusions.

>>
>> "Feeling what is right" *is* the act of weighing one's own interests
>> against
>> the interests of the outside world. There is no separate process.
>>
>> >> It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
>> >> ethics.
>> >
>> > It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.

>>
>> That's strange, when a sentence begins with, "My belief is that ethics
>> are..." that indicates a definition of ethics is to follow.
>>
>> >> I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
>> >> of what ethics really are.
>> >
>> > I doubt that.

>>
>> Your comments lead me to that conclusion. You have admitted that you are
>> basing your idea of ethics on "feelings" and aesthetic considerations
>> instead of using a rational process,

>
> I do try to be rational most of the time. I am simply introducing the
> theory that most people develop their moral conclusions first and the
> justifying arguments second, more than they would care to admit or are
> even
> consciously aware


I don't buy that at all, you have it backwards. The moral framework already
exists in our social nature, network and society, people have emotional
reactions about moral issues and project them in different ways.


>> did that tendency come first, or did
>> "veganism" exacorbate it?
>>
>> >> Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
>> >> mistake.

>>
>> "Veganism" will deplete your ability to think rationally.

>
> I don't think that follows.


If you allow emotion to overrule reason then you are not thinking
rationally. That's what veganism does, and you have admittedly bought into
that kind of thinking, to some extent.

>
>> >> [..]
>> >>
>> >> >> > I consider that all foods come with an associated
>> >> >> > moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
>> >> >> > the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
>> >> >> > animal suffering caused to produce the food.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we
>> >> >> must
>> >> >> do
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that
>> >> >> there
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> no moral cost.
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
>> >> > How about undesirable consequences?
>> >>
>> >> Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
>> >> benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
>> >> complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
>> >> adherents naively imagine.
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> >> >> > organic vegetables
>> >> >> > hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
>> >> >> > factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
>> >> >> > much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
>> >> >> > the case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
>> >> >> animal
>> >> >> deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
>> >> >> preached
>> >> >> and practiced.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
>> >> > reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
>> >> > statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
>> >> > right lines.
>> >>
>> >> Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem?
>> >> Why
>> >> not
>> >> apply complex and adaptable solutions?
>> >
>> > A simple rule is better than nothing.

>>
>> Who is advocating "nothing"?
>>
>> > Complex and adaptable solutions
>> > are better still.

>>
>> Veganism is not complex or adaptable, it is binary and rigid. "Do not
>> consume animal products." The only flexibility within it is a crass one
>> of
>> convenience, not principle, ""Do not consume animal products, unless it's
>> too much trouble to do otherwise.."

>
> Having thought this over a bit more I now agree with you. AIUI the
> guiding principle behind veganism is that animals deserve the same
> rights we claim for ourselves.


Right, and from a rational perspective that principle is absurd. There *are*
intelligent, rational principles regarding improving our attitudes towards
animals, but veganism does not embody them..

> In that case following the rule of
> veganism is not the same as following the guiding principle behind
> that rule.


Bingo!

>> >> You have realized that consuming
>> >> fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why
>> >> stop
>> >> thinking there?
>> >
>> > Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
>> > lifestyle
>> > but are not necessary for such.

>>
>> If you understand and believe that then you should not call yourself a
>> vegan.

>
> I am planning a name change soon. I am considering something
> even more oxymoronic like carno-vegan. If you avoid animal
> products for aesthetic reasons rather than moral ones, are you
> not still a vegan?


No, that makes you a vegetarian.

> In my case the point is moot anyway. Eating
> fish disqualifies me from calling myself a vegan.


It's not a label I would use to identify myself, in any form.

>
>> > I just choose to avoid them.

>




  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
spaatz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Suspect....LOL..came across this by chance but it brought a smile to my
face. You are still handy withe "dummy" and "ignorant" labels for other
people in this newsgroup I see. Interesting coming from a fellow who
makes any number of assertions that are erroneous at the least and
silly at best. This I pointed out last month in response to your
nonsensical posts reguarding D.O.s. You did not grace my observations
with a reply. I can only assume because you were embarressed at being
show glaring inaccuricies in certain posts of yours. Your comments
(even sketchily based in logic and fact as they are, might be more
persuasive if you abandoned the name calling and slurs denigrating the
intelligence of others. As they say "people in glass houses....")




usual suspect wrote:
> Tyrone Biggums wrote:
> >>Read it and weep, gullible dolt.

> >
> > The sample is ridiculous.

>
> Ipse dixit and completely IGNORANT. The sample wasn't 65 people, as you
> stupidly suggest. Keep reading if you haven't killfiled me yet, moron.
>
> > I have 15+ years of research experience.

>
> In what field? And why do you not comprehend the nature of the
> meta-analysis of this study?
>
> > 65 people representing millions all over the world, races, social/economic
> > factors, environment, etc. etc. etc.

>
> Whoa, dumb ass. The study was a meta-analysis of previous studies: "110
> homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were
> analysed."
>
> The *MEDIAN SIZE* was 65 -- but the studies had anywhere from 10 to 1573
> participants. And before you get all carried away in mocking that which
> you clearly didn't comprehend, keep in mind these were studies which
> purportedly showed benefits of homeopathy (i.e., sugar pills). This
> meta-analysis found that "there was weak evidence for a specific effect
> of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of
> conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion
> that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects."
>
> > This "study" is a sad joke

>
> No, it's actually illustrative.
>
> > and proves nothing.

>
> You mean aside from the fact that sugar pills have can have a placebo
> effect (if they have any effect at all)?
>
> > Try again.

>
> YOU try again, dummy. It wasn't a "study of 65 people," it was a
> meta-analysis of 110 homeopathy studies compared to 110 allopathic
> studies with a median size of 65 participants (range of 10-1573). You
> didn't even comprehend that, did you, pussy.
>
> > Oh, and you need to go back to my KF too.

>
> Is ignorance really bliss?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
buy painkillers and other medicines from us online.Contact: spanson benson General Cooking 0 09-05-2016 07:03 PM
oxycodone,xanax,adderall and other medicines for sale. spanson benson General Cooking 1 03-05-2016 12:57 PM
So what do we really want to wear to work? At first thought, most ofus would say, "It would be really cool if we could wear jeans to work all thetime. After all, I paid just as much for my jeans as I paid for that outfit Iwore to work yesterday. [email protected] Sushi 0 26-04-2008 06:23 PM
EARN FROM YOUR P.C . WORK FROM YOUR HOME. THE WELL PAID ONLINE MAKINGPROGRAMME INVITES YOU TO WORK WITH THEM AND GET PAID FOR YOUR WORK.YOU CANEARN $2,00,000 IN A SINGLE WEEK. THE LINK IS BELOW vicky General Cooking 0 25-04-2008 07:05 AM
homeopathic medicine experience Michael Balarama Vegan 14 13-09-2005 11:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"