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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 12:11 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"C. James Strutz" wrote

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
responsibility.


For what? How?

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be
on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


I think that is a personal decision.


Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?

Under the circumstances


What circumstances?

I think it behooves us to be aware of and honest about the impact of our
lifestyles. Vegans notoriously fail at this.


Maybe so, but is it so bad in the case of vegans? I mean, how do vegans hurt
you that you are so motivated to harass them?

The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude of
morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize animal
deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?
It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely different
matter to accuse them of being unethical.


The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's nothing
wrong with that.


Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...

The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan golden
rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing the token
act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".


You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't value
any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they
over-value abstinence. Yes?

The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
this very apparent.


I haven't been following that thread.

The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,


Thank you...

is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.


So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value any
action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b) they
over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between consumers
and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?

First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
abstinence" that's immoral. So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral"
you are saying that vegans aren't saving the lives that they think they are,
or something like that. Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be
immoral for something that seems more a matter of ignorance at best? And
didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?

Oh yeah, and how does any of this create a moral dilemma between consumers
and non-consumers of meat products? Do you see picket lines of naked vegans
in front of your grocery store's meat counter or something?

Those who place a high moral value on minimizing animal suffering need to
abandon the misleading notion of abstaining from animal "products" and
create new paradigm to express their ideal.


And that would be what???



  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 01:26 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" wrote

You have clarified nothing. Please explain for me what it is you find
so inappropriate with veganism.


I have explained it, the descriptive term is self-righteousness.


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 01:32 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" said nothing as usual..

Are you going to pretend you aren't Derek Nash Pinnochio? You're nose is
gonna grow...


  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 01:57 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"C. James Strutz" wrote

"Dutch" wrote

"C. James Strutz" wrote

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
responsibility.


For what? How?


For the death toll behind our consumer lifestyles, by admitting it.

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


I think that is a personal decision.


Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?


I think you mean that you should be able to read a newsgroup on the ethics
of vegetarianism and not be subjected to ideas that shatter your illusions.

Under the circumstances


What circumstances?


The circumstances are that our lifestyles are built on animal deaths, and
abstaining from animal "products" does not change that fact.

I think it behooves us to be aware of and honest about the impact of our
lifestyles. Vegans notoriously fail at this.


Maybe so, but is it so bad in the case of vegans?


Yes, it appears to be.

I mean, how do vegans hurt you that you are so motivated to harass them?


I don't. I would never harrass anyone because of their diet. I am
participating in a forum that everyone views of their free will. To call
expressing my opinion in this way "harrassment" is absurd.

The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude of
morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize animal
deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?
It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely different
matter to accuse them of being unethical.


The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's nothing
wrong with that.


Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...


Yes, I do, but I disagree with the self-serving way vegans do it.

The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan
golden rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing the
token act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".


You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't
value any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b)
they over-value abstinence. Yes?


Yes, they undervalue efforts that violate 'the rule' and overrate efforts
that follow it.

The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
this very apparent.


I haven't been following that thread.


Cotton (a vegan product) production is *deadly*.

The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,


Thank you...

is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.


So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value
any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b)
they over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between
consumers and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?


Yes.

First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
abstinence" that's immoral.


In my opinion it's a very bad practice.

So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral" you are saying that vegans
aren't saving the lives that they think they are, or something like that.
Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be immoral for something
that seems more a matter of ignorance at best?


Are you claiming ignorance as your excuse? I can't see how you can.

And didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?


Why should I tolerate ignorance? How does that help anyone?

Oh yeah, and how does any of this create a moral dilemma between consumers
and non-consumers of meat products?


In many ways, it causes social problems and cognitive difficulty for
followers of veganism. Essentially it's a gross misjudgment of one's fellow
man, how can that be healthy?

Do you see picket lines of naked vegans in front of your grocery store's
meat counter or something?


Now that would be funny... but unsanitary.

Those who place a high moral value on minimizing animal suffering need to
abandon the misleading notion of abstaining from animal "products" and
create new paradigm to express their ideal.


And that would be what???


Place the emphasis on the animals that are harmed by humanity rather than
some inadequate rule that punishes (in your mind) others, while letting
yourself off the hook for massive transgressions of the principle, such as
wearing cotton clothes or eating bananas, just to name a couple of products
which are related to systemic animal deaths.


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 03:44 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"C. James Strutz" wrote

"Dutch" wrote

"C. James Strutz" wrote

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
responsibility.


For what? How?


For the death toll behind our consumer lifestyles, by admitting it.


I presume you're talking about vegans. Yup, that's my whole point. :^)

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

I think that is a personal decision.


Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?


I think you mean that you should be able to read a newsgroup on the ethics
of vegetarianism and not be subjected to ideas that shatter your
illusions.


Now why would you think that?

Under the circumstances


What circumstances?


The circumstances are that our lifestyles are built on animal deaths, and
abstaining from animal "products" does not change that fact.


Sure it changes it. The question is does it change it significantly? No, I
don't think anybody (including vegans) expects that it would.

I mean, how do vegans hurt you that you are so motivated to harass them?


I don't. I would never harrass anyone because of their diet. I am
participating in a forum that everyone views of their free will. To call
expressing my opinion in this way "harrassment" is absurd.


Sorry, I'll just say that you and others, more or less, "express your
opinion" in an aggressive and arrogant manner, sometimes unnecessarily mean
spirited and condescending. The term "harassment" is not unjustified.

The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude of
morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize animal
deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?
It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely different
matter to accuse them of being unethical.

The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's nothing
wrong with that.


Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...


Yes, I do, but I disagree with the self-serving way vegans do it.


Great way to straddle the fence...

The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan
golden rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing
the token act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".


You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't
value any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b)
they over-value abstinence. Yes?


Yes, they undervalue efforts that violate 'the rule' and overrate efforts
that follow it.


It's amazing how they all think alike. They kind of remind me of the
Borg....

The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
this very apparent.


I haven't been following that thread.


Cotton (a vegan product) production is *deadly*.


How so? You mean vegans who wear cotton automatically condemn the deaths of
thousands of cute little faces? Do you wear cotton?

The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,


Thank you...

is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.


So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value
any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b)
they over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between
consumers and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?


Yes.


Whew, I'm good!

First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
abstinence" that's immoral.


In my opinion it's a very bad practice.


But immoral?

So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral" you are saying that
vegans aren't saving the lives that they think they are, or something
like that. Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be immoral
for something that seems more a matter of ignorance at best?


Are you claiming ignorance as your excuse? I can't see how you can.


I'm not making an excuse for myself. I'm asking YOU how you can judge
somebody as immoral for something they don't completely understand.

And didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?


Why should I tolerate ignorance? How does that help anyone?


Well, now we all know what kind of person we're dealing with. End of
thread...





  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 05:42 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"C. James Strutz" wrote

"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"C. James Strutz" wrote

"Dutch" wrote

"C. James Strutz" wrote

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
responsibility.

For what? How?


For the death toll behind our consumer lifestyles, by admitting it.


I presume you're talking about vegans. Yup, that's my whole point. :^)


Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the death
toll, so are most non-vegans, but they already acknowledge that are
demanding the killing of animals on their behest. Just read the denial in
the comments of "mojo".

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

I think that is a personal decision.

Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?


I think you mean that you should be able to read a newsgroup on the
ethics of vegetarianism and not be subjected to ideas that shatter your
illusions.


Now why would you think that?


You are claiming that what I am doing now is harrassment, what else could it
mean?

Under the circumstances

What circumstances?


The circumstances are that our lifestyles are built on animal deaths, and
abstaining from animal "products" does not change that fact.


Sure it changes it. The question is does it change it significantly? No, I
don't think anybody (including vegans) expects that it would.


It may change the number and nature of the deaths, but it doesn't change the
fact.

I mean, how do vegans hurt you that you are so motivated to harass them?


I don't. I would never harrass anyone because of their diet. I am
participating in a forum that everyone views of their free will. To call
expressing my opinion in this way "harrassment" is absurd.


Sorry, I'll just say that you and others, more or less, "express your
opinion" in an aggressive and arrogant manner, sometimes unnecessarily
mean spirited and condescending. The term "harassment" is not unjustified.


It is totally unjustified. Harrassment implies that you are not a willing
participant.

The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude
of morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize
animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal
deaths? It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely
different matter to accuse them of being unethical.

The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's
nothing wrong with that.

Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...


Yes, I do, but I disagree with the self-serving way vegans do it.


Great way to straddle the fence...


I just call it as I see it. Vegans place ultimate importance on the killing
of animals when the evidence ends up in the final product (on your dinner
plate) and ignore, deny, minimize or dismiss all the less obvious deaths
that don't, yet are still "unecessary" by any fair use of the word.

The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan
golden rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing
the token act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".

You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't
value any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b)
they over-value abstinence. Yes?


Yes, they undervalue efforts that violate 'the rule' and overrate efforts
that follow it.


It's amazing how they all think alike. They kind of remind me of the
Borg....


In this particular respect, that's quite true.

The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
this very apparent.

I haven't been following that thread.


Cotton (a vegan product) production is *deadly*.


How so? You mean vegans who wear cotton automatically condemn the deaths
of thousands of cute little faces?


Depending on your definition of cute, but yes.

Do you wear cotton?


Yes, why?

The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,

Thank you...

is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.

So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value
any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b)
they over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between
consumers and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?


Yes.


Whew, I'm good!


How so?

First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
abstinence" that's immoral.


In my opinion it's a very bad practice.


But immoral?


Not really significantly immoral in my view, although some radicals behave
immorally. I think it's mostly silly and misguided.

So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral" you are saying that
vegans aren't saving the lives that they think they are, or something
like that. Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be immoral
for something that seems more a matter of ignorance at best?


Are you claiming ignorance as your excuse? I can't see how you can.


I'm not making an excuse for myself. I'm asking YOU how you can judge
somebody as immoral for something they don't completely understand.


I don't.

And didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?


Why should I tolerate ignorance? How does that help anyone?


Well, now we all know what kind of person we're dealing with. End of
thread...


I'm a rational decent person who does not deserve the slings and arrows of
vegans of ARAs, directly of implied.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 04:33 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

RobDar wrote:
Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?


He has begun hosting a remarkably good show on Air America in,
I gather, an effort to repair his former image. There was a
segment on animal rights recently, with several excellent callers
expressing pro-animal rights views in calm, rational, and
convincing fashion.


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 05:49 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Pinnochio Mojo
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:

Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the death
toll, so are most non-vegans


How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.

Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".


Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.

One of the hazards of being hopelessly and redundantly pc.

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 06:39 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter wrote:
Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?


He has begun hosting a remarkably good show on Air America


*You* would think so. Does your son and his family yet know of your
desire that your grandson grow up homosexual?
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-11-2005, 09:02 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

C. James Strutz wrote:
...
3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.


Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.


You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I called
"Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote previously about grains
fed to cattle illustrates this objection. You contend that no matter how
many deaths may be attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those
who eat meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In the
example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating meat even
though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those animals won't be eaten
by humans. The veg-n also sanctimoniously impugns the character of those
who eat the meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic with sensible
quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical scales: the veg-n's diet
causes 1000 animals to die and the omnivore's causes 1001. Is it
significantly more ethical to be responsible for one less animal death
when you're already responsible for 1000?

In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption of mere
*fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales should account for
that, but the illustration sufficiently shows the moral relativism of
vegans.

Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb

America dropped atomic
bombs on Japan at the end of WWII because many more soldiers would have died
had we not. We killed people to prevent, in all probability, many times more
deaths. How about the death penalty? Or what about euthanasia? Or stem cell
research? Or abortion? Moral ethics aren't absolute.


You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically re-stating *my*
point with these examples. Your disagreement isn't with me, but with
veganism. Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. Vegans don't
distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or
non-cruel treatement. They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and
that just about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
the latter by the former. They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all*
hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all*
livestock production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even
further and want an end to humans having pets.

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
conditions for animals. They suggest replacing meat with proteins from
soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these
alternatives to meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths
caused by one's diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They
likewise recommend synthetic furs and leather even though these are made
from petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of
leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for
animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops
with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse
since crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target species.
See Rick's links.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or death.
It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make categorical
statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with the facts, they
ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a virtue relative to
the actions of others. They're not more ethical because others are
ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to their capricious
standard); they fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by
their own standard.


Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of living
things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
their consumption and/or work.

The onus to
minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be on all of us
regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is
a widespread abuse of animals. Those images and videos are of isolated
incidents. I can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
various farms that show animals are treated very well. Tell me what you
find objectionable about the conditions in the images below (other than
a reflexive objective you may have in general to any livestock production):
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg

Note, unlike the PETA and other kook propaganda, these farms are
well-lit, uncramped, and quite clean. In the fourth pic, the pigs even
have outdoor (sunlit) access in their runs and a protective covering.

The disagreement that you and
others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority


I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.

of SOME of them


ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards others who
consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor animal research,
etc.), and many also deem those who use honey as reprobates.

and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with
trying to minimize animal deaths?


Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans, though,
prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at all -- as though
they're causing zero harm by simply not eating them, not wearing their
hides or fur, etc.

The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually reducing harm
to animals or are they just intending to cause less harm? The end
results show us if they're ethical or not. And in the instances I
outlined above -- objecting only to the 1001st death, recommending
high-CD foods in place of larger ruminants, recommending synthetics (or
even natural fibers) instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results
aren't remarkably better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed"
consumption; indeed, they're probably much worse. Thus, one's intentions
don't make one ethical; one's effects and results do.

Veganism fails miserably in this respect. Far from being ethical, vegans
are *hypocritical* because they cause as much harm to animals as anyone
else.

It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance
but it's an entirely different matter to accuse them of being unethical.


Not when they continue to make their fanatical claims despite being
shown the errors, and not when they stubbornly deny that other forms of
consumption -- such as Professor Davis' hypothesized least-harm diet
that includes eating certain kinds of meat -- may cause less harm than a
"vegan" diet.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 02:32 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:



It's easy to attack something when you make it up out of whole cloth.


Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.


false.

Vegans don't
distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or
non-cruel treatement.


Some may not, but most do.

They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,


False.

and
that just about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
the latter by the former.


For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.

They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all*
hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all*
livestock production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even
further and want an end to humans having pets.


All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
food or in research or in production of fur and leather? What
benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?
The issue of companion animals is more complex. Not all keeping
of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
question that these things *are* exploitation, even if you
believe humans are justified in this exploitation.

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
conditions for animals.


Not for the animals involved in factory-farm production of meat
and animal products.

They suggest replacing meat with proteins from
soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these
alternatives to meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths
caused by one's diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They
likewise recommend synthetic furs and leather even though these are made
from petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of
leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for
animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops
with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse
since crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target species.
See Rick's links.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death.


Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat. You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
they use. If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face there.
The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

It's on those who oppose people consuming meat


Usually because of those very abominable conditions.

and who make
categorical statements of their own moral superiority.


Which all vegans do not do.

When faced
with the facts, they ultimately make the same argument you did and
claim a virtue relative to the actions of others. They're not more
ethical because others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least
according to their capricious standard); they fail their own ethics
test when they measure themselves by their own standard.


It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
against. I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
their consumption and/or work.


That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
for an action does not justify the action.

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is
a widespread abuse of animals.


Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
blind to the obvious evidence. The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.


  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 02:34 AM posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:10:16 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:


The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
are dysfunctional.


Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 02:38 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?


He has begun hosting a remarkably good show on Air America


*You* would think so.


Well, yes, I do, although I can only judge from occasional
casual listening. The animal rights segment was excellent.
This show is not at all like the old program he had on TV.

What, specifically, do you find objectionable about it?
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 06:01 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...


snip..



Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed
meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat.

==========================
Hey, what a coincidence, killer. If consumers of factory-farmed
veggies didn't buy them there'd be no demand for them, and
millions upon millions of animals that YOU kill would still be
alive.

You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard
themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the
products
they use.

==============================
No foo, *vegans* make that claim for themselves. It's a claim
they fail miserably at even trying to live up to. Why is that,
hypocrite?



If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face
there.
The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

===============================
Why then is there no onus upon vegans to demand humane treatment
of animals in veggie production? Oh, yeah, that'd be too
inconvenient for you, right, killer? As long as YOU continue to
reward farmers to produce clean, cheap, convenient veggies for
your selfishness, then it is YOU that has the problem of living
up to some ignorant claims made by vegans.
And, if you are really so concerned about the unnecessary death
and suffering of animals, why are you posting your inane
stupidity here on usenet, fool? Guess you just LIKE killing
animals for fun, huh?



It's on those who oppose people consuming meat


Usually because of those very abominable conditions.

========================
Really? Sounds like your propaganda spew, again, hypocrite...
Not all meat comes from these so-called factories. All of your
veggies do though, hypocrite.



snip more willful ignorance...


  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 06:47 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" wrote
Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:

Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the death
toll, so are most non-vegans


How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.


James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that much
is already settled.

Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".


Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.


I see you know how to string words into sentences, next learn to say
something.

One of the hazards of being hopelessly and redundantly pc.


Non sequitor.




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
My favorite episode of TTZ was just on zxcvbob General Cooking 2 05-07-2012 02:54 PM
When did this FopodTV episode air? A Moose in Love General Cooking 2 13-11-2011 07:38 PM
Lidia's Italy Episode 221 Nancy Young General Cooking 13 03-02-2007 10:47 PM
**THAT** Sandra Lee episode TammyM General Cooking 17 18-12-2006 07:57 PM
wife swap vegan episode pearl Vegan 2 08-12-2005 01:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017