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
  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 04:15 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:24:12 GMT, Beach Runner wrote:
in response to what


usual suspect maintained :


Wrong, I'm better in *all* topics.


My god, what a megalomaniac.

Surely BR you got a good chuckle out of that remark, akin to a runty
bird in mating season whose only talent is excessively bloating their
throat. In Suspectl's case it's his head.
You really have to laugh at his inflated, ludicrous poise more often.
Megalomaniacs usually have some element of genius about them-good or
bad. Suspect though quite intelligent displays neither smarts or
genius, that's why you have to laugh.

----== 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 =----

  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 04:40 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

trailer park resident Karen Winter wrote:


Animals on concrete.


It has benefits.


Only to the producer.


Also to the livestock. Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and
disinfect and provide a more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc.

1. Easier to clean and disinfect.


Which would not be necessary if the animals were not overcrowded.


They're not overcrowded. It would still be necessary for sanitation and
hygiene.

2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
environmentally-friendly.


Which would not be an issue if the vast numbers of animals
kept in an area did not create waste far beyond the amount
which can be disposed of in ecologically appropriate ways.


It's "ecologically appropriate" to wash down a floor whether one or
one-thousand birds have been raised on it.

Traditional farms


The images I linked to ARE traditional farms. You have romantic, idyllic
notions that may prevail in communities with lots of New Age-y airheads
(SF bay area, Santa Fe) but are far from reality.

used animal waste as fertilizer for their
crops.


That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm.

It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
farms create massive environmental pollution.


Not universally, and not to the scale of environmental degradation which
has already occurred in monoculture cropping (especially considering
erosion).

Believe me,


No. **** no.


they only take their own self-serving pictures in the best possible
light.


One of those pics was taken on vacation (Israeli farm:
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb). A couple other were from ag departments,
iirc, and one from a feed company. Those pics show the norm. Why don't
you take a trip to a turkey farm, Bob, and see for yourself?


Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information


You mean DISinformation.

on modern
turkey "farms" and the health problems created by producers.


Farm Sanctuary aren't farmers or poultry experts, they're animal rights
activists. Their websites are filled with distortions and exaggerations,
and they make no attempt to provide objective, balanced information.

...
They cannot even breed by themselves,
because their breasts are too big.


Turkeys have been bred to produce meat (especially the much preferred
white meat) quickly. Turkeys are one of the poultry species with a
penis; they're not bred so that their genitals are proportional to their
breast size, but well-endowed toms conceivably (no pun intended) would
have a greater chance of passing on genes for such a trait if they
reproduced. It's irrelevant because turkeys go to slaughter long before
they reach sexual maturity. Birds go to slaughter between 14-20 weeks;
they become sexually mature in a year.

http://www.eatturkey.com/consumer/raising/raise.html
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/pfs16C.htm

Any animal which must be
routinely inseminated artificially is not a "real" animal,


Bullshit.

and would die out in one generation if they were not kept
going by human intervention.


Unproven assertion. Domestic turkeys are artificially inseminated
because they're slaughtered before they reach sexual maturity.

Wild turkeys are somewhat
different, but consumers want more breast meat than wild turkeys have.


That does not justify what producers have done to them.


Yes, it does.


those two farmers slaughtered all their
sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?


"Look what you made me do." No one over two years old should
find that a convincing argument.


Leftists are like to make meaningless gestures, but seldom consider any
unintended consequences of their specious positions. The amendment in
question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The amendment's
consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results, but rather the
opposite. That's the case when vegans recommend people abstain meat and
instead consume grains, beans, tofu, and various protein isolates made
from soy and grains even though the consequences of such changes cause
more animals to die. Thus, I'm not suprised that you, Karen, would care
more about the meaningless gesture made in passing that particular
amendment than you care about its actual results. You're *only*
concerned with intent, not results.
  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 04:44 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Seeker wrote:
"Glorfindel" wrote



Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting animal
research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire emergencies),
or fur being fashionable.


Why should they? Those are not all aspects of ethics. The one
you mention -- using animals for food in cases of dire
emergencies -- is indeed one example.


Why should it be?


For the same reason it is true of humans.

I quote your statement from below,

"As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider
using animals in research without their consent as unethical
are the same reasons they consider the use of humans
without their consent as unethical. You agree with the principle."


If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not in
ALL cases?


It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
cannot be used to define general, normal situations. Gary
Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
Rights:Your Child or The Dog_ The situations where human
interests genuinely conflict in life-or-death ways have
almost no relevance to the situation in everyday life, where
there are many other options. Asking "Which would you save if
your ship were sinking and you had to choose between a stranger
or your mother" is not really relevant to questions about how
you should treat either a stranger or your mother in everyday
situations.

I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,

But we do not judge members of the Donner Party in the same
way we judge Jeffrey Dahmer. There is a difference between
someone who violates general ethical norms in extreme
situations, and someone who deliberately kills others and
eats them when there are many other options available to him
living in the middle of normal human society. That is part of
why ethics are not absolute in the real world.


As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider using animals
in research without their consent as unethical are the same
reasons they consider the use of humans without their consent as
unethical. You agree with the principle.


That principle is a complete absurdity.


You think humans should be used in medical research even
without their consent?


If you want to toss insects
in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle explaining your support for
commercial farming.


I don't support commercial farming at all.


Why do you assume animal rights supporters never support or work
for nuclear disarmament?


Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..


Oh, I'm sure activists can multi-task more than one cause
at a time.


How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?


A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal
observation, government data (always suspect).


Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in
nature?


Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
obligations not to abuse it.


The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every species
since the big bang has had it.


Well, not true. But we are the only species capable of
domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping
them in large numbers to be killed at our convenience.
We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented
weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds.


People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded than
children of omnivores.


They may begin so. I was speaking of people who grew up in
omnivore families and became vegan, which is more common.
Even so, vegan children usually become aware they are
different as soon as they get to know non-vegan children.
Then they must consider the basis of their veganism. If
they are omnivores surrounded by other omnivores, the issue
often does not come up at all.



You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
completely closed.


That's incorrect, his mind is OPEN, yours is closed. He already knows all
the explantions that you are likely to come up with. He is a strict
vegetarian by the way, he's just not hypocrite about it.


Bravo for him, if true. I commend him for that, and wish him
well in continuing.



Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy for,
but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue,


First, PETA is no longer a strictly animal *rights* group;
they are primarily a "hard welfare" group. Second, I did not
say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.
AR and non-AR groups can and do work together on specific
animal welfare issues, and that is good.


  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 05:23 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

S. Maizlich wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:




There are few examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue of
collateral deaths.


There are equally few non-vegans who know about or
acknowledge them. You are not applying an equal standard
to them.


Why would non-"vegans" need to acknowledge them? There is no
implication of CDs that is relevant to normal human omnivores'
philosophy.


They are, because many people who are not vegans are still
concerned about *unnecessary* death and suffering of animals.
If it is shown that conventional methods create many deaths
and much suffering which could be prevented by better methods,
even meat-eaters would support change in most cases.

There *is* an implication of CDs that is crucial to
"vegans'" philosophy, though: CDs queer the whole idea.


No, only according to the skewed definitions of anti-vegans.

As Francione says: "Surely, however, there is a significant
difference between raising and killing animals for food and
unintentionally doing them harm in the course of planting
vegetables, an activity that is itself intended to prevent
killing of sentient beings." Raising and killing animals
for food is inherently unethical according to vegan philosophy.
CDs in vegetable production are a result of *methods* used,
failures which can be reduced with greater or less effort,
if not eliminated entirely. The analogy I have often used is
between the inherent injustice of chattel slavery, and the
injustice of sweatshop labor. We do not have to stop wearing
clothes if we find our clothes are produced by laborers in
sweatshops. We can first switch to other brands of clothing
produced by non-sweatshop workers (as individual consumers),
and then work as activists to change social attitudes and laws
to eliminate or greatly reduce sweatshop production. OTOH,
it would remain unethical to farm humans to make leather coats
of their skins or to eat them, no matter what.
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 05:51 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Glorfindel wrote:

S. Maizlich wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:





There are few examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue of
collateral deaths.



There are equally few non-vegans who know about or
acknowledge them. You are not applying an equal standard
to them.



Why would non-"vegans" need to acknowledge them? There is no
implication of CDs that is relevant to normal human omnivores'
philosophy.



They are,


There aren't; read on.

because many people who are not vegans are still
concerned about *unnecessary* death and suffering of animals.


Irrelevant. They aren't concerned about death and
suffering _per se_. They don't subscribe to a stupid
and logically absurd belief system that says they don't
cause *any* death and suffering; they don't even claim,
as an implication of what they put in their mouths,
that they don't cause any "unnecessary" death and
suffering. They make NO claim regarding death and
suffering, necessary or not, based on what they consume.


If it is shown that conventional methods create many deaths
and much suffering which could be prevented by better methods,
even meat-eaters would support change in most cases.


Perhaps. But meat eaters simply *don't* make absurd
categorical claims based on what they do or don't
consume. "vegans" do, and CDs queer their entire claim.


There *is* an implication of CDs that is crucial to "vegans'"
philosophy, though: CDs queer the whole idea.



No, only according to the skewed definitions of anti-vegans.


No, based on simple logical analysis.



As Francione says: "Surely, however, there is a significant
difference between raising and killing animals for food and
unintentionally doing them harm in the course of planting
vegetables, an activity that is itself intended to prevent
killing of sentient beings."


Ipse dixit, and not at all persuasive.


Raising and killing animals
for food is inherently unethical according to vegan philosophy.


Deliberately killing animals in the course of doing
*anything*, including raising vegetables, OUGHT to be
unethical according to "vegan" pseudo-philosophy, but
somehow isn't. Note: "collateral" does not mean
accidental.


CDs in vegetable production are a result of *methods* used,
failures which can be reduced with greater or less effort,
if not eliminated entirely.


Yes, which COULD be reduced or eliminated, but which
"vegans" make ZERO effort to reduce or eliminate.
Several years of experience here, with committed
"vegan" ideologues, demonstrates they have no intention
whatever of making a meaningful effort not to
participate in the market for CD-causing produce.


The analogy I have often used is
between the inherent injustice of chattel slavery, and the
injustice of sweatshop labor. We do not have to stop wearing
clothes if we find our clothes are produced by laborers in
sweatshops. We can first switch to other brands of clothing
produced by non-sweatshop workers (as individual consumers),
and then work as activists to change social attitudes and laws
to eliminate or greatly reduce sweatshop production.


And in terms of your analogy, this is EXACTLY the step
"vegans" refuse to make.


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 05:52 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

trailer park resident Karen Winter wrote:


Good catch, Usual; I didn't check the headers earlier.





Animals on concrete.



It has benefits.



Only to the producer.



Also to the livestock. Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and
disinfect and provide a more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc.

1. Easier to clean and disinfect.



Which would not be necessary if the animals were not overcrowded.



They're not overcrowded. It would still be necessary for sanitation and
hygiene.

2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
environmentally-friendly.



Which would not be an issue if the vast numbers of animals
kept in an area did not create waste far beyond the amount
which can be disposed of in ecologically appropriate ways.



It's "ecologically appropriate" to wash down a floor whether one or
one-thousand birds have been raised on it.

Traditional farms



The images I linked to ARE traditional farms. You have romantic, idyllic
notions that may prevail in communities with lots of New Age-y airheads
(SF bay area, Santa Fe) but are far from reality.

used animal waste as fertilizer for their
crops.



That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm.

It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
farms create massive environmental pollution.



Not universally, and not to the scale of environmental degradation which
has already occurred in monoculture cropping (especially considering
erosion).

Believe me,



No. **** no.



they only take their own self-serving pictures in the best possible
light.



One of those pics was taken on vacation (Israeli farm:
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb). A couple other were from ag departments,
iirc, and one from a feed company. Those pics show the norm. Why
don't you take a trip to a turkey farm, Bob, and see for yourself?



Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information



You mean DISinformation.

on modern
turkey "farms" and the health problems created by producers.



Farm Sanctuary aren't farmers or poultry experts, they're animal rights
activists. Their websites are filled with distortions and exaggerations,
and they make no attempt to provide objective, balanced information.

...

They cannot even breed by themselves,
because their breasts are too big.



Turkeys have been bred to produce meat (especially the much preferred
white meat) quickly. Turkeys are one of the poultry species with a
penis; they're not bred so that their genitals are proportional to their
breast size, but well-endowed toms conceivably (no pun intended) would
have a greater chance of passing on genes for such a trait if they
reproduced. It's irrelevant because turkeys go to slaughter long before
they reach sexual maturity. Birds go to slaughter between 14-20 weeks;
they become sexually mature in a year.

http://www.eatturkey.com/consumer/raising/raise.html
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/pfs16C.htm

Any animal which must be
routinely inseminated artificially is not a "real" animal,



Bullshit.

and would die out in one generation if they were not kept
going by human intervention.



Unproven assertion. Domestic turkeys are artificially inseminated
because they're slaughtered before they reach sexual maturity.

Wild turkeys are somewhat
different, but consumers want more breast meat than wild turkeys have.



That does not justify what producers have done to them.



Yes, it does.



those two farmers slaughtered all their
sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?



"Look what you made me do." No one over two years old should
find that a convincing argument.



Leftists are like to make meaningless gestures, but seldom consider any
unintended consequences of their specious positions. The amendment in
question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The amendment's
consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results, but rather the
opposite. That's the case when vegans recommend people abstain meat and
instead consume grains, beans, tofu, and various protein isolates made
from soy and grains even though the consequences of such changes cause
more animals to die. Thus, I'm not suprised that you, Karen, would care
more about the meaningless gesture made in passing that particular
amendment than you care about its actual results. You're *only*
concerned with intent, not results.

  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 05:53 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter took another shit:

[...]


**** OFF, Karen. You are peddling the same
discredited, responsibility-shirking bullshit you
always did.
  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 06:10 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:



Animals on concrete.


It has benefits.


Only to the producer.


Also to the livestock.


No.

Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and
disinfect and provide a more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc.


They also create leg and foot problems, up to and including
crippling, if animals are kept on them continually. People
who are concerned about the animals' welfare can keep animals,
such as companion horses, dogs, or animals in university husbandry
programs, on bedding on top of hard surfaces. See Bernard
Rollin's book on farm animal welfare. Raking out the bedding
adds an additional step, but then the flooring can be disinfected
(as with Nolvasan or bleach) and clean bedding put in. The animals
are then comfortable as well as clean, and the crippling foot
problems eliminated.

1. Easier to clean and disinfect.


Which would not be necessary if the animals were not overcrowded.


They're not overcrowded.


They are.

It would still be necessary for sanitation and
hygiene.


No. Many keepers of companion animals and small-scale
farmers demonstrate it is not, by using bedding for their
animals.

2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
environmentally-friendly.


Which would not be an issue if the vast numbers of animals
kept in an area did not create waste far beyond the amount
which can be disposed of in ecologically appropriate ways.


It's "ecologically appropriate" to wash down a floor whether one or
one-thousand birds have been raised on it.


After the manure has been removed with the dirty bedding.
It only becomes a problem when very large amounts of manure
are produced.

Traditional farms


The images I linked to ARE traditional farms.


Nope. I looked at them. They are not. Take a look
at some of the pictures in James Herriot's books
on life in rural Yorkshire to see what traditional farms
looked like as recently as the 1940's.

You have romantic, idyllic
notions that may prevail in communities with lots of New Age-y airheads
(SF bay area, Santa Fe) but are far from reality.


used animal waste as fertilizer for their
crops.


That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm.


I.e., where traditional farms still exist.

It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
farms create massive environmental pollution.


Not universally,


usually

and not to the scale of environmental degradation which
has already occurred in monoculture cropping (especially considering
erosion).


Ipse dixit. Who says agribusiness monocropping is ecologically
sound either?

You frequently accuse vegans of being unethical by claiming
they are simply not as bad as others. Here you have used the
same argument: factory farming is O.K. because it is not as bad
as agribusiness monocropping. That does not make it *good* or
ethical. It is also not demonstrated to be true.



Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information


You mean DISinformation.


No, information. They work within the system to correct
abuses in animal production industries, such as by
passing "downer" laws, and they rescue abused "food"
animals.

Send them a donation for one of their rescued turkeys for
Thanksgiving or Christmas. I do. www.adoptaturkey.org
I'll help sponsor Pumpkin this year. I also donate
to the poultry at Kindred Spirits Sanctuary.



They cannot even breed by themselves,
because their breasts are too big.


Turkeys have been bred to produce meat (especially the much preferred
white meat) quickly. Turkeys are one of the poultry species with a
penis; they're not bred so that their genitals are proportional to their
breast size, but well-endowed toms conceivably (no pun intended) would
have a greater chance of passing on genes for such a trait if they
reproduced. It's irrelevant because turkeys go to slaughter long before
they reach sexual maturity. Birds go to slaughter between 14-20 weeks;
they become sexually mature in a year.


My point exactly. You support my argument that the turkeys
have been deliberately crippled and deformed for human
convenience. No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction. No animal should be slaughtered before
even reaching maturity.



those two farmers slaughtered all their
sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?


"Look what you made me do." No one over two years old should
find that a convincing argument.


Leftists are like to make meaningless gestures, but seldom consider any
unintended consequences of their specious positions.




Any action can have unintended consequences. If they were
unintended, by definition they would not have been obvious
before the action was taken. The point is that the slaughter
of the animals was also neither necessary nor in keeping with
the purpose of the law. It was a mean-spirited and cruel
action which harmed the pigs *unnecessarily* and for no benefit
to the producers (unless they sold the slaughtered pigs, which
they would have done anyway.) It is a shabby excuse for a
thoroughly unethical act on the part of the *producers* which
was no fault of the law or those opposed to confinement farming.

The amendment in
question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The amendment's
consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results,


Presumably, it has prevented other (legal) factory-farm pig
production starting up.


  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 06:26 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter belched:



No. Many keepers of companion animals


Pets. They're called pets, Karen. Drop the PC
newspeak, and call them by their proper name: pets.
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 06:34 PM 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
...
usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:


There are few examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue
of collateral deaths.


There are equally few non-vegans who know about or
acknowledge them. You are not applying an equal standard
to them.

========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot fool! There is no equal,need for them to
know. They aren't claiming to live their lives in such a way as
to kill no/fewer/less animals, dolt. That is what YOU are doing.
Vegans come here claiming they care, and usually that they have
'completely' research their diet, and we know that that is a ly.





and irrelevant in any case.


It's relevant, Karen. In fact, "don't harm animals" is the
foundation of veganism. We know vegans continue to harm
animals through either ignorant consumption or ambivelant
consumption.


So do non-vegans -- and they add an additional list of harms
by using animal products. It is easier for a vegan to reduce
harm by choosing less harmful vegetable products than for a
non-vegan to reduce harm by continuing to use animal products.

==========================
No, fool, it is not. Tell us what those "less harmful"
vegetables are, killer. You, amd no other vegan has even tried
to find out which veggies cause more/less death and suffering.
It's quite easy for a meat eater to easily and quickly change to
a grass-fed, free-range, or game animals and immediately reduce
the impact that *YOU* calim to care about.



Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
animal products.


Veganism doesn't even address that issue. Vegans suggests
they're not harming animals by not eating them, not wearing
their hides, not using products tested on animals, and so on.


Insofar as that is true, they are not.

That's all rhetorical -- in practice, their consumption
continues to harm animals by giving up a fraction of an animal
at a meal and instead causing many more animals to die from
crop production (pesticides, flooding, farm machinery,
predation, field-clearing fires, etc.) and by recommending
petrochemical-based synthetics in place of leather or fur.


All those things can be changed as vegans become aware of them.

========================
No, they can't. Because as vegans like to say, 'you can't feed
the world' on some meaningless gesture, hypocrite.


They begin from a better foundation, and a better basic
philosophy, and have to change fewer things if/when they come
to know more about other aspects of their consumption.

How can anyone move toward more humane consumption based on
your philosophy of "it doesn't matter how much harm
consumers cause to animals if humans find the results more
tasty or convenient for them"?

==============================
Tell us then how you do it? Afterall, your diet is based on YOUR
taste and conveninece and still kills massive numbers of animals.
Numbers that *could* be reduced tomorrow if your chose the right
meat, eh killer?







  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 10:48 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

S. Maizlich wrote:



Glorfindel:

because many people who are not vegans are still
concerned about *unnecessary* death and suffering of animals.


Irrelevant. They aren't concerned about death and suffering _per se_.


Yes, many non-vegans *are* concerned about animal death and
suffering _per se_. The popularity of programs like "Animal
Precinct" and "Animal Cops" on Animal Planet, the many editorials
and articles about factory farmed animals in the mainstream press,
and so on, demonstrate that some particular methods are seen as
unethical even by people who eat meat, milk, or eggs. Several
European countries have banned the worst forms of factory farming,
even though their populations still include a majority of
non-vegans. SPCAs nation-wide and outside the U.S. show most
people are concerned about animal suffering and death in general.
It is an almost universal concern of normal people, in fact.


CDs in vegetable production are a result of *methods* used,
failures which can be reduced with greater or less effort,
if not eliminated entirely.


Yes, which COULD be reduced or eliminated, but which "vegans" make ZERO
effort to reduce or eliminate.


Anti-vegans claim this frequently, but it does not match my experience
as a vegan, or with other vegans I have known.



  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 11:45 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Seeker
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
Seeker wrote:
"Glorfindel" wrote



Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting
animal research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire
emergencies), or fur being fashionable.


Why should they? Those are not all aspects of ethics. The one
you mention -- using animals for food in cases of dire
emergencies -- is indeed one example.


Why should it be?


For the same reason it is true of humans.


It's not true of humans. I cannot (kill and) eat another human no matter how
hungry I am.

I quote your statement from below,

"As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider
using animals in research without their consent as unethical
are the same reasons they consider the use of humans
without their consent as unethical. You agree with the principle."


If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not
in ALL cases?


It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
cannot be used to define general, normal situations.


YOU are the one who introduced the extreme situation. It did not help your
case.

Gary
Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
Rights:Your Child or The Dog_ The situations where human
interests genuinely conflict in life-or-death ways have
almost no relevance to the situation in everyday life, where
there are many other options.


Stop hiding behind quotes from sophists and use your own reasoning.

Asking "Which would you save if
your ship were sinking and you had to choose between a stranger
or your mother" is not really relevant to questions about how
you should treat either a stranger or your mother in everyday
situations.


Actually there is a direct correlation between the two situations, the
difference is only in the extremity of the circumstances.

I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,

But we do not judge members of the Donner Party in the same
way we judge Jeffrey Dahmer.


The Donner Party is irrelevant, those people were already dead. I am talking
about killing another human to eat him if one is starving to death.

There is a difference between
someone who violates general ethical norms in extreme
situations, and someone who deliberately kills others and
eats them when there are many other options available to him
living in the middle of normal human society. That is part of
why ethics are not absolute in the real world.


So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and eat an
animal even if you were starving?


As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider using animals
in research without their consent as unethical are the same
reasons they consider the use of humans without their consent as
unethical. You agree with the principle.


That principle is a complete absurdity.


You think humans should be used in medical research even
without their consent?


Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals
without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign concept
to an animal. You may as well say it's unethical to pick flowers without
their consent.


If you want to toss insects in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle
explaining your support for commercial farming.


I don't support commercial farming at all.


Of course you do, you buy groceries don't you?


Why do you assume animal rights supporters never support or work
for nuclear disarmament?


Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..


Oh, I'm sure activists can multi-task more than one cause
at a time.


I am sure that their capacity to woolgather is boundless, as long as it
makes them feel good.


How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?


A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal
observation, government data (always suspect).


As am I, and I conclude that mistreatment of animals is the rare exception,
not the rule.


Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in
nature?


Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
obligations not to abuse it.


The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every species
since the big bang has had it.


Well, not true.


Ipse dixit.

But we are the only species capable of
domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping
them in large numbers


You have not given a coherent reason why that is necessarily immoral.

to be killed at our convenience.


Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.

We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented
weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds.


Neither of those things change of the essential nature of what we do.


People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded
than children of omnivores.


They may begin so. I was speaking of people who grew up in
omnivore families and became vegan, which is more common.
Even so, vegan children usually become aware they are
different as soon as they get to know non-vegan children.
Then they must consider the basis of their veganism. If
they are omnivores surrounded by other omnivores, the issue
often does not come up at all.


It comes up if they are exposed to vegan children, or veganism or AR are
reported in the media, as it often is.



You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
completely closed.


That's incorrect, his mind is OPEN, yours is closed. He already knows all
the explantions that you are likely to come up with. He is a strict
vegetarian by the way, he's just not hypocrite about it.


Bravo for him, if true. I commend him for that, and wish him
well in continuing.


Yes, Bravo for him indeed, he came here with the very same set of
misconceptions that you have, but he had the intellectual integrity to
listen and question his assumptions.



Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy
for, but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue,


First, PETA is no longer a strictly animal *rights* group;
they are primarily a "hard welfare" group.


The basic philosophy of PeTA is AR/veganism, it's as clear as day on their
site. It is obvious however that welfare causes generate the most response
and hence the most donations, so they are heavily focused on those issues.

Second, I did not
say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.


I know you didn't, but the rhetoric of ARAs like you tends to assume
ownership of the issue, as if by mentioning welfare abuses in agriculture
you are advancing your own argument.

AR and non-AR groups can and do work together on specific
animal welfare issues, and that is good.


I would agree.


  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-11-2005, 05:04 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Seeker wrote:

"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...




"As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider
using animals in research without their consent as unethical
are the same reasons they consider the use of humans
without their consent as unethical. You agree with the principle."


If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not
in ALL cases?


It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
cannot be used to define general, normal situations.



YOU are the one who introduced the extreme situation. It did not help your
case.


You are trying to move from one example to another. The question of the
ethics of using animals for food in extreme circumstances (as in the
Arctic in winter for local subsistence hunters, vs consumers of factory
farmed meat in a Western industrialized society) was an example of
AR not being absolute. The issue of using animals in research is
different: it never involves an absolute necessity to use *this* animal
at *this* time, and it never has a *direct* effect on the survival of
any individual human or animal. Its potential benefits, if any, are
always hypothetical; its direct harm is always real.


Gary
Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
Rights:Your Child or The Dog_ The situations where human
interests genuinely conflict in life-or-death ways have
almost no relevance to the situation in everyday life, where
there are many other options.


Stop hiding behind quotes from sophists and use your own reasoning.


It's good to demonstrate that authorities in the field support
my own view.

Asking "Which would you save if
your ship were sinking and you had to choose between a stranger
or your mother" is not really relevant to questions about how
you should treat either a stranger or your mother in everyday
situations.


Actually there is a direct correlation between the two situations, the
difference is only in the extremity of the circumstances.


That is what you would like to claim, but you are wrong. In an
extreme case, one must make an either-or choice: if one person
or being is saved, the other must be killed, and *all* his
interests sacrificed in favor of the other. This is extremely
uncommon in real life situations. In most real situations, such
as buying products in our society, the interests of all can be
respected by making limited modifications in behavior. For
instance, the major interest of a cow or chicken in her life, or
her major interest in welfare, can be respected by not buying
meat at all, or by not buying factory-farmed meat. The interest
of the consumer in avoiding starvation is completely respected,
at the very minor cost of choosing a somewhat less attractive
form of food, or one slightly more inconvenient.

I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,


No, but the issue is different if one is starving and has no
other food source. There are also differences between members
of our own species and/or community (herd, pack, flock) and
members of other species. Most higher animals have stronger
inhibitions against killing members of their own social group
than members of other social groups or species. That is a
function of biological survival.



There is a difference between
someone who violates general ethical norms in extreme
situations, and someone who deliberately kills others and
eats them when there are many other options available to him
living in the middle of normal human society. That is part of
why ethics are not absolute in the real world.


So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and eat an
animal even if you were starving?


It would not be ethical, but it would be less unethical than to
kill one for convenience when other options are available.
That is not a choice anyone posting on the newsgroup is likely to
face.



Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals
without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign concept
to an animal.


Which is a major reason why it is unethical to use them in
research (other than observation in the wild, which does not
usually harm them).

You may as well say it's unethical to pick flowers without
their consent.


Flowers are not sentient or conscious, so they have no interests
as individuals, and also picking a flower does not permanently
harm the plant.

If you want to toss insects in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle
explaining your support for commercial farming.


I don't support commercial farming at all.


Of course you do, you buy groceries don't you?


I don't support commercial farming at all.

How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?


A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal
observation, government data (always suspect).


As am I, and I conclude that mistreatment of animals is the rare exception,
not the rule.


You conclude incorrectly. I conclude mistreatment of animals in modern
farming is almost universal and very severe.

Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in
nature?


Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
obligations not to abuse it.


The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every species
since the big bang has had it.


Well, not true.


Ipse dixit.


How would a worm kill other animals?

But we are the only species capable of
domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping
them in large numbers


You have not given a coherent reason why that is necessarily immoral.


It is a violation of their individual freedom in the larger
sense, according to AR theory. By itself, it may not be a
a violation of their welfare, but it usually is in modern
farming. Note: you asked why humans should *respond differently*
than other animals, not why what they do/did is immoral. I
answer that they should respond differently because they have a
unique amount of power over other animals, and an ethical sense
which is probably unique in the animal kingdom.

to be killed at our convenience.


Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.


Agreed. That was not the issue either in your question above.

We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented
weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds.


Neither of those things change of the essential nature of what we do.


They do. It is a difference in degree which is so great it
becomes a difference in kind.

People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded
than children of omnivores.


They may begin so. I was speaking of people who grew up in
omnivore families and became vegan, which is more common.
Even so, vegan children usually become aware they are
different as soon as they get to know non-vegan children.
Then they must consider the basis of their veganism. If
they are omnivores surrounded by other omnivores, the issue
often does not come up at all.


It comes up if they are exposed to vegan children, or veganism or AR are
reported in the media, as it often is.


It may. It may not.

You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
completely closed.


That's incorrect, his mind is OPEN, yours is closed. He already knows all
the explantions that you are likely to come up with. He is a strict
vegetarian by the way, he's just not hypocrite about it.


Bravo for him, if true. I commend him for that, and wish him
well in continuing.


Yes, Bravo for him indeed, he came here with the very same set of
misconceptions that you have, but he had the intellectual integrity to
listen and question his assumptions.


I listen; I do, and have, questioned my assumptions. I have modified
my beliefs and my behavior. What I have *not* done is conclude
the basic philosophy of AR is incorrect. You give no credit for
any intellectual questioning which does not lead to complete surrender
to your views.

I credit anyone who is a strict vegetarian with advancing animal rights
and welfare in practice, whatever his philosophical or health reason
for doing so. If everyone became strict vegetarian, and bought produce
with a low level of CDs, but no one, or only a few, accepted the
philosophy of AR, I would be happy. The practical result would
be similar to that which would exist if everyone accepted AR. I am
primarily interested in the effect on the animals, not bludgeoning
everyone into intellectual conformity.

Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy
for, but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue,


First, PETA is no longer a strictly animal *rights* group;
they are primarily a "hard welfare" group.


The basic philosophy of PeTA is AR/veganism, it's as clear as day on their
site. It is obvious however that welfare causes generate the most response
and hence the most donations, so they are heavily focused on those issues.


The basic philosophy has been considerably diluted over the years.

Second, I did not
say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.


I know you didn't, but the rhetoric of ARAs like you tends to assume
ownership of the issue, as if by mentioning welfare abuses in agriculture
you are advancing your own argument.


We are, because there is a relationship between the ethical status
animals are given and they way they are treated. The argument has
been explored extensively in various books on AR such as Francione's
_Animals, Property, and the Law_. The reason dogs are generally seen
differently than pigs has to do with the property status of animals.

AR and non-AR groups can and do work together on specific
animal welfare issues, and that is good.


I would agree.


That's encouraging.

  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-11-2005, 09:18 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Seeker
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

(11/22/1869 - 02/19/1951)
"Glorfindel" wrote
Seeker wrote:




"As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider
using animals in research without their consent as unethical
are the same reasons they consider the use of humans
without their consent as unethical. You agree with the principle."


If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not
in ALL cases?


It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
cannot be used to define general, normal situations.



YOU are the one who introduced the extreme situation. It did not help
your case.


You are trying to move from one example to another. The question of the
ethics of using animals for food in extreme circumstances (as in the
Arctic in winter for local subsistence hunters, vs consumers of factory
farmed meat in a Western industrialized society) was an example of
AR not being absolute.


It indicates to me that the so-called "principle" behind AR is not coherent.
You have attempted to draw a direct analogy between "using" animals without
their consent and using humans in the same way, thereby extending the
principle of self-determination from humans to animals. Yet I can't kill and
eat a human no matter what the circumstances. If humans are not permitted to
kill animals to eat them *by moral principle* then there must be no
exceptions. People in the Arctic must move south. Furthermore, you you have
chosen two extremes, Arctic hunters and factory farmed meat, what about
hunters who are not in the Arctic but who make an economic decision to
supplement their diet by hunting or fishing? Where do you draw the line?
What about an urban dweller who consumes meat that is *not* "factory
farmed", such as organic grass-fed beef?

The issue of using animals in research is
different: it never involves an absolute necessity to use *this* animal
at *this* time,


Actually it does, animals are used in medical research because there are no
adequate alternatives.

and it never has a *direct* effect on the survival of
any individual human or animal. Its potential benefits, if any, are
always hypothetical; its direct harm is always real.


The benefits of using animals in research are evidenced in every safe,
effective medication and medical procedure in existence. The fact that they
are immediate is not relevant.

Gary
Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
Rights:Your Child or The Dog_ The situations where human
interests genuinely conflict in life-or-death ways have
almost no relevance to the situation in everyday life, where
there are many other options.


Stop hiding behind quotes from sophists and use your own reasoning.


It's good to demonstrate that authorities in the field support
my own view.


I would hope that you are able to think the idea through from start to
finish without resorting to the "logic" of people like Francione.

Asking "Which would you save if
your ship were sinking and you had to choose between a stranger
or your mother" is not really relevant to questions about how
you should treat either a stranger or your mother in everyday
situations.


Actually there is a direct correlation between the two situations, the
difference is only in the extremity of the circumstances.


That is what you would like to claim, but you are wrong. In an
extreme case, one must make an either-or choice: if one person
or being is saved, the other must be killed, and *all* his
interests sacrificed in favor of the other. This is extremely
uncommon in real life situations.


It's not uncommon at all. Every day I am faced with the moral dilemma,
should I spend my money on unecessary items for my family like vacations,
Branded clothing and I-Pods, or should I spend it on strangers who are
starving. The world is a metaphorical sinking ship for many, many people,
and for the most part, I choose my family.

In most real situations, such
as buying products in our society, the interests of all can be
respected by making limited modifications in behavior.


That's where you're dead wrong, by choosing different products you are not
respecting "the interests of all", you are choosing a different group of
victims. Some vegans choose cotton over wool because the object to the
exploitation of sheep, but cotton production has all sorts of deadly
consequences, and arguably has a greater impact on animals than wool. So
what it boils down to is a misapplied political principle, not a genuine
concern for animals.

For
instance, the major interest of a cow or chicken in her life, or
her major interest in welfare, can be respected by not buying
meat at all, or by not buying factory-farmed meat. The interest
of the consumer in avoiding starvation is completely respected,
at the very minor cost of choosing a somewhat less attractive
form of food, or one slightly more inconvenient.


You can't draw any conclusions about that equation unless you measure the
impact of the food you substitute in place of the meat. Every calorie you
consume has a price.

I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,


No, but the issue is different if one is starving and has no
other food source.


No it isn't, I still can't eat my neighbour.

There are also differences between members
of our own species and/or community (herd, pack, flock) and
members of other species.


Yes! Keep that thought. This whole idea that all animals are "equal" is pure
nonsense, it's politics and ethics gone right off the rails.

Most higher animals have stronger
inhibitions against killing members of their own social group
than members of other social groups or species. That is a
function of biological survival.


Not if I'm starving, in that case the opposite is true.



There is a difference between
someone who violates general ethical norms in extreme
situations, and someone who deliberately kills others and
eats them when there are many other options available to him
living in the middle of normal human society. That is part of
why ethics are not absolute in the real world.


So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and eat
an animal even if you were starving?


It would not be ethical,


It would not be ethical to kill an animal and eat it if I were starving.. I
find that a disturbing statement.

but it would be less unethical than to
kill one for convenience when other options are available.
That is not a choice anyone posting on the newsgroup is likely to
face.


You are killing animals indirectly by using the hydro grid to run your
computer, something completely unecessary. That may be an extreme example,
but there are many more that are more obvious. Every product and service you
consume beyond what is absolutely necessary for your survival should be
considered unethical by your formula. There is no rational reason to single
out meat or other "animal products" in this respect.



Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals
without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign
concept to an animal.


Which is a major reason why it is unethical to use them in
research (other than observation in the wild, which does not
usually harm them).


That is begging the question. You have not established that consent is
necessary in order to use animals.

You may as well say it's unethical to pick flowers without their consent.


Flowers are not sentient or conscious, so they have no interests
as individuals,


Plants have mechanisms to survive and propagate that are similar to those of
animals.

and also picking a flower does not permanently
harm the plant.


Weeding does.

If you want to toss insects in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle
explaining your support for commercial farming.


I don't support commercial farming at all.


Of course you do, you buy groceries don't you?


I don't support commercial farming at all.


Where do you get your food? Where do most vegans get their food?


How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?


A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal
observation, government data (always suspect).


As am I, and I conclude that mistreatment of animals is the rare
exception, not the rule.


You conclude incorrectly. I conclude mistreatment of animals in modern
farming is almost universal and very severe.


Your conclusions are extremely biased by your misguided belief in the
incoherent principles of "AR".

There are some studies here of "factory farms"
http://www.grandin.com/survey/2004.r...nt.audits.html

Those are objective reports, they include some disturbing indivdual reports
of individual cases of abuse, but the statistics clearly show that the vast
majority of animals are handled humanely. There is a lot information on that
site.

Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in
nature?


Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
obligations not to abuse it.


The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every
species since the big bang has had it.


Well, not true.


Ipse dixit.


How would a worm kill other animals?


By digesting them. Did you think that soil was not jam-packed with animals?

But we are the only species capable of
domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping
them in large numbers


You have not given a coherent reason why that is necessarily immoral.


It is a violation of their individual freedom in the larger
sense, according to AR theory.


You can't use "AR theory" to support your claim, that is circular reasoning.
"AR theory" is what you are trying to defend.

By itself, it may not be a
a violation of their welfare, but it usually is in modern
farming.


You haven't shown that either. Grandin reports show that 71% of factory
farms have better than a 99% rating in animal handling, and 100% have a
better than 90% rating. Contrast that with the suffering of animals left to
rot or die of poisoning in grain fields.

Note: you asked why humans should *respond differently*
than other animals, not why what they do/did is immoral. I
answer that they should respond differently because they have a
unique amount of power over other animals, and an ethical sense
which is probably unique in the animal kingdom.


That's quite true, we are moral beings, but that does not mean that AR is a
rational set of ideas. We still live in a real world where our actions have
all sorts of necessary consequences whether we like it or not. Those things
must be factored into our thinking.

to be killed at our convenience.


Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.


Agreed. That was not the issue either in your question above.


Then don't use "convenience" or "necessity" in your arguments, because they
are very subjective terms

We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented
weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds.


Neither of those things change of the essential nature of what we do.


They do. It is a difference in degree which is so great it
becomes a difference in kind.


No it doesn't. If you kill an animal by shooting it, clubbing it, or running
over it with a tractor it's still dead. There reason you do it, the pursuit
of food, is the essense, and that does not change.

People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded
than children of omnivores.


They may begin so. I was speaking of people who grew up in
omnivore families and became vegan, which is more common.
Even so, vegan children usually become aware they are
different as soon as they get to know non-vegan children.
Then they must consider the basis of their veganism. If
they are omnivores surrounded by other omnivores, the issue
often does not come up at all.


It comes up if they are exposed to vegan children, or veganism or AR are
reported in the media, as it often is.


It may. It may not.

You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
completely closed.


That's incorrect, his mind is OPEN, yours is closed. He already knows
all the explantions that you are likely to come up with. He is a strict
vegetarian by the way, he's just not hypocrite about it.


Bravo for him, if true. I commend him for that, and wish him
well in continuing.


Yes, Bravo for him indeed, he came here with the very same set of
misconceptions that you have, but he had the intellectual integrity to
listen and question his assumptions.


I listen; I do, and have, questioned my assumptions. I have modified
my beliefs and my behavior. What I have *not* done is conclude
the basic philosophy of AR is incorrect. You give no credit for
any intellectual questioning which does not lead to complete surrender
to your views.


I have not seen any evidence yet of any intellectual questioning of views on
your part. I'm hoping it is going on in the background.

I credit anyone who is a strict vegetarian with advancing animal rights
and welfare in practice, whatever his philosophical or health reason
for doing so.


Those are two different issues, you should keep them separate.

If everyone became strict vegetarian, and bought produce
with a low level of CDs, but no one, or only a few, accepted the
philosophy of AR, I would be happy. The practical result would
be similar to that which would exist if everyone accepted AR. I am
primarily interested in the effect on the animals, not bludgeoning
everyone into intellectual conformity.


The issue I am raising is that AR does not address cds in any way, and as it
is presently structured it cannot because AR/vegan adherents would lose much
of their motivation to continue.

Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy
for, but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue,


First, PETA is no longer a strictly animal *rights* group;
they are primarily a "hard welfare" group.


The basic philosophy of PeTA is AR/veganism, it's as clear as day on
their site. It is obvious however that welfare causes generate the most
response and hence the most donations, so they are heavily focused on
those issues.


The basic philosophy has been considerably diluted over the years.

Second, I did not
say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.


I know you didn't, but the rhetoric of ARAs like you tends to assume
ownership of the issue, as if by mentioning welfare abuses in agriculture
you are advancing your own argument.


We are, because there is a relationship between the ethical status animals
are given and they way they are treated. The argument has
been explored extensively in various books on AR such as Francione's
_Animals, Property, and the Law_. The reason dogs are generally seen
differently than pigs has to do with the property status of animals.


I don't quite agree, but I must go...

AR and non-AR groups can and do work together on specific
animal welfare issues, and that is good.


I would agree.


That's encouraging.


--
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide


  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-11-2005, 12:58 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



Dutch wrote:
"Glorfindel" wrote


Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
of modern technological methods in agriculture.



Yet "veganism" addresses only one of these so-called "problems" while
remaining utterly mute on the other. I can raise a section of wheat,
including ploughing (or not), seeding, spraying for weeds and pests,
harvesting, transportation, storage and processing. My field can support
hundreds of thousands of small animals like mice, moles and toads, not to
mention grasshoppers and spiders, *many* of which are killed off by my
intrusions into their domain. Vegans gladly consume the products made from
these processes with nary a whimper. Yet if I raise one animal and slaughter
it, the shrill howls of protest go up. Murderer! Where is the logic in this
way of thinking?
+


There are different forms of farming. Read square foot gardening for
example.



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 06:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017