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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-11-2005, 05:12 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Glorfindel wrote:
Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.


false.


Ipse dixit.


No more so than your ipse dixit. For one thing, you cannot
speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any
reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show
they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute.


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?


I asked YOU to provide me an example showing a sense of their moral
flexibility, open-mindedness, or tolerance. Your attempt to dodge the
issue is noted. The authors you named do not make exceptions. For
example, Regan has written,
...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal
rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every
injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger,
cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used
in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional”
animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the
flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping,
but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html

Their ethical position (singular AR position -- for goodness sake, don't
start your usual hair-splitting sophistry to distinguish their inane
peculiarities from one another) is rigid and dogmatic. As a rule,
they're intolerant of opposing positions which allow for any use of
animals; in some cases, that even extends to keeping pets.

...
I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are
affected by my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.


But animal rights supporters have.


I suspect that extremists turn to animal rights from a lack of
the more worthwhile causes of the past, like nuclear
disarmament.
-- Stephen Hawking


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


That's not the point. Dr Hawking's suggesting that AR is simply the
"next" bandwagon that the fringe have jumped upon -- or the next
windmill they're tilting at -- having given up on laudable issues that
would provide more benefits for the world.



I posted links to pics of typical farms. You snipped them and dodged
invitations to respond to what you see. Did you even look?


No.


I knew you wouldn't. Chickenshit.

I knew you would post links to situations which are not
typical of modern animal production.


They *are* typical. The grotesque images you and other ARAs perversely
seek and show are of isolated cases of abuse. In many instances, the
images and videos the ARAs peddle were used to prosecute abusive producers.

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


Because we have unique power over other beings,


The lion has a "unique power" over wildebeasts, zebras, hares, etc. So
does the tiger. So does the hyena. Every predator has its prey.

and ethical obligations not to abuse it.


*Artificial* obligations. You've yet to make a reasoned or reasonable
case that *all* use of other animals constitutes abuse. I'm not asking
you to condemn the horrible conditions shown in AR propaganda -- society
has already condemned it via animal welfare laws AND prosecution of such
abuses.

...
No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.


But they often have objections to the *suffering* of animals
in the process.


They put their objections aside when it comes to a good sale price.


Often true, and a shameful comment on humanity in general.


I don't think it's necessarily shameful that other people have their own
priorities in life. I sure as hell won't blame people for trying to save
money when they can.

I cannot believe you make such attacks on humanity in general,


I don't. You're the misanthrope, Karen; you're the one with an axe to grind.

yet seem to see nothing wrong in such behavior.


There's nothing wrong with being frugal. People enjoy meat. Why should I
be concerned when they choose to buy it at 99-cents a pound instead of
$1.99 a pound?

Surely such people should be ashamed of themselves,


Why?

and you ashamed of them.


Why?

...
If they made a conscious decision to avoid
products they were raised to use, they changed their behavior
for some reason.


I disagree people are "raised" to use certain products. Familiarity
certainly plays a role in consumption, but someone can choose Miller
over Budweiser or Skip over Jiffy or Coke over Pepsi for far less than a
conscientious decision. That also applies to veganism. One can be
gullible enough to believe a set of distortions and lies, but that
doesn't make her conscientious or caring -- just gullible.

That means they were aware of alternatives,
considered them, and chose them for a reason.


And any such reason can be based on falsehoods, making any resulting
"gesture" as bogus as the underlying basis for it. Animals don't benefit
in the aggregate from people "going vegan." They continue to suffer and
die, and at higher rates depending on the choices made. It's specious
and disingenuous to claim that brazen lies peddled by ARAs create
consumer awareness.

That means they
were more aware than others who simply continued what their
families had always done.


Non sequitur, as established above.

...
You've not explained why anything is wrong, just that it is.


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


My mind is open, Karen. I'll hear you out. The question is, Can you hear
me out?

Then it was good that those producers were eliminated, and
no others encouraged to set up production.


They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the
amendment when it went into effect. Happy?


No. That created two wrongs instead of one.


It was a direct consequence of the ridiculous measure.

It was not the fault of the law,


It was the fault of the morons who devised that amendment, which wasn't
required because of rampant abuses in the jurisdiction where it passed.
Why did they not try to pass it in states with significant pork
production (Florida was 30th among states in pork production when the
measure went to voters) or where gestation crates were used more widely
(as opposed to being applicable to just two farms in Florida)?

Face it, that amendment was an empty gesture -- just like veganism is.
It's accomplished nothing of substance -- just like veganism. It had
undesired consequences at odds with the goals of its supporters -- just
like veganism and CDs.

I do watch "Animal Cops Miami"


I don't care what you watch on television. I do care about your
extremist authoritarian agenda, whether we're discussing how you'd force
your views on people who eat meat or wear fur or leather or how you're
so openly willing to tear apart your church.

...

  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-11-2005, 05:45 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




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.


It is coherent, but not absolute. The same is true in the case of
ethics related to humans, although they don't usually relate to
using humans as food. There are a wide variety of situations in which
most ethical systems permit the killing of humans.

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.


That is not reasonable. Real life *always* includes exceptions to
general principles in certain situations. Ethics is not an
absolute science, and always includes gray areas.

People in the Arctic must move south.


If they feel subsistence hunting is unethical, so they should.
Try suggesting that, however, and anti-vegans will immediately
accuse you of racism or cultural imperialism.

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?


Not ethical under most circumstances, because other options *are*
available.

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?


Not ethical. A jar of peanut butter provides many meals and good
levels of protein, and is certainly cheaper and more convenient
than tracking down the semi-mythical "organic grass-fed beef" which
is as rare as the unicorn in most urban areas.

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.


If there is no alternative, they must still not be used, any more
than humans. The "no alternative" claim is always suspect, in any
case.

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.


Of course it is. The benefits are never certain, and they never are
direct or apply directly to any existing person. We can never be
sure that some other solution would not have been found if use of
animals had not been allowed. The benefits are always hypothetical and
potential; the harms direct, real, and specific. Not a good ethical
trade-off


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.


All of us develop our ideas from existing ideas available in our
culture. As C.S. Lewis once noted, a completely original
morality would be highly suspect.



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.


Again, it is not a specific life-or-death situation; it is hypothetical
and partial. You can send some money to an organization to help
starving people elsewhere, reduce your vacation plans somewhat, and
still avoid starvation for your family, while respecting the interests
and rights of others. Real life is compromise, not absolute either-or
situations in the vast majority of cases.

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.


You can still respect the interests of all.



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.


Certainly, but one must make choices on the basis of one's ethical
principles and choose the best balance of interests on that basis
as one sees it. It is not black-and-while or absolute. I consider
farming of animals for food to be a major evil, a major violation of
my ethical principles, and so I choose options which avoid that.



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.


Beings are equal (as a general principle) insofar as their interests
are equal. A cow has an equal interest in life _per se_ to my
interest in life. A cow does not have an equal interest _per se_
in a college education to my interest in an education.

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.


If you were starving, your species would have a greater biological
interest in you killing a human to eat him than in you killing
a cow to eat her? Hmmm....



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.


No doubt.

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.


To a degree, that is true. We should try to live as simply as
possible, but few of us do so ( myself included). I admire
St Francis, but even beggars depend on the unethical actions
of those who give them food and clothing in the way those
people acquired enough surplus to give some away.

There is no rational reason to single
out meat or other "animal products" in this respect.


There are many rational reasons, most of which you know already.

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.


It is an established principle of ethics that humans cannot be used
without their consent. If animals are also beings with rights and
moral standing, neither can they.

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.


They are not conscious, so they do not have interests as individuals.

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


Weeding does.


You didn't specify weeding.


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".


Yours are biased by your misguided belief that AR principles are
incorrect and incoherent. According to Farm Sanctuary, more than 90
per cent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are raised in factory-farm
confinement cages, More than two-thirds of sows in the U.S. are
confined in factory-farm crates, A report on farm animal welfare
can be obtained from them at www.farmsanctuary.org. Dueling
statistics, anyone?



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.




How would a worm kill other animals?


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


Aw, come on Tiny organisms in the soil are not what we think of as
"animals" and worms are not predators.

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.


No, it's not circular: it is the reason. We can proceed to examining why
that is part of AR theory, but that is something else. Take it in steps.

"AR theory" is what you are trying to defend.


Yes.

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.


I've suggested sources of information which show it.


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.


It does not mean AR is not.

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.


Certainly. I do not deny that. I have done so in my own choices.



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.


However, the methods we use as a society, as a species, have changed in
ways which are so different from other animals that we cannot be
compared with them. An animal predator only interacts with another
individual prey animal at the moment of hunting; the other animal's
whole life is under his own control at all other times. Humans control
their domestic animals from before birth to after death. Predator
and prey species do affect each other under natural conditions, but
they do so without much ability by individual animals to change
conditions, while humans have tremendous ability to modify conditions
for both themselves and the rest of the environment. We have a unique
amount of power over other animals and unique abilities to decide
how to use it.



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.


The effect is similar in the case of strict vegetarians, no matter
what the reason.



The issue I am raising is that AR does not address cds in any way,


It does -- and you and others have noted that it does by claiming
CDs affect AR.

and as it
is presently structured it cannot because AR/vegan adherents would lose much
of their motivation to continue.


The motivation is not affected in any way by the issue of CDs. They
are primarily an irrelevant attempt at diversion by anti-vegans to
avoid dealing with the central issues of animal rights. Over the
years, anti-vegans have indeed seen that direct attack on animal
rights theory gets them nowhere. They cannot refute AR principles
in ways that animal rights supporters or ethical vegetarians find
convincing. They certainly have not convinced me. So they have
latched on to an obsessive concentration on the *supposed* effect
of CDs on animal rights/vegan thought. It only works on people
who do not have a firm grasp on the basics of AR theory. It will
not make vegans become meat-eaters; that is against their basic
principles. It may encourage vegans to search for better sources
of vegetables, and that is all to the good.



Have a good Thanksgiving and think about sponsoring a rescued turkey.
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-11-2005, 06:01 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Glorfindel wrote:
Animals on concrete.


It has benefits.


Only to the producer.


Also to the livestock.


No.


Yes.

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.


Turkeys -- sticking to the issue at hand -- live 14-20 weeks, which,
generally speaking, isn't long enough for them to become crippled.

...
1. Easier to clean and disinfect.


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


They're not overcrowded.


They are.


No, they have plenty of room.

It would still be necessary for sanitation and hygiene.


No.


Yes.

Many keepers of companion animals


PETS. They're called PETS, Karen.

and small-scale farmers


Most farms aren't small-scale. You can bitch and moan about the "good
old days" all you want, but that won't change the fact that consumers
benefit immensely when agriculture, like any other successful industry,
benefits from economies of scale.

demonstrate it is not, by using bedding for their
animals.


Niche producers can cater to those with sensitivities such as yours
(well, not yours, _per se_, since yours are pretty out there), but they
cannot reach the economy of scale that most consumers find more appealing.

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.


And even then, there's a variance depending on the local conditions of a
certain farm. I concede some farms are too big given their surrounding
environments. I also concede some states and counties should toughen
environmental regulations so that very large farms face severe penalties
for polluting. I also think they can be given incentives to increase
their capacities for treating the effluents from their farms.

Traditional farms


The images I linked to ARE traditional farms.


Nope.


Yes, they are traditional farms.

I looked at them. They are not.


They're far more typical of traditional farming than what prevailed on
British farms during WWII -- as you foolishly suggest was "normal."

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.


The 1940s aren't recent, nor were the conditions in Yorkshire similar to
what you'd find in the US during or after WWII -- remember, rationing in
the UK continued through 1954 (July 4th, no less).
http://tinyurl.com/dl4vk

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.


Established by your silly comparison.

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.


Subsistence farming isn't traditional, except in impoverished regions.
It also isn't exactly profitable (by definition):
Subsistence farming is a mode of agriculture in which a plot of
land produces only enough food to feed the family working it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_farming

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


Not universally,


usually


Ipse dixit. You're painting with a very broad brush. Most intensive
farming operations don't create "massive environmental pollution" and,
increasingly, operators are adopting abatement measures to significantly
reduce the amount of effluents discharged into regional waterways.

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


Ipse dixit.


http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-67786

Who says agribusiness monocropping is ecologically
sound either?


Even the small organic farmers from whom you make your token purchases
are "agribusiness" -- and perhaps more so considering the inflated
premiums they charge. The point is, vegans don't distinguish between
agricultural models. They generalize and say that eating meat is bad,
but refuse to get into consuming specific foods that reduce animal harm.
Eating certain kinds of meat causes less animal harm than eating a
generalized diet consisting of commercially-grown grains and legumes,
and this extends to claims about veganism being better for the
environment. The effect of consuming such grains and legumes mitigates
any "good" done for animals by merely not eating them; many more die,
the environment is degraded, etc.

You frequently accuse vegans of being unethical by claiming
they are simply not as bad as others.


It's not an accusation, it's a fact. Vegans ultimately start from the
position that they're better, and when shown the errors of their
assumptions, they start playing a counting game.

Here you have used the
same argument: factory farming is O.K. because it is not as bad
as agribusiness monocropping.


I haven't used the same argument. I'm saying it's ironic that global
veganism would require significantly more monocropping than currently
exists -- more dead animals, more pollution, etc. Everything vegans
promote would give them more of what they don't want in the first place.

...
Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information


You mean DISinformation.


No,


Yes. They promote distortions. They do not tell the truth. They have an
agenda. They're not unbiased.

Send them a donation


No.

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, I don't support that viewpoint. Your argument is a non sequitur.
Turkeys don't breed naturally because they go to slaughter long before
they're sexually mature. They're not bred to have willies in proportion
to the rest of their anatomy.

No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction.


Why not?

No animal should be slaughtered before
even reaching maturity.


Turkeys are mature when slaughtered; they're just not sexually mature.

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.


Look at the unintended consequences of leftist policies:
War on poverty - more poverty.
Compulsory public education - kids can't read or write.
Comprehensive sex education - more teen pregnancy.
Raise taxes on the rich - less tax revenues.
Amendment against gestation crates - sows get slaughtered.
Etc. -- I could go on.

You're not concerned about the results. You're concerned only about
having "noble" intentions even if they turn out to be meaningless
gestures that only give you more of what you say you don't want.

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.


Your presumption is baseless. There's no evidence farmers wanted to move
operations into Florida in the first place.
  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-11-2005, 08:05 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Beach Runner" wrote


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.


So what? There's Polyface too
http://www.ecofriendly.com/index.cfm?section=11&page=43 that doesn't change
anything I said.


  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 12:58 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:


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.



Turkeys -- sticking to the issue at hand


You didn't specify only turkeys.

-- live 14-20 weeks,


No, they are killed by humans after 14-20 weeks.

which,
generally speaking, isn't long enough for them to become crippled.


Some of them manage to do so, however.


No, they have plenty of room.


Ipse dixit. Not from the pictures.



and small-scale farmers


Most farms aren't small-scale.


That is a major part of the problem. There simply are
too many animals for the number of people to care for
properly, let alone humanely.

You can bitch and moan about the "good
old days" all you want, but that won't change the fact that consumers
benefit immensely when agriculture, like any other successful industry,
benefits from economies of scale.


That doesn't help the animals, however. When they are regarded
as no more than economic units, they suffer badly. The cost
to the animals far outweighs the limited benefit to consumers of
slightly lower prices for a luxury product.



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


And even then, there's a variance depending on the local conditions of a
certain farm. I concede some farms are too big given their surrounding
environments. I also concede some states and counties should toughen
environmental regulations so that very large farms face severe penalties
for polluting. I also think they can be given incentives to increase
their capacities for treating the effluents from their farms.


Thank you.

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.


The 1940s aren't recent, nor were the conditions in Yorkshire similar to
what you'd find in the US during or after WWII -- remember, rationing in
the UK continued through 1954 (July 4th, no less).


The 1940's are quite recent -- within the memory of people still
living The conditions on those farms in general were similar
to conditions on traditional farms everywhere in the Western world
up until factory farming technology took over. What about them do
you claim was not common on traditional farms?



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.


Subsistence farming isn't traditional, except in impoverished regions.


It's traditional through most of human history. The farmer usually
produced to feed himself, and often some amount to sell if he was
lucky or owned a lot of land. That could vary greatly. Giant
plantation systems *have* existed from the time of the Roman
latifundia, but they were never the norm.



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




Ipse dixit. You're painting with a very broad brush. Most intensive
farming operations don't create "massive environmental pollution" and,
increasingly, operators are adopting abatement measures to significantly
reduce the amount of effluents discharged into regional waterways.


How nice. From what I've read, I don't believe your claim.



Even the small organic farmers from whom you make your token purchases
are "agribusiness"


Not as the term is generally used. They are farmers.

-- and perhaps more so considering the inflated
premiums they charge. The point is, vegans don't distinguish between
agricultural models.


That is the kind of general claim you can't support. What did I just
do beside distinguish between them?


I haven't used the same argument. I'm saying it's ironic that global
veganism would require significantly more monocropping than currently
exists


Again, you can't support that. (Nor is it likely any time soon).



Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information


You mean DISinformation.


No,


Yes. They promote distortions. They do not tell the truth. They have an
agenda. They're not unbiased.


They have just produced a report on animal welfare in production
of animal products. What in it specifically do you claim is inaccurate,
and why?

Yes, they have an agenda, the same one as humane organizations
everywhe to promote humane conditions for animals, and to
rescue individual abused animals.



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




My point exactly. You support my argument that the turkeys
have been deliberately crippled and deformed for human
convenience.


No, I don't support that viewpoint. Your argument is a non sequitur.
Turkeys don't breed naturally because they go to slaughter long before
they're sexually mature. They're not bred to have willies in proportion
to the rest of their anatomy.


Exactly. Both inhumane and unethical.

No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction.


Why not?


If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you.


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.


Your presumption is baseless. There's no evidence farmers wanted to move
operations into Florida in the first place.


Well, now they can't if they did want to, which is a plus for the
potential victims. Let's hope the example of Florida shows other
states what they can do when their people care about abused animals.
It has happened in other countries. Europe is far ahead of the U.S
when it comes to humane treatment of animals in farming.


  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 04:25 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" wrote

Seeker wrote:

"Glorfindel" wrote




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.


It is coherent, but not absolute.


It's incoherent, primarily because AR focuses narrowly on imagined political
rights of 5% of animals and ignores the other 95% of animals harmed by human
activity.

The same is true in the case of
ethics related to humans, although they don't usually relate to
using humans as food.


They never do, and that's primarily what we are talking about.

There are a wide variety of situations in which
most ethical systems permit the killing of humans.


The analogy fails utterly, and there is NOT "a wide variety of situations",
in most countries there is one, sometimes two.

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.


That is not reasonable. Real life *always* includes exceptions to
general principles in certain situations. Ethics is not an
absolute science, and always includes gray areas.


That is BULLshit. Moral principles allow rare and unusual exceptions, not
systematic and widespread violations. The killing of animals in every
agricultural-related business is widespread and systematic, yet the only
ones objected to by vegans are the ones that result in animal "products".

People in the Arctic must move south.


If they feel subsistence hunting is unethical, so they should.


What kind of moral directive is that? If I feel that it's unethical to
molest kids I should stop? What if I don't?

Try suggesting that, however, and anti-vegans will immediately
accuse you of racism or cultural imperialism.


Well cry me a river! Vegans ARE attempting to impose a highly artificial and
poorly thought-out regime on all of us. *I* accuse you of cultural
imperialism.

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?


Not ethical under most circumstances, because other options *are*
available.


So what??? FFS! There are plenty of options available to vegans that would
cause less animal death and suffering than their current lifestyles, they
aren't pursuing all of them. Some of those options could include consuming
animal products instead of manufactured meat substitutes.

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?


Not ethical. A jar of peanut butter provides many meals and good
levels of protein, and is certainly cheaper and more convenient
than tracking down the semi-mythical "organic grass-fed beef" which
is as rare as the unicorn in most urban areas.


I eat grass-fed beef and I live in a mid-sized city.

Have you measured how much animal death and suffering is associated with
that a jar of peanut butter?

Then how can you say it is less than the d&s associated with the same amount
of grass-fed beef?

Where do you derive the moral authority to tell anyone that their choices
are unethical when you have not even attempted to measure the death and
suffering that your own consumerism causes? In other words, you have got a
lot of gall.

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.


If there is no alternative, they must still not be used, any more
than humans. The "no alternative" claim is always suspect, in any
case.


You are not qualified to make that statement, in fact it is an ignorant one.

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.


Of course it is.


Of course it is NOT. Safe and effective are essential properties of medical
treatments, whether they are determined today, five years ago, or next year.

The benefits are never certain, and they never are
direct or apply directly to any existing person. We can never be
sure that some other solution would not have been found if use of
animals had not been allowed. The benefits are always hypothetical and
potential; the harms direct, real, and specific. Not a good ethical
trade-off


Then I suggest you abstain from all use of medical treatment. That way your
precious ethics will be safe.

You won't do that though, you will think of some glib, self-serving reason
to take advantage of every possible medical advantage.


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.


All of us develop our ideas from existing ideas available in our
culture. As C.S. Lewis once noted, a completely original
morality would be highly suspect.


Very good. I was talking about using your own "logic", not your own morals.
As a matter of fact, take another look at that quote. Veganism in fact
proposes something like an "original morality", certainly more so that the
typical morality that has developed over eons of human societies.



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.


Again, it is not a specific life-or-death situation; it is hypothetical
and partial. You can send some money to an organization to help
starving people elsewhere, reduce your vacation plans somewhat, and
still avoid starvation for your family, while respecting the interests
and rights of others. Real life is compromise, not absolute either-or
situations in the vast majority of cases.


Every single frivolous or selfish expenditure we make is made at the expense
of people who are starving to death. That is the reality of living a
comfortable western existence. When you buy vegetables at the local
supermarket you buy the history of that food from the time it's planted
until it appears on that shelf. There is no free lunch. This notion that
"animal products" are evil is an absurd and soul-destroying idea that people
like you propogate, and there are always willing dupes to follow, to make
you feel important.

You disgust me.

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.


You can still respect the interests of all.


How are you respecting the interests of animals that are exterminated to
protect the crops you ultimately consume? The field mice, frogs, toads,
birds, etc etc.. not to mention crickets, spiders, bees, ants. Please
explain.



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.


Certainly, but one must make choices on the basis of one's ethical
principles and choose the best balance of interests on that basis
as one sees it. It is not black-and-while or absolute. I consider
farming of animals for food to be a major evil, a major violation of
my ethical principles, and so I choose options which avoid that.


Killing them by the billions to produce, fruit, grains, rice, vegetables,
beans, cotton, etc.. is not a violation of their interests?

Can you understand that I do not attach political significance to the
killing of animals? If they're dead they're dead, that's all that matters to
them, and therefore me. If I kill one animal to eat it, I have done better
then you if you killed two to produce a similiar quantity of food, THAT is a
coherent equation.



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.


Beings are equal (as a general principle) insofar as their interests
are equal.


So you say, but it's just rhetoric.

A cow has an equal interest in life _per se_ to my
interest in life.


I disgree, a human being has a far greater understanding of life, of
mortality, the meaning of existence, and has a far longer lifespan. A cow is
a relative automaton with no concept like "I want to live x number of
years", or even that it's life is limited by nature. You may as well say
that a cow has as much life interests as a plant than to say that a human
has as much as a cow.

A cow does not have an equal interest _per se_
in a college education to my interest in an education.


*YOU* have an interest in education? That is at once alarming but not
surprising.

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.


If you were starving, your species would have a greater biological
interest in you killing a human to eat him than in you killing
a cow to eat her? Hmmm....


No, if I were starving I would have a greater biological interest in eating
a member of my own species than to respect a taboo against it. I may have a
stronger moral inhibition than my biological interest though.



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.


No doubt.


I imagine you derive a kind of adolescent gratification from disturbing
people, while feeling that you have attained a moral plateau above them.

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.


To a degree, that is true. We should try to live as simply as
possible, but few of us do so ( myself included).


Big surprise, yet you still find it within your prerogative to insult good
people by proclaiming that they are unethical for doing what comes naturally
to animals.

I admire
St Francis, but even beggars depend on the unethical actions
of those who give them food and clothing in the way those
people acquired enough surplus to give some away.


Yeah, you're a real gem.

There is no rational reason to single
out meat or other "animal products" in this respect.


There are many rational reasons, most of which you know already.


There are NONE. The excuses I have heard from the likes of you are
sophistry. The reason you single out meat is that it is an easy step you
make without inconveniencing yourself too much, yet it allows you to look
down haughtily on others, something in your makeup finds that satisfying.

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.


It is an established principle of ethics that humans cannot be used
without their consent. If animals are also beings with rights and
moral standing, neither can they.


That is begging the question. Look it up.

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.


They are not conscious, so they do not have interests as individuals.


Cows do not have the same degree of consciousness as humans either, although
I wonder about vegans...

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


Weeding does.


You didn't specify weeding.


What are you doing here? Are you just here to waste my time, or are you
genuinely searching for truth?


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".


Yours are biased by your misguided belief that AR principles are
incorrect and incoherent. According to Farm Sanctuary, more than 90
per cent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are raised in factory-farm
confinement cages, More than two-thirds of sows in the U.S. are
confined in factory-farm crates, A report on farm animal welfare
can be obtained from them at www.farmsanctuary.org. Dueling
statistics, anyone?


Not with a vegan activist website. But even if it were true, the principle
is what we are arguing. What if every farm were like Salatins?
http://www.ecofriendly.com/index.cfm?section=11&page=43 You would still make
your anti-meat arguments. So lets cut the crap and stick to the real issue,
and that is the fundamental AR principle that says it's wrong to farm
animals, and which is mute on the farming of plants with systematic
collateral killing of animals.




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.




How would a worm kill other animals?


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


Aw, come on Tiny organisms in the soil are not what we think of as
"animals"


What do you call them? Why is size suddenly an issue? It wasn't an issue
when vegans issued an edict against honey, or silk.

and worms are not predators.


They kill animal life constantly, so do herbivores. These shifting political
lines you keep drawing around the animal kingdom are irrational, that's what
I keep trying to tell you.


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.


No, it's not circular: it is the reason. We can proceed to examining why
that is part of AR theory, but that is something else. Take it in steps.


I've been up those step, they lead up a staircase to a door that goes
nowhere. There is nothing inherent in domesticating animals that is immoral.
There are conditions that you could argue are immoral.

"AR theory" is what you are trying to defend.


Yes.


I wish you would stop once in a while and step back from it, try to look at
it objectively. I know it's unlikely that you are capable of doing that, but
I never lose hope..


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.


I've suggested sources of information which show it.


Biased sources concentrate on instances of abuse. I've shown credible
sources that show that instances of animal suffering are very low. But every
life contains some suffering, it's unreasonable to expect there to be none.


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.


It does not mean AR is not.


No, but you implied that it did.

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.


Certainly. I do not deny that. I have done so in my own choices.


You haven't factored it in your thinking or you wouldn't be making the
statements that you do.



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.


However, the methods we use as a society, as a species, have changed in
ways which are so different from other animals that we cannot be
compared with them.


Wrong, we are still predators, our bodies have not changed significantly
since we evolved from apes and began hunting in groups.

An animal predator only interacts with another
individual prey animal at the moment of hunting; the other animal's
whole life is under his own control at all other times. Humans control
their domestic animals from before birth to after death. Predator
and prey species do affect each other under natural conditions, but
they do so without much ability by individual animals to change
conditions, while humans have tremendous ability to modify conditions
for both themselves and the rest of the environment. We have a unique
amount of power over other animals and unique abilities to decide
how to use it.


That's true, but it doesn't mean that veganism is either rational or
necessary to have an ethical life. You're making intimations again that do
not necessarily follow.



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.


The effect is similar in the case of strict vegetarians, no matter
what the reason.


No it isn't. Animal rights adherents aka vegans abstain from consuming meat,
no matter whether those choices benefit animals as a whole or not. Animal
welfare advocates may or may not consume animal products, and may choose an
animal product selectively over a commercially produced plant-based product,
imported fruit, or grain that may have a worse or roughly equivalent
case-history than the particular meat, fish or fowl. Someone who is simply a
vegetarian will only eat plant products regardless.




The issue I am raising is that AR does not address cds in any way,


It does -- and you and others have noted that it does by claiming
CDs affect AR.


The reality of cds is a dagger through the heart of AR/veganism as a
philosphy, if that's what you mean.


and as it is presently structured it cannot because AR/vegan adherents
would lose much of their motivation to continue.


The motivation is not affected in any way by the issue of CDs.


Not according you, now, at this point in your life. For many others it has
been a key that opened the gate to a prison of their own creation.

They
are primarily an irrelevant attempt at diversion by anti-vegans to
avoid dealing with the central issues of animal rights.


I find it amusing that you would call the issue of animal death and
suffering irrelevant to the central issues of animal rights.

Over the
years, anti-vegans have indeed seen that direct attack on animal
rights theory gets them nowhere. They cannot refute AR principles
in ways that animal rights supporters or ethical vegetarians find
convincing. They certainly have not convinced me.


That's because you're brainwashed, not because the arguments aren't valid.

So they have
latched on to an obsessive concentration on the *supposed* effect
of CDs on animal rights/vegan thought.


I am quite aware that the issue has little effect on many ARAs, but that's
not because it's not relevant.

It only works on people
who do not have a firm grasp on the basics of AR theory.


It doesn't work on those who have drunk too deeply from The Chalice, it does
work for people who are sympathetic to AR ideals but maintain a foundation
of rationality.

It will
not make vegans become meat-eaters; that is against their basic
principles.


That's not its intent, but that very admission is telling. If I presented a
source of meat that would guarantee of lower death toll than the current
diet of a vegan, they would NOT consider it, because veganism is about the
*appearance* of higher morality, not the achievement of it.

It may encourage vegans to search for better sources
of vegetables, and that is all to the good.


That'll be the day.


Have a good Thanksgiving and think about sponsoring a rescued turkey.


How many do you have in your back yard?


  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 05:31 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:



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?


I asked YOU to provide me an example showing a sense of their moral
flexibility, open-mindedness, or tolerance.


You already provided one above. There are others found in almost
all writers on AR, but moral flexibility and open- mindedness
do not depend on supporting the use of animals for food under
ordinary conditions or the killing of animals for fur under
ordinary conditions. "Flexibility" is not defined as "support's
Usual's anti-AR views".

Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on
the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God,
rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we
have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live
otherwise." _Animal Theology_

Regan notes: "It sometimes happens that animals are in conditions of
acute, untreatable suffering...To kill animals in these circumstances
would seem clearly to be in their interests, for there are fates worse
than death...."_Case for Animal Rights_

Sapontzis suggests that if hens are provided with all their needs and
treated with respect, it is not unethical to use their unfertilized
eggs. He also notes "...to have moral rights is not necessarily to have
the same set of rights with other rights-holders, extending moral rights
to those who have not enjoyed them before does not settle the matter of
how we are to treat them. Rather it opens the door to questions...."
_Morals, Reason, and Animals_

Even the generally uncompromising Francione says: "Moreover, humans have
so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal
exploitation completely...but the impossibility of avoiding all contact
with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most
obvious and serious forms of exploitation." _Introduction to Animal
Rights_.

I found these examples in ten minutes by opening the volumes almost
literally at random. Major writers on AR present a much more
nuanced analysis than you claim.


Your attempt to dodge the
issue is noted. The authors you named do not make exceptions. For
example, Regan has written,
...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal
rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every
injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger,
cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used
in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional”
animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the
flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping,
but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html


Their ethical position (singular AR position -- for goodness sake, don't
start your usual hair-splitting sophistry to distinguish their inane
peculiarities from one another)


There are several AR philosophies, based on several philosophical
positions, and this leads to a variety of conclusions in specific
cases. You might as well talk about a "singular philosophical
position" or a "singular religious position." There are certain
ideas which are fairly common, but none that is universal, not
even the idea that animals have rights _per se_.

is rigid and dogmatic. As a rule,
they're intolerant of opposing positions which allow for any use of
animals; in some cases, that even extends to keeping pets.


See Sapontzis above.


They *are* typical. The grotesque images you and other ARAs perversely
seek and show are of isolated cases of abuse. In many instances, the
images and videos the ARAs peddle were used to prosecute abusive producers.


Yes, as in the case of the Silver Springs monkeys and the well-known
head-trauma studies, among others. PETA does have a number of
undercover people who take pictures and bring particularly egregious
cases of abuse to light, and Farm Sanctuary has been active in getting
laws passed to prevent sale of "downer" animals.



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


Because we have unique power over other beings,


The lion has a "unique power" over wildebeasts, zebras, hares, etc. So
does the tiger. So does the hyena. Every predator has its prey.


That is not the same kind of power we have over domesticated animals.
The lion cannot pick out which prey animals should breed, or keep the
herd in his territory when they decides to migrate. Why do you think
lions lose so many cubs to starvation?

and ethical obligations not to abuse it.


*Artificial* obligations.


Yes, ethics is artificial to some degree; it is not instinctive in
humans.



There's nothing wrong with being frugal. People enjoy meat. Why should I
be concerned when they choose to buy it at 99-cents a pound instead of
$1.99 a pound?


You should if the dollar a pound is saved at the cost of extreme
suffering on the part of the animals who become it. That is
simply unethical and barbarous, and most people, even those who
are not animal rights supporters, consider it wrong on humane
grounds.



If they made a conscious decision to avoid
products they were raised to use, they changed their behavior
for some reason.



That means they were aware of alternatives,
considered them, and chose them for a reason.


And any such reason can be based on falsehoods


It *can*, but that is not the point. The point is that they
were *aware* of the option of choice and chose for some
reason. They made a conscious decision, instead of simply
going with the flow.


They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the
amendment when it went into effect. Happy?


No. That created two wrongs instead of one.


It was a direct consequence of the ridiculous measure.


It was not the fault of the law,


It was the fault of the morons who devised that amendment


No, it was the *fault* of the producers who slaughtered the
pigs. This is a common tactic with you: try to avoid
blaming the obvious and direct actor, and instead blame some
other person who doesn't agree with you. It's just silly.
Don't blame the agribusiness producer who plows animals
under; blame the vegan consumer. Don't blame the man who
kills the pigs; blame the lawmakers who try to provide
humane living conditions for pigs. It is a deliberately
perverse approach and makes no sense.


, which wasn't
required because of rampant abuses in the jurisdiction where it passed.
Why did they not try to pass it in states with significant pork
production (Florida was 30th among states in pork production when the
measure went to voters) or where gestation crates were used more widely
(as opposed to being applicable to just two farms in Florida)?


I don't know. Probably the voters in Florida were more open to the
idea than those in some other states. It's a start.


  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 07:57 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"Glorfindel" wrote
Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on
the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God,
rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we
have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live
otherwise." _Animal Theology_


This is the essence of veganism, to avoid "animal products" means "to live
otherwise", just the fallacious reasoning that so many people fall for. This
line of thought of course is extrapolated from moral behaviour towards
humans, i.e. kill only in self-defense, where it actually makes sense.

--
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide
(11/22/1869 - 02/19/1951)


  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 04:42 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:
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.


Turkeys -- sticking to the issue at hand


You didn't specify only turkeys.


What's in those pics? What have we been discussing -- inability to screw
because they're bred for breast meat?

-- live 14-20 weeks,


No


Yes. They live 14-20 weeks.

which, generally speaking, isn't long enough for them to become crippled.


Some of them manage to do so, however.


Typically only the ones stolen by "liberation" nitwits.



No, they have plenty of room.


Ipse dixit. Not from the pictures.


The pictures all showed plenty of room for movement, and, contrary to
the AR propaganda, they all were supporting their own weight. Go back
and look at them again, Karen. Pay close attention to the one from
Israel and note the bare floor in the bottom of the pic.



and small-scale farmers


Most farms aren't small-scale.


That is a major part of the problem.


I don't consider it a problem, at least in general terms (I've addressed
specific instances already, such as when farming operations are located
adjacent to sensitive habitat, etc.).

There simply are
too many animals for the number of people to care for
properly, let alone humanely.


Ipse dixit. The birds in the pics I linked appeared clean and healthy.

You can bitch and moan about the "good old days" all you want, but
that won't change the fact that consumers benefit immensely when
agriculture, like any other successful industry, benefits from
economies of scale.


That doesn't help the animals, however. When they are regarded
as no more than economic units, they suffer badly.


Non sequitur and ipse dixit. Producers comprehend the links between
healthy animals and profits.

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/ext...afety/cow.html
http://www.grandin.com/meat/hand.stu...e.quality.html
http://www.lmacmarkets.ca/handling.htm

Etc.

The cost
to the animals far outweighs the limited benefit to consumers of
slightly lower prices for a luxury product.


You understand nothing about economics or livestock production. See the
links above. I found over 27,000 links relating to profitability of
healthier livestock.

http://grandin.com/welfare/economic.html

...
Ipse dixit. You're painting with a very broad brush. Most intensive
farming operations don't create "massive environmental pollution" and,
increasingly, operators are adopting abatement measures to
significantly reduce the amount of effluents discharged into regional
waterways.


How nice. From what I've read,


You mean leftwing propaganda from people who cling to Jeffersonian
agrarian ideals and Utopian delusions.
http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/c...ArticleID=1749

I don't believe your claim.


http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/.../breakout.html
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/default.htm

Etc.



Even the small organic farmers from whom you make your token purchases
are "agribusiness"


Not as the term is generally used.


You mean by leftwing extremists like you.

They are farmers.


They are agri(cultural)business(es). Agribusiness.

...
Yes, they have an agenda,


Established.

No, I don't support that viewpoint. Your argument is a non sequitur.
Turkeys don't breed naturally because they go to slaughter long before
they're sexually mature. They're not bred to have willies in
proportion to the rest of their anatomy.


Exactly. Both inhumane and unethical.


Turkey genitalia size isn't evidence of inhumane or unethical treatment
of turkeys.

No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction.


Why not?


If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you.


You can't answer the question. You have to accept the fact that they're
bred for meat, not for shagging.



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.


Your presumption is baseless. There's no evidence farmers wanted to
move operations into Florida in the first place.


Well, now they can't if they did want to, which is a plus for the
potential victims.


There are no "potential victims," so the amendment was an empty,
meaningless gesture.

Let's hope the example of Florida shows other
states what they can do when their people care about abused animals.


The amendment did nothing to address animal cruelty in Florida. It was
an empty, meaningless gesture by empty, meaningless people.
  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 04:57 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Dutch wrote:
"Glorfindel" wrote


Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on
the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God,
rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we
have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live
otherwise." _Animal Theology_


This is the essence of veganism, to avoid "animal products" means "to live
otherwise",


As far as that specific behavior is concerned. Linzey is careful to
note that even vegans do have a CD cost in their lives. He is well
aware of *your* fallacious reasoning that if we will only start eating
meat, we will somehow become virtuous -- or it won't matter to us any
more.

just the fallacious reasoning that so many people fall for. This
line of thought of course is extrapolated from moral behaviour towards
humans, i.e. kill only in self-defense, where it actually makes sense.


It makes sense in reference to non-humans also.



  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 05:23 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:


Glorfindel:


No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction.


Why not?


If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you.


You can't answer the question.


I can answer the question, but your basic moral priorities are
so different from those of normal people that the answer
probably won't make sense to you.

Animals are not ours. First, they are created by God ( or Nature)
to be what they are and to fill a particular ecological niche.
We cannot create them; we can only warp them out of their natural
state in ways which -- in the case of these turkeys at least --
frustrate every ability required for them to survive as they
were intended to do. We have taken God's creatures and mutilated
and deformed them.

Animals are not ours. As individual beings under God, just like
humans, they belong to themselves. Their lives and their selves
are their own. They have inherent value in themselves; they have
consciousness and awareness, the ability to feel and suffer and
enjoy their little lives. They are individuals, as we are, and
we have a moral obligation to respect that basic individuality by
treating them as beings with basic moral status, not just as things.
We do not have a right, as God's stewards only, to do anything we
want to others. We do not have a right, as moral beings, to create
suffering and deformity for our trivial convenience.

But, as I said, this will probably make no sense to you. For which,
I pity you.


  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 05:53 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:
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?


I asked YOU to provide me an example showing a sense of their moral
flexibility, open-mindedness, or tolerance.


You already provided one above.


It wasn't exactly an example of open-mindedness or tolerance. Regan
advocates ending *all* farming, etc.:
...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal
rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every
injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger,
cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used
in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional”
animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the
flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping,
but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html

Note "empty cages," "a complete end to all commerce in the flesh of dead
animals," "the total eradication of these barbarous practices."

There are others found in almost
all writers on AR, but moral flexibility and open- mindedness
do not depend on supporting the use of animals for food under
ordinary conditions or the killing of animals for fur under
ordinary conditions.


I asked for examples demonstrating some degree of *tolerance* for those
who disagree with ARAs. That request was based on what you said previously:
For one thing, you cannot speak for all vegans -- nor can I --
and for another, any reading of major authors who support
AR/veganism will show they mention many areas where ethics
cannot be absolute.

I still want an example demonstrating some kind of ethical wiggle room
-- tolerance, open-mindedness, etc. -- on the part of ARAs since you
contend they're not absolutists.

"Flexibility" is not defined as "support's
Usual's anti-AR views".


Strawman: you know that was NOT my suggestion.

Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism


There isn't one. Vegetarianism -- specifically, veganism and AR -- are
at odds with the Bible.

Jesus helped fishermen:
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into
deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."

Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't
caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the
nets."

When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish
that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners
in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and
filled both boats so full that they began to sink.

When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go
away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his
companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had
taken...
Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account)

He fed fish to hungry followers:
Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion
for these people; they have already been with me three days and
have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or
they may collapse on the way."

His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this
remote place to feed such a crowd?"

"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.

"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the
seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he
broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to
the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the
disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were
left over.
-- Mathew 15:32-37

He ate fish himself:
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And
while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate
it in their presence.
-- Luke 24:40-43

Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Christ went out to
fish with them. He told them where and when to find fish. He fed fish to
others. He ate fish himself.

Consider the Passover seder:
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was
customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked
him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you
to eat the Passover?"

So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the
city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow
him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and
ready. Make preparations for us there."

The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as
Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
-- Mark 14:12-16

Did Jesus forbid the killing and eating the lamb? No, he and his
disciples partook in the custom of killing and eating a lamb on Pesach.

Jesus also commanded animal sacrifices:
A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If
you are willing, you can make me clean."

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched
the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the
leprosy left him and he was cured.

Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you
don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest
and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your
cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 1:40-44

Mary and Joseph offered animal sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the
animal rights or "vegan" position.

Furthermore, the OT is filled with examples of meat-eating and animal
sacrifices. Cain and Esau are described as hunters. The OT laws
prescribe methods of slaughter, rules for how meat should and shouldn't
be prepared, etc.

Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean,
but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended
the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who
think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following
rules nearly 2000 years later.

St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not
judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat;
he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain
foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge
people according to what they eat and command (or at least request)
others abstain from certain foods to be more ethical, holy, etc.

There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Vegetarianism --
particularly the AR/vegan zealotry kind you seek to infect the world
through proselytization -- is antithetical to the Bible.

does not rest on
the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God,
rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we
have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live
otherwise." _Animal Theology_


This is nothing but regurgitating and Biblicizing the lame argument that
people shouldn't eat meat because they don't have to. Worse, the Bible
doesn't split hairs between "have to kill to live" and "kill to eat
something." God allowed Cain and Esau to hunt, and he told Noah and his
sons after the flood, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for
you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you
shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." God didn't tell
them they could only eat it when in dire circumstances, like when they
ran out of tofu or wheat; that's YOUR and Linzey's command -- the
command of man.

Regan notes: "It sometimes happens that animals are in conditions of
acute, untreatable suffering...To kill animals in these circumstances
would seem clearly to be in their interests, for there are fates worse
than death...."_Case for Animal Rights_


See Regan above. Your quotation pertains to mercy killing for the
animals' sake rather than instances where it benefits man.

Sapontzis suggests that if hens are provided with all their needs and
treated with respect, it is not unethical to use their unfertilized
eggs.


Why would it be unethical to take fertilized eggs? And why would it be
"wrong" to consume a hen after she'd received such care?

He also notes "...to have moral rights is not necessarily to have
the same set of rights with other rights-holders, extending moral rights
to those who have not enjoyed them before does not settle the matter of
how we are to treat them. Rather it opens the door to questions...."
_Morals, Reason, and Animals_


That quote fails to address the issue I raised.

Even the generally uncompromising Francione says: "Moreover, humans have
so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal
exploitation completely...but the impossibility of avoiding all contact
with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most
obvious and serious forms of exploitation." _Introduction to Animal
Rights_.


Also fails to address the issue.

I found these examples in ten minutes by opening the volumes almost
literally at random. Major writers on AR present a much more
nuanced analysis than you claim.


No, Karen, you've given me examples that don't address the issue I asked
you about. Any "nuance" these writes have is overshadowed by the fact
that as a rule they oppose people eating animals, wearing fur or
leather, or conducting research that uses animals as subjects in
experiments.

Your attempt to dodge the
issue is noted. The authors you named do not make exceptions. For
example, Regan has written,
...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal
rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every
injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger,
cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used
in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional”
animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the
flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping,
but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html


Their ethical position (singular AR position -- for goodness sake,
don't start your usual hair-splitting sophistry to distinguish their
inane peculiarities from one another)


There are several AR philosophies, based on several philosophical
positions, and this leads to a variety of conclusions in specific
cases. You might as well talk about a "singular philosophical
position" or a "singular religious position." There are certain
ideas which are fairly common, but none that is universal,


The idea that animals shouldn't be owned, be food, be worn, or be
experimented upon is universal in AR and veganism.

...
is rigid and dogmatic. As a rule, they're intolerant of opposing
positions which allow for any use of animals; in some cases, that even
extends to keeping pets.


See Sapontzis above.


Are you suggesting he's an exception to that rule?

They *are* typical. The grotesque images you and other ARAs perversely
seek and show are of isolated cases of abuse. In many instances, the
images and videos the ARAs peddle were used to prosecute abusive
producers.


Yes, as in the case of the Silver Springs monkeys


Read this and we can discuss it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw...0402100912.asp

and the well-known head-trauma studies, among others.


Edward Taub was fully vindicated in the Silver Springs example you
raised, which more than anything shows us the despicable tactics of
PETA. So have others involved in head-trauma studies.

PETA does have a number of
undercover people who take pictures and bring particularly egregious
cases of abuse to light,


Even when they're personally responsible for making the cases egregious, eh.

...
and ethical obligations not to abuse it.


*Artificial* obligations.


Yes, ethics is artificial to some degree


In general; specifically, veganism and AR are artificial.

...
There's nothing wrong with being frugal. People enjoy meat. Why should
I be concerned when they choose to buy it at 99-cents a pound instead
of $1.99 a pound?


You should if the dollar a pound is saved at the cost of extreme
suffering on the part of the animals who become it.


Non sequitur. You cannot demonstrate that the extra dollar buys
protection for animals, nor can you demonstrate an association between
costs and cruelty. It comes from your desire to compare apples and
oranges -- "factory farms" which you deem as all bad to "family farms"
which you deem as all good (or inherently better).

That is simply unethical and barbarous, and most people, even those who
are not animal rights supporters, consider it wrong on humane
grounds.


Ipse dixit.

That means they were aware of alternatives,
considered them, and chose them for a reason.


And any such reason can be based on falsehoods


It *can*, but that is not the point.


It *IS* the point.

The point is that they
were *aware* of the option of choice and chose for some
reason.


Awareness based on a lie is still false awareness.

They made a conscious decision, instead of simply
going with the flow.


They're only changing streams -- they still flow. Veganism is all about
conformity. Vegans go with a different, marginal flow; it has nothing to
do with awareness, but with marginal identification.

They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the
amendment when it went into effect. Happy?


No. That created two wrongs instead of one.


It was a direct consequence of the ridiculous measure.


It was not the fault of the law,


It was the fault of the morons who devised that amendment


No,


Yes. It was an empty, meaningless gesture.

, which wasn't required because of rampant abuses in the jurisdiction
where it passed. Why did they not try to pass it in states with
significant pork production (Florida was 30th among states in pork
production when the measure went to voters) or where gestation crates
were used more widely (as opposed to being applicable to just two
farms in Florida)?


I don't know.


I do: because vegans and ARAs are gutless cowards who pretend they're
making a difference in the world.

Probably the voters in Florida were more open to the
idea than those in some other states.


Then so much for your suggestion that consumers are universally appalled
by "inhumane" conditions -- particularly in the places where such
"inhumane" conditions are more likely to prevail.

It's a start.


A start of what? It did nothing substantive or relevant to the issue it
addresses in the jurisdiction where it passed.
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 06:07 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:
No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction.


Why not?


If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you.


You can't answer the question.


I can answer the question,


You haven't yet.

but your basic moral priorities are
so different from those of normal people that the answer
probably won't make sense to you.


How are my views out of step with the mainstream?

Animals are not ours.


Ipse dixit.

First, they are created by God ( or Nature)
to be what they are and to fill a particular ecological niche.


Let's see what God says about them.

Jesus helped fishermen:
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into
deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."

Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't
caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the
nets."

When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish
that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners
in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and
filled both boats so full that they began to sink.

When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go
away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his
companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had
taken...
Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account)

He fed fish to hungry followers:
Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion
for these people; they have already been with me three days and
have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or
they may collapse on the way."

His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this
remote place to feed such a crowd?"

"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.

"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the
seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he
broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to
the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the
disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were
left over.
-- Mathew 15:32-37

He ate fish himself:
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And
while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate
it in their presence.
-- Luke 24:40-43

Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Christ went out to
fish with them. He told them where and when to find fish. He fed fish to
others. He ate fish himself.

Consider the Passover seder:
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was
customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked
him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you
to eat the Passover?"

So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the
city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow
him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and
ready. Make preparations for us there."

The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as
Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
-- Mark 14:12-16

Did Jesus forbid the killing and eating the lamb? No, he and his
disciples partook in the custom of killing and eating a lamb on Pesach.

Jesus also commanded animal sacrifices:
A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If
you are willing, you can make me clean."

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched
the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the
leprosy left him and he was cured.

Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you
don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest
and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your
cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 1:40-44

Mary and Joseph offered animal sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the
animal rights or "vegan" position.

Furthermore, the OT is filled with examples of meat-eating and animal
sacrifices. Cain and Esau are described as hunters. The OT laws
prescribe methods of slaughter, rules for how meat should and shouldn't
be prepared, etc.

Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean,
but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended
the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who
think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following
rules nearly 2000 years later.

St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not
judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat;
he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain
foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge
people according to what they eat and command (or at least request)
others abstain from certain foods to be more ethical, holy, etc.

There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Vegetarianism --
particularly the AR/vegan zealotry kind you seek to infect the world
through proselytization -- is antithetical to the Bible.

We cannot create them;


Some scientists are trying to. Indeed, we create hybrids of everything
else. Why not animals?

we can only warp them out of their natural
state in ways which -- in the case of these turkeys at least --
frustrate every ability required for them to survive as they
were intended to do.


They're not released into the wild. They're grown for meat, not for
bigger turkey dicks.

We have taken God's creatures and mutilated
and deformed them.


No, we've adapted them to our tastes.

Animals are not ours.


Tautology: you said this above.

As individual beings under God, just like
humans, they belong to themselves.


Not according to God. See above. If you invoke God, I will go to see
what God reportedly says.

Their lives and their selves
are their own.


Not according to God. See above. So long as you invoke God, I will go to
see what God reportedly says about the issue.

They have inherent value in themselves; they have
consciousness and awareness, the ability to feel and suffer and
enjoy their little lives. They are individuals, as we are, and
we have a moral obligation to respect that basic individuality by
treating them as beings with basic moral status, not just as things.
We do not have a right, as God's stewards only, to do anything we
want to others. We do not have a right, as moral beings, to create
suffering and deformity for our trivial convenience.


Not according to God. See above. If you continue to invoke God, I will
continue to show you what God reportedly says about the issue.

But, as I said, this will probably make no sense to you.


You've still not made a case for why an animal shouldn't even be bred if
it can't reproduce. What's your position on mules? Should they be
outlawed simply because they're sterile (turkeys in the above discussion
*aren't* sterile) hybrids?

For which, I pity you.


Probably as much as I pity you, Karen, so that makes us even. Now try to
make a case for why turkeys and mules shouldn't be bred, and lay off the
emotive crap about "their little lives" and their "basic individuality"
and try to leave God out of it (because you can't pull the wool -- or
some vegan-approved synthetic -- over my eyes on that one).
  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 06:08 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Glorfindel" (bleagh) is tired old Karen Winter ( wife swap veganepisode)

Karen Winter lied:

usual suspect wrote:


Glorfindel:



No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction.



Why not?



If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you.



You can't answer the question.



I can answer the question, but your basic moral priorities are
so different from those of normal people that the answer
probably won't make sense to you.


You are not remotely close to a normal person, so that
statement makes no sense at all.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-11-2005, 06:10 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Glorfindel" (bleagh) is tired old Karen Winter ( wife swapvegan episode)

S. Maizlich wrote:
Karen Winter lied:

usual suspect wrote:


Glorfindel:



No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction.




Why not?




If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you.




You can't answer the question.




I can answer the question, but your basic moral priorities are
so different from those of normal people that the answer
probably won't make sense to you.



You are not remotely close to a normal person, so that statement makes
no sense at all.


Wasn't that funny?


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 08:38 PM
Lidia's Italy Episode 221 Nancy Young General Cooking 13 03-02-2007 11:47 PM
**THAT** Sandra Lee episode TammyM General Cooking 17 18-12-2006 08:57 PM
wife swap vegan episode pearl Vegan 2 08-12-2005 02:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 AM.

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