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
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Joe wrote:
>>>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
>>>>are dysfunctional.

>
>>>Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,

>>

>
>>I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.

>
> I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
> have double the brain


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

> You mentioned once that Rosa
> Parks is one of your heroes.


I think you're very confused. I've found only two instances in which
*my* posts have even mentioned her. Both were posts of articles that
mentioned her. In neither post did I state an opinion about her, but I
admit I find her heroic.

BTW, why do you do the very thing you castigate me for doing?
  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Skanky wrote:
>>>>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
>>>>>guest are dysfunctional.
>>>>
>>>>Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
>>>>social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
>>>>come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
>>>>long and hard in the mirror.
>>>
>>>He is clearly intelligent

>>
>>Thanks for noticing, Bob.
>>
>>>and has incredibly energy to insult people.

>>
>>Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
>>could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.

>
> What?!?! You're not driving a
> car?


I have cars, too. They don't provide me with exercise.

>>>I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
>>>dangerous.

>>
>>Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
>>You're simply an asshole who deserves to
>>get his ass kicked.
>>-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml
>>
>>Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
>>another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
>>not prone to violence like you are.

>
> You prove repeatedly that you
> wish people psychological harm.


Liar. I want people to get better. That's why I've encouraged you to
grow or purchase foods consistent with your own beliefs instead of being
a hypocritical animal killer. I've also encouraged you to get help for
your drug addiction and agoraphobia -- two things detrimental to your
immediate and long-term well-being.

> You want them to feel bad about
> themselves.


You feel bad about yourself because you're a low-grade pothead slacker.

> Even in the very
> sentences above where you
> claim not to wish harm, you call
> him a 'candy-assed loser'.


He is one.
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
.. .
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> [-snip-]
>
>> ===============================
>> Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are
>> grass
>> fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only
>> 3/4
>> of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives.
>> So,
>> you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
>> mmeaningless, hypocrite.

>
> What's eating those acres of hay
> that's grown? Hay is a type of
> grass. A LOT of hay is grown for
> the feeding of cows. Even the
> cows that get to graze during the
> summer must be fed hay during
> the winter. The growing of hay
> has at least as many cds as other
> grains. Time to update your
> numbers, Ricky. Even cows that
> are kept indoors and fed hay all
> their lives can be called grass fed.

============================
Still as ignorant as ever I see, fool. Cows are not *kept*
indoors you twit. Maybe you're confusing the beef kind with the
lazy type of cow you are that is 'kept' by the state, eh killer?


>
> [-snip-]
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>
>
>



  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
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


>>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.


Not always true, and irrelevant in any case.

Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
animal products. It is not a complete philosophy of life, and
is not intended to be. Other aspects enter into consumers'
choices in other areas. You might as well attack dentists
for not addressing problems in the production of automobiles.
Those problems they address as individual consumers, but the
problems of production in that area are irrelevant to dentists
as dentists, just as issues of non-animal products are
irrelevant to vegans as vegans.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

>
> Not always true, and irrelevant in any case.
>
> Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
> animal products. It is not a complete philosophy of life, and
> is not intended to be.

=========================
Still lying? Veganism *IS* intended to be a way of life, fool.
It is NOT a diet.
There are *NO* vegans on usenet, just pretend wannabes full of
ignorance and hate.


Other aspects enter into consumers'
> choices in other areas. You might as well attack dentists
> for not addressing problems in the production of automobiles.
> Those problems they address as individual consumers, but the
> problems of production in that area are irrelevant to dentists
> as dentists, just as issues of non-animal products are
> irrelevant to vegans as vegans.

=========================
Analogies are realy really hard for you, aren't they, killer?
Vegans should know how their choices inpoact the animals they
claim to care about. They don't. They have their simple rule
for their simple minds, and that's all, hypocrite.


>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>





  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter, who doesn't like her son "as a person," 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.

>
> Not always true,


Wrong, it's generally enough true to be a universal truth. There are few
examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue of collateral deaths. I
can think of one off the top of my head -- Slick's recommendation of
hand-harvested wild rice instead of standard farmed rice.

> and irrelevant in any case.


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

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


Veganism doesn't even address that issue. Vegans suggests they're not
harming animals by not eating them, not wearing their hides, not using
products tested on animals, and so on. That's all rhetorical -- in
practice, their consumption continues to harm animals by giving up a
fraction of an animal at a meal and instead causing many more animals to
die from crop production (pesticides, flooding, farm machinery,
predation, field-clearing fires, etc.) and by recommending
petrochemical-based synthetics in place of leather or fur.

> It is not a complete philosophy of life,


It's a sham philosophy.

<...>
  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect 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.

> You concede below that the list of examples I provided all
> constitute "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for
> keeping pets.


Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


>> Some may not, but most do.


> Name one vegan who doesn't.


Me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,


>> False.


> Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue.


No, they agree that ethics in the real world cannot always
be absolute. Nor is death always the worst option for an
animal.

> Case in point,
> the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon themselves to kill
> cats and dogs intended for adoption programs. Ingrid Newkirk has also
> admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.


Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
genuine mercy killing. The question is whether death is
more just for the animal than not, and if it is done strictly
for the benefit of the animal, not for human convenience or
profit.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


> Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
> most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?


The above quote makes no mention of bestiality.

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


>> All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
>> is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
>> food or in research or in production of fur and leather?


> There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
> used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the research,
> but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal research
> even when it bears fruit:


They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
subjects in research. A human cannot ethically be used in
research without his consent, even if the research will benefit
other humans. You know this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?


> 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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>> Not all keeping
>> of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
>> question that these things *are* exploitation,


> I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.


So I notice.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
> following "factory" farms,


Shall I post links to some of the examples of serious abuse of
animals in factory farms? They are all over the web and in
many books. Just look.

> or how the conditions are inferior or more
> inhospitable to what those animals would face in the wild


Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
human treatment of animals only.

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


>> Yes, it is.


> 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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


> Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
> demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
> business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep consumer
> prices down while still maximizing profits.


Absolutely true. Unfortunately.

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


> Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
> don't have objections to dead animals.


But many of them object to suffering animals.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>> The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.


> For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
> will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't care
> if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one costs more
> than the other.


Absolutely true. Unfortunately. You make my point for me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.


>> Which all vegans do not do.


> You sure as hell do.


I do not.

> You wrote in another post this morning,
> "Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware..."


They do. Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.

Sometimes you get Rick.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>> It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
>> against.


> I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard.


You do not speak for all vegans, nor can you define "the *vegan*
standard".

>> I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
>> ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
>> beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.


> This is irrelevant.


No, of course not.

> The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in
> any meaningful way with reality. It doesn't. In its general terms,
> veganism doesn't even address the problem it wishes to solve because it
> recommends consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead
> animals) than existed when one still ate meat.


Can, but does not have to. Veganism addresses the reality of the
specific problem it is intended to address. It is not a complete
philosophy of life.

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


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


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


> It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
> do that.


According to you. Others may have a different opinion. No
argument any vegan put forth would convince you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>> The reasons some laws have been
>> passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.


> Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
> legislators by a very small group of people.


True of many issues. All reform measures begin in this way.

> Emotive appeal is also to
> blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
> few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
> state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first place
> (ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
> importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
> passed who actually used those crates.


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen, aka "degeneRAT," 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.

>> You concede below that the list of examples I provided all constitute
>> "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for keeping pets.

>
> Yes.


Then why belabor those points, Karen?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>
>>> Some may not, but most do.

>
>> Name one vegan who doesn't.

>
> Me.


Are we talking about the mouse you filleted, drowned, killed; or are we
talking about accepting others' taste for meat, fur, etc.?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,

>
>>> False.

>
>> Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue.

>
> No...


Yes.

> Nor is death always the worst option for an
> animal.


It sure as hell wasn't the worst option for the mouse you skinned alive.

>> Case in point, the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon
>> themselves to kill cats and dogs intended for adoption programs.
>> Ingrid Newkirk has also admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.

>
> Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
> genuine mercy killing.


Newkirk killed deliberately and without mercy. Dittos for the assholes
in North Carolina who killed adoptable kittens.

> The question is whether death is
> more just for the animal than not, and if it is done strictly
> for the benefit of the animal, not for human convenience or
> profit.


PETA's track record shows they kill for convenience.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>
>> Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
>> most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?

>
> The above quote makes no mention of bestiality.


I was asking it with the broader context of knowing your approval of it.
You snipped some of the posts in which you gushed about people and
animals who benefit from trans-species ****ing:

Is it God's moral law, or a misunderstanding
by an ancient culture? Is there any *reason* behind the
prohibition? Is the behavior harmful? Why should it be seen as
wrong? Morality, especially God's morality, is not arbitrary.

...Bestiality is an iffy one for me: I think it is wrong if the
animal is injured, but I think the original prohibition was
based on the same definition of "unnatural" as homosexuality --
a confusion of roles.
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis," 11 May 2005

Why do we assume children and animals can express willingness or
unwillingness to engage in most other activities, but not decide
what gives them physical pleasure if, and only if, it is
connected with the sex organs of one or the other of the
partners? Why can a seventeen-year-old decide which college he
wants to attend, but not whether he wants a blow job or not?
Why can a dog decide whether he wants to fetch a ball or not,
but not whether or not he enjoys licking a human's penis?
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 20 June 1999

Since there are no social considerations for the non-humans
involved, it's even easier to offer a rational defense for
responsible zoophilia than for intergenerational sexual
activity, which has a major social stigma attached to it.
Animals don't care if the neighbors talk.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 30 April 2003

The animal, like the child, can only tell you whether he/she
enjoys the immediate physical [sexual] activity. You have to be
responsible for the rest.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 12 July 1999


Perhaps if you read some accounts by zoophiles, you might see
why some people feel some acts with some animals are not
harmful. You could then decide if you agree or not based on
knowledge. I would then be willing to give your opinion
consideration. One interesting thing is the strong condemnation
some zoophiles have for other zoophiles they think are not being
responsible. Zoophiles do indeed have ethics, and differ among
themselves on them. If you were to read some of those
discussions, you might understand more clearly what the issues
are for those who are actually dealing with them.
Karen Winter as "Rat": http://tinyurl.com/82w8j

Why do you not consider ****ing an animal to be an abusive situation,
but keeping it as a pet to be "complex" or using it to cure AIDS to be
exploitation?

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

>
>>> All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
>>> is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
>>> food or in research or in production of fur and leather?

>
>> There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
>> used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the
>> research, but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal
>> research even when it bears fruit:

>
> They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
> subjects in research.


They make anthropomorphic projections and/or engage in sophistry about
moral patients.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?

>
>> 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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
>> following "factory" farms,

>
> Shall I post links to some of the examples of serious abuse of
> animals in factory farms? They are all over the web and in
> many books. Just look.


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

>> or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
>> animals would face in the wild

>
> Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
> human treatment of animals only.


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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>
>>> Yes, it is.

>
>> 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.

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

>
>> Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
>> demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
>> business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep
>> consumer prices down while still maximizing profits.

>
> Absolutely true. Unfortunately.


There's nothing unfortunate about it. Why are you so upset about what
other people choose to consume? You haven't done much to better yourself
(washing stray cats, abandoning your family, etc.), so why try to change
others in a most meaningless manner?

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

>
>> Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
>> don't have objections to dead animals.

>
> But many of them object to suffering animals.


They put their objections aside when chicken goes on sale.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

>
>> For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
>> will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't
>> care if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one
>> costs more than the other.

>
> Absolutely true. Unfortunately. You make my point for me.


There's nothing unfortunate about it. That serves to show you that
people by and large are unaffected by the things that you've made your
life's cause. That doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with them --
they just don't share your peculiar priorities.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.

>
>>> Which all vegans do not do.

>
>> You sure as hell do.

>
> I do not.


You do, too. You have disdain and contempt for those whose values are
different from your own. And your vitriol extends far beyond animal
rights and diet -- you've expressed your hatred for the conservatives in
your church who didn't go looking for a fight (but you did), and you
consider anyone who disagrees with your radical views to be a
fundamentalist (and "fundamentalist Episcopalian" is an oxymoron).

>> You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend
>> to be more aware..."

>
> They do.


No. Ipse dixit.

> Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
> each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
> for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
> the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.


No. Non sequitur.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
>>> against.

>
>> I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard.

>
> You do not speak for all vegans, nor can you define "the *vegan*
> standard".


I've used their own standard.

>>> I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
>>> ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
>>> beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.

>
>> This is irrelevant.

>
> No, of course not.


It is entirely irrelevant. Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal
harm. They engage in certain behavior -- avoiding meat, dairy, eggs,
etc. They disregard the effects of their behavior -- whether or not it
reduces animal suffering or death. It's a pose. That's all.

>> The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
>> reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even
>> address the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends
>> consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead animals)
>> than existed when one still ate meat.

>
> Can, but does not have to.


It generally DOES cause more deaths. One deer provides many meals. One
bowl of rice and beans causes many more animal deaths.

> Veganism addresses the reality


No, veganism is a feeble attempt to avoid reality -- that more animals
die to produce a bowl of rice and beans than die from a successful
hunting trip.

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

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

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

>
>> It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
>> do that.

>
> According to you. Others may have a different opinion. No
> argument any vegan put forth would convince you.


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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> The reasons some laws have been
>>> passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.

>
>> Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
>> legislators by a very small group of people.

>
> True of many issues. All reform measures begin in this way.


So do repeal measures.

>> Emotive appeal is also to blame for what I originally thought was a
>> decent measure in Florida a few years ago (voter initiative to ban
>> swine gestation pens in that state). There weren't many pork producers
>> in Florida in the first place (ranked 30th in pork production in the
>> US), and, perhaps most importantly, there were only *two* farmers at
>> the time the initiative passed who actually used those crates.

>
> 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?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



You didn't look at the pictures of NORMAL farming conditions, Karen.
Come on, be a big girl. Tell me what you find objectionable about the
following:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3
  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"rick" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> > [-snip-]
> >
> >> ===============================
> >> Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are
> >> grass
> >> fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only
> >> 3/4
> >> of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives.
> >> So,
> >> you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
> >> mmeaningless, hypocrite.

> >
> > What's eating those acres of hay
> > that's grown? Hay is a type of
> > grass. A LOT of hay is grown for
> > the feeding of cows. Even the
> > cows that get to graze during the
> > summer must be fed hay during
> > the winter. The growing of hay
> > has at least as many cds as other
> > grains. Time to update your
> > numbers, Ricky. Even cows that
> > are kept indoors and fed hay all
> > their lives can be called grass fed.

> ============================
> Still as ignorant as ever I see, fool. Cows are not *kept*
> indoors you twit. Maybe you're confusing the beef kind with the
> lazy type of cow you are that is 'kept' by the state, eh killer?


Ignoring your insult, I'll ask again.
What's eating those tons and tons
of hay?


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



  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"usual suspect" > wrote in
message ...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
> >>>>>guest are dysfunctional.
> >>>>
> >>>>Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
> >>>>social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
> >>>>come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
> >>>>long and hard in the mirror.
> >>>
> >>>He is clearly intelligent
> >>
> >>Thanks for noticing, Bob.
> >>
> >>>and has incredibly energy to insult people.
> >>
> >>Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
> >>could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.

> >
> > What?!?! You're not driving a
> > car?

>
> I have cars, too. They don't provide me with exercise.


You still haven't been able to show
me why having a car makes one
a better person than not having one.

> >>>I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
> >>>dangerous.
> >>
> >>Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
> >>You're simply an asshole who deserves to
> >>get his ass kicked.
> >>-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml
> >>
> >>Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
> >>another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
> >>not prone to violence like you are.

> >
> > You prove repeatedly that you
> > wish people psychological harm.

>
> Liar. I want people to get better. That's why I've encouraged you to
> grow or purchase foods consistent with your own beliefs instead of being
> a hypocritical animal killer. I've also encouraged you to get help for
> your drug addiction and agoraphobia -- two things detrimental to your
> immediate and long-term well-being.


Calling me drug addict is a good
example of your only being here
to insult. You always forget how
transparent you are. Rick has
admitted drinking beer recreationally,
but I don't see you calling him an
alcoholic. Nor do I see you picking
on his overabundant typos, although
you do if the person's vegan.

> > You want them to feel bad about
> > themselves.

>
> You feel bad about yourself because you're a low-grade pothead slacker.


Smoking pot recreationally does not
make one into your insults. Have
you ever even tried to be polite? You
would have more real life friends too.

> > Even in the very
> > sentences above where you
> > claim not to wish harm, you call
> > him a 'candy-assed loser'.

>
> He is one.


Tell me the proof of your insult, or
admit to wanting to harm people
psychologically.


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





  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
>>>>>>>guest are dysfunctional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
>>>>>>social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
>>>>>>come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
>>>>>>long and hard in the mirror.
>>>>>
>>>>>He is clearly intelligent
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for noticing, Bob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and has incredibly energy to insult people.
>>>>
>>>>Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
>>>>could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.
>>>
>>>What?!?! You're not driving a
>>>car?

>>
>>I have cars, too. They don't provide me with exercise.

>
> You still haven't been able to show
> me why having a car makes one
> a better person than not having one.


Strawman.

>>>>>I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
>>>>>dangerous.
>>>>
>>>>Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
>>>>You're simply an asshole who deserves to
>>>>get his ass kicked.
>>>>-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml
>>>>
>>>>Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
>>>>another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
>>>>not prone to violence like you are.
>>>
>>>You prove repeatedly that you
>>>wish people psychological harm.

>>
>>Liar. I want people to get better. That's why I've encouraged you to
>>grow or purchase foods consistent with your own beliefs instead of being
>>a hypocritical animal killer. I've also encouraged you to get help for
>>your drug addiction and agoraphobia -- two things detrimental to your
>>immediate and long-term well-being.

>
> Calling me drug addict is good


I know. It's true.

> Rick has admitted drinking beer recreationally,
> but I don't see you calling him an alcoholic.


Non sequitur. Rick's drinking hasn't caused him to become an agoraphobic
shut-in like your smoking pot has made you.

> Nor do I see you picking
> on his overabundant typos


I accept his explanation that he has bad keys on his keyboard.

>>>You want them to feel bad about
>>>themselves.

>>
>>You feel bad about yourself because you're a low-grade pothead slacker.

>
> Smoking pot recreationally


Most people engage in other recreational pursuits -- skiing, skating,
running, lifting weights, shopping, etc. You just get ****ed up. And it
shows.

> Have you ever even tried to be polite?


Yes, ma'am. I'm always polite.

> You would have more real life friends too.


I make friends quite easily.

>>>Even in the very
>>>sentences above where you
>>>claim not to wish harm, you call
>>>him a 'candy-assed loser'.

>>
>>He is one.

>
> Tell me the proof of your insult


It isn't an insult. Look up the quote in which he threatened to kick my
ass, and then the thread in which he backed off and said *someone else*
should do it.
  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
.. .
> "usual suspect" >
> wrote in
> message ...
>> Skanky wrote:
>> >>>>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical
>> >>>>>Springer
>> >>>>>guest are dysfunctional.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the
>> >>>>most wretched
>> >>>>social and communication skills possible and if you aren't
>> >>>>aware you
>> >>>>come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at
>> >>>>yourself
>> >>>>long and hard in the mirror.
>> >>>
>> >>>He is clearly intelligent
>> >>
>> >>Thanks for noticing, Bob.
>> >>
>> >>>and has incredibly energy to insult people.
>> >>
>> >>Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than
>> >>you ever
>> >>could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that
>> >>Mercedes Benz.
>> >
>> > What?!?! You're not driving a
>> > car?

>>
>> I have cars, too. They don't provide me with exercise.

>
> You still haven't been able to show
> me why having a car makes one
> a better person than not having one.
>
>> >>>I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is
>> >>>potentially
>> >>>dangerous.
>> >>
>> >>Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent
>> >>threats:
>> >>You're simply an asshole who deserves to
>> >>get his ass kicked.
>> >>-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml
>> >>
>> >>Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm
>> >>upon
>> >>another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one
>> >>because I'm
>> >>not prone to violence like you are.
>> >
>> > You prove repeatedly that you
>> > wish people psychological harm.

>>
>> Liar. I want people to get better. That's why I've encouraged
>> you to
>> grow or purchase foods consistent with your own beliefs
>> instead of being
>> a hypocritical animal killer. I've also encouraged you to get
>> help for
>> your drug addiction and agoraphobia -- two things detrimental
>> to your
>> immediate and long-term well-being.

>
> Calling me drug addict is a good
> example of your only being here
> to insult. You always forget how
> transparent you are. Rick has
> admitted drinking beer recreationally,

==========================
ROTFLMAO What is 'recreational' beer drinking? You've never
seen me admit that. What I have said is that on canoe trips into
the bush, the only thing available at times is beer. A cold
"anything" after a week or so in the bush is what tastes great!
If there is something else cold, I will choose that instead.
That's a far different set of circumstances than your
mind-numbing rituals of pot smoking, fool.



> but I don't see you calling him an
> alcoholic. Nor do I see you picking
> on his overabundant typos, although
> you do if the person's vegan.
>
>> > You want them to feel bad about
>> > themselves.

>>
>> You feel bad about yourself because you're a low-grade pothead
>> slacker.

>
> Smoking pot recreationally does not
> make one into your insults. Have
> you ever even tried to be polite? You
> would have more real life friends too.
>
>> > Even in the very
>> > sentences above where you
>> > claim not to wish harm, you call
>> > him a 'candy-assed loser'.

>>
>> He is one.

>
> Tell me the proof of your insult, or
> admit to wanting to harm people
> psychologically.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>
>
>



  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

insults, snips, and lies.


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


  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect 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? Those are not all aspects of ethics. The one
you mention -- using animals for food in cases of dire
emergencies -- is indeed one example. Even you see that your
absolute claim on absolutes cannot be supported. I suggest
rereading Regan, Francione, Sapontzis, or Linsey. You will find
many other examples.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
>> genuine mercy killing.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>> There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
>>> used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the
>>> research, but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all*
>>> animal research even when it bears fruit:


>> They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
>> subjects in research.


> They make anthropomorphic projections and/or engage in sophistry about
> moral patients.


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

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>> What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?


>>> 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?

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 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 would post links to situations which are not
typical of modern animal production.

>>> or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
>>> animals would face in the wild


>> Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
>> human treatment of animals only.


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


>>>> Yes, it is.


>>> 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 cannot believe you make such attacks on humanity in general,
yet seem to see nothing wrong in such behavior. Surely such
people should be ashamed of themselves, and you ashamed of
them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>> You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend
>>> to be more aware..."



>> They do.


> No. Ipse dixit.


>> Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
>> each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
>> for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
>> the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.


> No. Non sequitur.


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

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal
> harm.


That is one goal. It is not *the* vegan standard.

>>> The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
>>> reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even
>>> address the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends
>>> consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead
>>> animals) than existed when one still ate meat.


>> Can, but does not have to.


> It generally DOES cause more deaths.


Ipse dixit.

> 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.

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> 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 not the
fault of the law, but the fact that such producers see
animals only as economic units. That was what the law was
intended to address. It should also have addressed what
the producers had to do to place their animals in other homes
if they were unwilling to adopt ethical standards. Farm
Sanctuary or other similar groups would probably have been
glad to take the pigs, or the producers could have been
required to support them in humane conditions. That would
generally fall under standard animal welfare provisions
in most areas. I suspect appropriate laws were in effect
if they were applied. I do watch "Animal Cops Miami", which
has shown examples of legal actions against inhumane farmers
in Florida.

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:46:30 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>>>>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
>>>>>are dysfunctional.

>>
>>>>Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,
>>>

>>
>>>I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.

>>
>> I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
>> have double the brain

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

yuh, ok. So anyways.....
>
>> You mentioned once that Rosa
>> Parks is one of your heroes.

>
>I think you're very confused. I've found only two instances in which
>*my* posts have even mentioned her. Both were posts of articles that
>mentioned her. In neither post did I state an opinion about her, but I
>admit I find her heroic.
>
>BTW, why do you do the very thing you castigate me for doing?


Honestly US, I find your extensive posts that are informative -and
sometimes apparently correct :P- very impressive [ Rick, too even
though he copies/pastes 'fool/killer' excessively in his posts] but
you tarnish the whole thing with excessive smashings of character. I'm
not sure if my castigating your moments of written cruxifications can
be put in the same light as 'the very thing' you do occasionally.
Turn off the negativity and I'm sure people here may actually even ask
your advice/views on some things.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Seeker
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" > wrote
> usual suspect 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? Those are not all aspects of ethics. The one
> you mention -- using animals for food in cases of dire
> emergencies -- is indeed one example.


Why should it be? I quote your statement from below,

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

If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not in
ALL cases? I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,
or demand his liver if I need a transplant. I am morally obliged to get help
without harming another person, or die. The fact is, you DON'T hold humans
and animals in the same regard at all, that is pure rhetoric.

> Even you see that your
> absolute claim on absolutes cannot be supported. I suggest
> rereading Regan, Francione, Sapontzis, or Linsey. You will find
> many other examples.


AR writers are great at cooking sophistry, perfect food for a gullible mind.
The "exceptions" that ARAs "grant" themselves are almost always made out of
crass convenience, "there's no non-leather shoes in my area" etc etc ad
nauseum.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
>>> genuine mercy killing.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>>> There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
>>>> used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the
>>>> research, but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal
>>>> research even when it bears fruit:

>
>>> They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
>>> subjects in research.

>
>> They make anthropomorphic projections and/or engage in sophistry about
>> moral patients.

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


That principle is a complete absurdity. You don't believe it, you only think
you do. It is almost as absurd as believing in rights of plants. They can't
give consent either.

>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>>>> What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?

>
>>>> 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.


Yes they have, yet every tofu-burger carries a death toll of "sentient"
creatures harmed in the course of producing it. If you want to toss insects
in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle explaining your support for
commercial farming. I was willing to limit the discussion to animals larger
than your thumb. (sizeism anyone?)

>> 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?


Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..

>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> 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 would post links to situations which are not
> typical of modern animal production.


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

>>>> or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
>>>> animals would face in the wild

>
>>> Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
>>> human treatment of animals only.

>
>> 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.

>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>
>>>>> Yes, it is.

>
>>>> 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 cannot believe you make such attacks on humanity in general,
> yet seem to see nothing wrong in such behavior. Surely such
> people should be ashamed of themselves, and you ashamed of
> them.


Nobody is perfect, but vegans are very sanctimonious in the way they preach
and shed crocodile tears over animals to lay guilt at other people's feet,
while their own cosy lifestyles are built on a legacy of animal death,
whether they avoid animal products or not.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>>> You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend to
>>>> be more aware..."

>
>
>>> They do.


They are very unaware of the lethal nature of agriculture.

>> No. Ipse dixit.

>
>>> Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
>>> each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
>>> for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
>>> the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.


"the issues"?
>
>> No. Non sequitur.

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


People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded than
children of omnivores. That's not being aware", it's being brainwashed by
gory videos and shrill rhetoric.


>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal harm.

>
> That is one goal. It is not *the* vegan standard.


It certainly isn't, I'll agree with you there, even though the definition
says so.

>>>> The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
>>>> reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even
>>>> address the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends
>>>> consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead animals)
>>>> than existed when one still ate meat.

>
>>> Can, but does not have to.

>
>> It generally DOES cause more deaths.

>
> Ipse dixit.
>
>> 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.


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

>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 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 not the
> fault of the law, but the fact that such producers see
> animals only as economic units. That was what the law was
> intended to address. It should also have addressed what
> the producers had to do to place their animals in other homes
> if they were unwilling to adopt ethical standards. Farm
> Sanctuary or other similar groups would probably have been
> glad to take the pigs, or the producers could have been
> required to support them in humane conditions. That would
> generally fall under standard animal welfare provisions
> in most areas. I suspect appropriate laws were in effect
> if they were applied. I do watch "Animal Cops Miami", which
> has shown examples of legal actions against inhumane farmers
> in Florida.
>


Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy for,
but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue, they co-opt it,
usually for fund-raising from people who do not support their radical
agendas like elimination of working animals, pets, and food animals.


  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Seeker
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" > parroted what he read somewhe

> usual suspect 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.


They must however be based on a coherent principle and be consistent.
Veganism and AR are neither. The most common exceptions given are not
principled exceptions they are convenience-based.

>> You concede below that the list of examples I provided all constitute
>> "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for keeping pets.

>
> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>
>>> Some may not, but most do.

>
>> Name one vegan who doesn't.

>
> Me.


You don't distinguish? Why not?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,

>
>>> False.

>
>> Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue.

>
> No, they agree that ethics in the real world cannot always
> be absolute.


They are not principled ethics if they are based on self-serving criteria
like, "the organic food store is too far away, I'll miss class"

> Nor is death always the worst option for an
> animal.


How is that for you to say if you believe in self-determination for animals?
It's certainly not consistent with self-determination to base it on *your
state of starvation*.

>> Case in point, the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon
>> themselves to kill cats and dogs intended for adoption programs. Ingrid
>> Newkirk has also admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.

>
> Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
> genuine mercy killing. The question is whether death is
> more just for the animal than not, and if it is done strictly
> for the benefit of the animal, not for human convenience or
> profit.


What if it happens that the animals will destroy your crops if you don't
kill them? That would be very inconvenient and unprofitable for me. It would
also cause vegans everywhere to starve.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>
>> Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the most
>> egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?

>
> The above quote makes no mention of bestiality.
>
>>>> They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
>>>> research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock production,
>>>> and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and want an end to
>>>> humans having pets.

>
>>> All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
>>> is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
>>> food or in research or in production of fur and leather?

>
>> There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
>> used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the research,
>> but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal research
>> even when it bears fruit:

>
> They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
> subjects in research. A human cannot ethically be used in
> research without his consent, even if the research will benefit
> other humans. You know this.


You're deluding yourself but you're not fooling anyone here, would you deny
yourself or your family medical help in an emergency because the medical
system is based on medical research? It's lip service, you want your cake
and you want the cheap satisfaction of pointing your grubby finger at people
too.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?

>
>> 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.


Oh yes, ARAs have plenty of time to ponder how the nasty habits of others
are unjust and harmful to innocent critters. It is a very theraputic mantra
to indulge in. They have no time to think about their own dirty little
secrets though, they are too busy for that. Right? Irrelevant <SNIP> right?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> Not all keeping
>>> of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
>>> question that these things *are* exploitation,

>
>> I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.

>
> So I notice.


Exploitation, like discrimination are words that have gotten bad raps. It is
not necessarily a bad thing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
>> following "factory" farms,

>
> Shall I post links to some of the examples of serious abuse of
> animals in factory farms? They are all over the web and in
> many books. Just look.


It's a popular topic for the media, blood and guts sells.

>> or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
>> animals would face in the wild

>
> Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
> human treatment of animals only.


One of the problems with AR is that it artificially and irrationally removes
man from his place in nature. This approach will never, ever work.

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

>
>>> Yes, it is.

>
>> 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.


Sure they do, so what? Vegans don't give a moment's thought to the suffering
of animals behind the products they consume, they are too obsessed with the
pointing of fingers at what others do.

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

>
>> Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather demand
>> their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other business,
>> livestock producers employ various techniques to keep consumer prices
>> down while still maximizing profits.

>
> Absolutely true. Unfortunately.


The same is true of all agricultural products. I would love to remove every
little frog and beetle and mouse from my 640 acres before I spray or
harvest, but it's impossible.

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

>
>> Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
>> don't have objections to dead animals.

>
> But many of them object to suffering animals.


See above.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

>
>> For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
>> will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't care
>> if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one costs more
>> than the other.

>
> Absolutely true. Unfortunately. You make my point for me.


Vegans are more blind than most people, since they mostly assume that their
products are "death-free", and don't bother telling me they don't think this
because I know they do.

>>>>>> and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.

>
>>> Which all vegans do not do.

>
>> You sure as hell do.

>
> I do not.


Do you know that some regular meat-eaters cause less animal death and
suffering than you?

>> You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend to
>> be more aware..."

>
> They do. Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
> each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
> for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
> the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.


You don't get to define what "the issues" are.

> Sometimes you get Rick.


Rick is a good example of what I was talking about.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
>>> against.

>
>> I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard.

>
> You do not speak for all vegans, nor can you define "the *vegan*
> standard".


Veganism is very simple, the only variation is in how much slack each vegan
allows himself due to his own desire for convenience.

>>> I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
>>> ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
>>> beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.

>
>> This is irrelevant.

>
> No, of course not.


I agree, but violations of basic principles can't be based on personal
convenience.


>> The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
>> reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even address
>> the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends consumption of that
>> which can cause more of the problem (dead animals) than existed when one
>> still ate meat.

>
> Can, but does not have to. Veganism addresses the reality of the
> specific problem it is intended to address. It is not a complete
> philosophy of life.


I does pretend to be a complete "lifestyle solution", but it contains
irreparable flaws, as I have already alluded to.

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

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

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

>
>> It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to do
>> that.

>
> According to you. Others may have a different opinion. No
> argument any vegan put forth would convince you.


That's a fallacy of poisoning the well. You're using it to avoid making a
coherent case.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> The reasons some laws have been
>>> passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.

>
>> Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
>> legislators by a very small group of people.

>
> True of many issues. All reform measures begin in this way.


AR as a basis for reform measures is an unmitigated disaster.

>> Emotive appeal is also to blame for what I originally thought was a
>> decent measure in Florida a few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine
>> gestation pens in that state). There weren't many pork producers in
>> Florida in the first place (ranked 30th in pork production in the US),
>> and, perhaps most importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time
>> the initiative passed who actually used those crates.

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


Animal Welfare is a reasonable, rational, and laudable motive for change.
Animal Rights is absurd in the context you are using it.


  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



usual suspect wrote:

> pro-bestiality Karen Winter wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>
>
> Then why do you continue doing that?
>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>
>>> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.

>>
>>
>> false.

>
>
> Ipse dixit. You concede below that the list of examples I provided all
> constitute "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for
> keeping pets. Note you avoided the subject of bestiality, which you
> glowingly approve:
>
> Is it God's moral law, or a misunderstanding
> by an ancient culture? Is there any *reason* behind the
> prohibition? Is the behavior harmful? Why should it be seen as
> wrong? Morality, especially God's morality, is not arbitrary.
>
> ...Bestiality is an iffy one for me: I think it is wrong if the
> animal is injured, but I think the original prohibition was
> based on the same definition of "unnatural" as homosexuality --
> a confusion of roles.
> -- Karen Winter as "Cynomis," 11 May 2005
>
> Why do we assume children and animals can express willingness or
> unwillingness to engage in most other activities, but not decide
> what gives them physical pleasure if, and only if, it is
> connected with the sex organs of one or the other of the
> partners? Why can a seventeen-year-old decide which college he
> wants to attend, but not whether he wants a blow job or not?
> Why can a dog decide whether he wants to fetch a ball or not,
> but not whether or not he enjoys licking a human's penis?
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 20 June 1999
>
> Since there are no social considerations for the non-humans
> involved, it's even easier to offer a rational defense for
> responsible zoophilia than for intergenerational sexual
> activity, which has a major social stigma attached to it.
> Animals don't care if the neighbors talk.
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 30 April 2003
>
> The animal, like the child, can only tell you whether he/she
> enjoys the immediate physical [sexual] activity. You have to be
> responsible for the rest.
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 12 July 1999
>
>
> Perhaps if you read some accounts by zoophiles, you might see
> why some people feel some acts with some animals are not
> harmful. You could then decide if you agree or not based on
> knowledge. I would then be willing to give your opinion
> consideration. One interesting thing is the strong condemnation
> some zoophiles have for other zoophiles they think are not being
> responsible. Zoophiles do indeed have ethics, and differ among
> themselves on them. If you were to read some of those
> discussions, you might understand more clearly what the issues
> are for those who are actually dealing with them.
> Karen Winter as "Rat": http://tinyurl.com/82w8j
>
> Etc.
>
>>> Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths,
>>> or cruel or non-cruel treatement.

>>
>>
>> Some may not, but most do.

>
>
> Name one vegan who doesn't. I know that YOU do, Karen, because you
> concede as much below.
>
>>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,

>>
>>
>> False.

>
>
> Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue. Case in point,
> the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon themselves to kill
> cats and dogs intended for adoption programs. Ingrid Newkirk has also
> admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.
>
> http://www.austinreview.com/archives...a_kills_1.html
> http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...155298&tref=po
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
> Etc.
>
>>> and that just about everything in a human:animal context is
>>> exploitation of the latter by the former.

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

>
>
> Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
> most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?
>
>>> They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
>>> research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
>>> production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and
>>> want an end to humans having pets.

>>
>>
>> All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
>> is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
>> food or in research or in production of fur and leather?

>
>
> There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
> used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the research,
> but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal research
> even when it bears fruit:
>
> Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be
> against it.
> Ingrid Newkirk, _Vogue_; September 1989.
>
> As for food and leather, I have no objections to what others eat. Nor to
> what other species eat. In your deluded fantasy world, a predator can
> eat prey but a human can't. I want to know why it's exploitation when a
> human eats beef or venison, but not exploitation when a cougar eats it.
>
>> What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?

>
>
> 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.
>
>> The issue of companion animals is more complex.

>
>
> Why do you and the bitter old hag Sylvia keep pets if it's a complex issue?
>
>> Not all keeping
>> of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
>> question that these things *are* exploitation,

>
>
> I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.
>
>> even if you
>> believe humans are justified in this exploitation.

>
>
> I believe humans are justified in eating, wearing attire, and working to
> cure or prevent disease. You've failed to convince me that any of it is
> exploitation.
>
>>> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
>>> conditions for animals.

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

>
>
> Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
> following "factory" farms, or how the conditions are inferior or more
> inhospitable to what those animals would face in the wild (where they
> would fight for territory and mating opportunities and face predators
> like wolves and cougars):
> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
> http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
> http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
> http://tinyurl.com/be2km
> http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
> http://tinyurl.com/95a85
> http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
> http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
> http://tinyurl.com/byac3
>
>>> They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and grains, like
>>> tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to meat do
>>> nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's diet
>>> and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
>>> synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from
>>> petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
>>> during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
>>> animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair
>>> of leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no
>>> safer for animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from
>>> grain crops with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards
>>> they're worse since crops like cotton are heavily treated with
>>> pesticides and defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for
>>> non-target species. See Rick's links.
>>>
>>>>> The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
>>>>> death.

>>
>>
>> Yes, it is.

>
>
> No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.
> They already accept that animals die in the course of food production.
> It's the silly vegan vendetta against nature that suggests killing
> animals is wrong, yet silly vegans do little to eliminate or reduce
> animal suffering from their own diets. It's the vegans whose principles
> are being violated (and by themselves), not meat eaters.
>
>> If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
>> there would be no factory-farmed meat.

>
>
> Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
> demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
> business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep consumer
> prices down while still maximizing profits.
>
>> You cannot use the
>> argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
>> as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
>> they use.

>
>
> Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
> don't have objections to dead animals.
>
>> If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
>> equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face there.

>
>
> Tell me what's abominable about the following:
> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
> http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
> http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
> http://tinyurl.com/be2km
> http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
> http://tinyurl.com/95a85
> http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
> http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
> http://tinyurl.com/byac3
>
>> The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

>
>
> For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
> will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't care
> if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one costs more
> than the other.
>
>>>>> It's on those who oppose people consuming meat

>>
>>
>> Usually because of those very abominable conditions.

>
>
> Tell me what's abominable about the following:
> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
> http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
> http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
> http://tinyurl.com/be2km
> http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
> http://tinyurl.com/95a85
> http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
> http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
> http://tinyurl.com/byac3
>
>>>>> and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.

>>
>>
>> Which all vegans do not do.

>
>
> You sure as hell do, Karen. You wrote in another post this morning,
> "Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware..." You're the kind of
> snobby elitist prig I was think about when I wrote that.
>
>>>>> When faced with the facts, they ultimately make the same argument
>>>>> you did and claim a virtue relative to the actions of others.
>>>>> They're not more ethical because others are ethically "worse" than
>>>>> they are (at least according to their capricious standard); they
>>>>> fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by their
>>>>> own standard.

>>
>>
>> It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
>> against.

>
>
> I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard. I briefly
> explained the norms in agriculture and synthetic textile manufacturing.
> I then demonstrated that vegans fall far short of their own standard.
>
>> I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
>> ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
>> beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.

>
>
> This is irrelevant, Karen. The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in
> any meaningful way with reality. It doesn't. In its general terms,
> veganism doesn't even address the problem it wishes to solve because it
> recommends consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead
> animals) than existed when one still ate meat.
>
>>>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths
>>>> of living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

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

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

>
>
> It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
> do that.
>
>>>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing
>>>> should be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

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

>>
>>
>> Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
>> blind to the obvious evidence.

>
>
> Evidence like this?
> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
> http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
> http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
> http://tinyurl.com/be2km
> http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
> http://tinyurl.com/95a85
> http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
> http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
> http://tinyurl.com/byac3

And I suppose those look to you like traditional, healthy family farms.
Animals on concrete. Believe me, they only take their own self-serving
pictures in the best possible light.

As evidenced by my posting of your factory farmed turkeys versus what a
real turkey looks like. There is no comparison.


>
>> The reasons some laws have been
>> passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.

>
>
> Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
> legislators by a very small group of people. Emotive appeal is also to
> blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
> few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
> state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first place
> (ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
> importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
> passed who actually used those crates. It was an irrational attempt to
> amend the Florida constitution and its passage has caused Florida's
> legislature to toughen the process of amending their constitution by
> initiative.



It was passed because some people do care about how animals are treated
and wanted to make that statement.
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



Scented Nectar wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Beach Blunder wrote:
>>
>>>>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
>>>>>guest are dysfunctional.
>>>>
>>>>Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
>>>>social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
>>>>come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
>>>>long and hard in the mirror.
>>>
>>>He is clearly intelligent

>>
>>Thanks for noticing, Bob.
>>
>>
>>>and has incredibly energy to insult people.

>>
>>Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever


I hope you do exercise. At least we agree on that.
>>could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.

>

I didn't run out in front of a Mercedes Benze. I was in a residential
neighborhood. Who knows what they were doing. They were given 2
tickets, one for exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 mph and
another for reckless driving. After hitting me, they went through 2
fences a shed, then hit the brakes (over 100 feet away) and finally
crashed into a tree. And you're trying to blame the onus on me? Get a
grip.


>
> What?!?! You're not driving a
> car?
>
>
>>>I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
>>>dangerous.

>>
>>Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
>>You're simply an asshole who deserves to
>>get his ass kicked.
>>-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml



I said deserve. Not threatened. Your constant abuse of people is sick.
>>
>>Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
>>another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
>>not prone to violence like you are.

>


Verbal harm. Obscenities. Recent calling of females ****s and whores.
>
> You prove repeatedly that you
> wish people psychological harm.
> You want them to feel bad about
> themselves. Even in the very
> sentences above where you
> claim not to wish harm, you call
> him a 'candy-assed loser'. You're
> transparent.
>
>

  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



usual suspect wrote:

> Joe wrote:
>
>>>>> The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
>>>>> guest are dysfunctional.

>>
>>
>>>> Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,
>>>
>>>

>>
>>> I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.

>>
>>
>> I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
>> have double the brain

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


My god, what a megalomaniac.




  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Beach Blunder wrote:
<...>
>>> Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
>>> blind to the obvious evidence.

>>
>> Evidence like this?
>> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
>> http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
>> http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
>> http://tinyurl.com/be2km
>> http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
>> http://tinyurl.com/95a85
>> http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
>> http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
>> http://tinyurl.com/byac3

>
> And I suppose those look to you like traditional, healthy family farms.


I didn't address what they look like, dummy. But since you're keen to
know, I think they look like modern farms. I have no objection to modern
farming. I think even "traditional, healthy family farms" today look
more like this than whatever idyllic notion lingering in your brain cell
from a field trip to a farm in 1945.

> Animals on concrete.


It has benefits.

1. Easier to clean and disinfect.
2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
environmentally-friendly.

> Believe me,


No. **** no.

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


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

> As evidenced by my posting


Your posts are evidence of nothing but your senility, you old geezer.

> of your factory farmed turkeys versus what a
> real turkey looks like. There is no comparison.


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

>>> The reasons some laws have been
>>> passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.

>>
>> Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
>> legislators by a very small group of people. Emotive appeal is also to
>> blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
>> few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
>> state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first
>> place (ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
>> importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
>> passed who actually used those crates. It was an irrational attempt to
>> amend the Florida constitution and its passage has caused Florida's
>> legislature to toughen the process of amending their constitution by
>> initiative.

>
> It was passed because some people do care about how animals are treated


No. It passed because enough voters were duped by emotive appeals about
gestation crates rather than the facts -- like how only two Florida
farms even used them. The amendment had NOTHING to do with caring about
animals but EVERYTHING to do with the authoritarian zeal of animal
rights activists.

> and wanted to make that statement.


A completely *meaningless* statement -- the measure isn't substantive in
addressing how animals are treated in Florida. It addressed conditions
that were found at just two farms. Even though the amendment won't go
into effect until 2008 (iirc), those two farmers slaughtered all their
sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?
  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Beach Blunder wrote:
>>>>>> The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
>>>>>> guest are dysfunctional.
>>>
>>>>> Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,
>>>
>>>> I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.
>>>
>>> I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
>>> have double the brain

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

>
> My god,


Yes? :-)
  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Blunder wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>> Animals on concrete.


> It has benefits.


Only to the producer.

> 1. Easier to clean and disinfect.


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

> 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.
Traditional farms used animal waste as fertilizer for their
crops. It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
farms create massive environmental pollution.

>> Believe me,


> No. **** no.


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


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


Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information on modern
turkey "farms" and the health problems created by producers.

>> As evidenced by my posting


> Your posts are evidence of nothing but your senility, you old geezer.


>> of your factory farmed turkeys versus what a real turkey looks like.
>> There is no comparison.


Yes. I saw wild turkeys in the area of California where I used
to live. I have seen domestic turkeys at a local center which
teaches alternative methods of small-scale animal care. Even
with the best care possible, modern domestic turkeys are deformed
and crippled by their breeding.

> Domestic turkeys are *real* turkeys.


They are real, and they really suffer. The modern strains
sometimes break leg bones if they are allowed to grow to
adulthood because their bodies are too big for their
skeletons to support. They cannot even breed by themselves,
because their breasts are too big. Any animal which must be
routinely inseminated artificially is not a "real" animal,
and would die out in one generation if they were not kept
going by human intervention.


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


That does not justify what producers have done to them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 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.

  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
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 wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> and irrelevant in any case.


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


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

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


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


Insofar as that is true, they are not.

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


All those things can be changed as vegans become aware of them.
They begin from a better foundation, and a better basic
philosophy, and have to change fewer things if/when they come
to know more about other aspects of their consumption.

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

  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Glorfindel wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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


Why would non-"vegans" need to acknowledge them? There
is no implication of CDs that is relevant to normal
human omnivores' philosophy. There *is* an implication
of CDs that is crucial to "vegans'" philosophy, though:
CDs queer the whole idea.


  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

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


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

>
>My god, what a megalomaniac.
>

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

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

trailer park resident Karen Winter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>> Animals on concrete.

>
>> It has benefits.

>
> Only to the producer.


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

>> 1. Easier to clean and disinfect.

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


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

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

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


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

> Traditional farms


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

> used animal waste as fertilizer for their
> crops.


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

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


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

>>> Believe me,

>
>> No. **** no.

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

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

>
> Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information


You mean DISinformation.

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


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

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


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

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

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


Bullshit.

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


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

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

>
> That does not justify what producers have done to them.


Yes, it does.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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


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

Seeker wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote


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


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


> Why should it be?


For the same reason it is true of humans.

I quote your statement from below,

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


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


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

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

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


> That principle is a complete absurdity.


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

>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


I don't support commercial farming at all.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


> Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..


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

>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


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

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


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


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


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

>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


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


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

>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

S. Maizlich wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

Glorfindel wrote:

> S. Maizlich wrote:
>
>> Glorfindel wrote:

>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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

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

>
>
> They are,


There aren't; read on.

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


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


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


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


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

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


No, based on simple logical analysis.


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


Ipse dixit, and not at all persuasive.


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


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


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


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


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


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


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

> trailer park resident Karen Winter wrote:


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


>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>
>>>> Animals on concrete.

>>
>>
>>> It has benefits.

>>
>>
>> Only to the producer.

>
>
> Also to the livestock. Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and
> disinfect and provide a more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc.
>
>>> 1. Easier to clean and disinfect.

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

>
>
> They're not overcrowded. It would still be necessary for sanitation and
> hygiene.
>
>>> 2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
>>> environmentally-friendly.

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

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

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

>
>
> That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm.
>
>> It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
>> farms create massive environmental pollution.

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

>>
>>
>>> No. **** no.

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

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

>>
>>
>> Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information

>
>
> You mean DISinformation.
>
>> on modern
>> turkey "farms" and the health problems created by producers.

>
>
> Farm Sanctuary aren't farmers or poultry experts, they're animal rights
> activists. Their websites are filled with distortions and exaggerations,
> and they make no attempt to provide objective, balanced information.
>
> <...>
>
>> They cannot even breed by themselves,
>> because their breasts are too big.

>
>
> Turkeys have been bred to produce meat (especially the much preferred
> white meat) quickly. Turkeys are one of the poultry species with a
> penis; they're not bred so that their genitals are proportional to their
> breast size, but well-endowed toms conceivably (no pun intended) would
> have a greater chance of passing on genes for such a trait if they
> reproduced. It's irrelevant because turkeys go to slaughter long before
> they reach sexual maturity. Birds go to slaughter between 14-20 weeks;
> they become sexually mature in a year.
>
> http://www.eatturkey.com/consumer/raising/raise.html
> http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/pfs16C.htm
>
>> Any animal which must be
>> routinely inseminated artificially is not a "real" animal,

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

>
>
> Unproven assertion. Domestic turkeys are artificially inseminated
> because they're slaughtered before they reach sexual maturity.
>
>>> Wild turkeys are somewhat
>>> different, but consumers want more breast meat than wild turkeys have.

>>
>>
>> That does not justify what producers have done to them.

>
>
> Yes, it does.
>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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

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

  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter took another shit:

> [...]


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

usual suspect wrote:

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>> Animals on concrete.


>>> It has benefits.


>> Only to the producer.


> Also to the livestock.


No.

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


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

>>> 1. Easier to clean and disinfect.


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


> They're not overcrowded.


They are.

> It would still be necessary for sanitation and
> hygiene.


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

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


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


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


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

>> Traditional farms


> The images I linked to ARE traditional farms.


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

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


>> used animal waste as fertilizer for their
>> crops.


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


I.e., where traditional farms still exist.

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


> Not universally,


usually

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


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

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>> Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information


> You mean DISinformation.


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

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


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


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


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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

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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter belched:

>


> No. Many keepers of companion animals


Pets. They're called pets, Karen. Drop the PC
newspeak, and call them by their proper name: pets.
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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

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



>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> and irrelevant in any case.

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

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

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


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

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

>
> Insofar as that is true, they are not.
>
>> That's all rhetorical -- in practice, their consumption
>> continues to harm animals by giving up a fraction of an animal
>> at a meal and instead causing many more animals to die from
>> crop production (pesticides, flooding, farm machinery,
>> predation, field-clearing fires, etc.) and by recommending
>> petrochemical-based synthetics in place of leather or fur.

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

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


> They begin from a better foundation, and a better basic
> philosophy, and have to change fewer things if/when they come
> to know more about other aspects of their consumption.
>
> How can anyone move toward more humane consumption based on
> your philosophy of "it doesn't matter how much harm
> consumers cause to animals if humans find the results more
> tasty or convenient for them"?

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


> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>





  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

S. Maizlich wrote:

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Glorfindel:

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


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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Seeker
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


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

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

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

>
>> Why should it be?

>
> For the same reason it is true of humans.


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

> I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,
>
> But we do not judge members of the Donner Party in the same
> way we judge Jeffrey Dahmer.


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

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


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

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

>
>> That principle is a complete absurdity.

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


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

>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>
> I don't support commercial farming at all.


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

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

>
>> Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..

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


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

>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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


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

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

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

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

>
> Well, not true.


Ipse dixit.

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


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

> to be killed at our convenience.


Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.

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


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

>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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


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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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

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


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

>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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


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

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


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

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


I would agree.


  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Seeker wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
> ...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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


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


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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


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

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


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

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


>>I don't support commercial farming at all.


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


I don't support commercial farming at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?


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


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


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

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


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


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


>>Well, not true.


> Ipse dixit.


How would a worm kill other animals?

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


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


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

>>to be killed at our convenience.


> Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


It may. It may not.

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


The basic philosophy has been considerably diluted over the years.

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


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


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

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


> I would agree.


That's encouraging.

  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Seeker
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

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


> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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

>
> It would not be ethical,


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

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


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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Weeding does.

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

>
>>>I don't support commercial farming at all.

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

>
> I don't support commercial farming at all.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

>
>>>Well, not true.

>
>> Ipse dixit.

>
> How would a worm kill other animals?


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

>>>to be killed at our convenience.

>
>> Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

>
> The basic philosophy has been considerably diluted over the years.
>
>>>Second, I did not
>>>say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.

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

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


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

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

>
>> I would agree.

>
> That's encouraging.


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


  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



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

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


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

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My favorite episode of TTZ was just on zxcvbob General Cooking 2 05-07-2012 02:54 PM
When did this FopodTV episode air? A Moose in Love General Cooking 2 13-11-2011 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 08:52 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"