"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world where
>> collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>
> No, of course not. You could just as well claim that the idea that
> killing *humans* is a moral problem in a world where human deaths,
> collateral, accidental, and intentional, are ubiquitous is specious.

Human deaths by acts of man are not ubiquitous at all, relatively speaking.
[Non-human] animals are simply orders of magnitude more common than humans.

> The scale may be different in *some* areas -- although not all --
> for humans.

Taking animals as a group, the scale of killing of animals vs humans is not
comparable at all. If you single out species of animals to make the
comparison then you must justify doing so. I would agree that great apes and
whooping cranes are killed far less frequently by humans than humans are
killed by other humans, so a rationale for not killing them applies to those
species for reasons specific to them. Another contradiction of vegans/ARAs
is that you pretend to *not* entertain "speciesist" ideas such as this, but
the very "moral problem" defined by veganism is speciesist by nature.

> In some times and places, the scale is similar, and
> sometimes even the rationale is similar. But because it's
> *our* species, humans other than those doing the killing usually
> consider the killing a moral problem.

Of course "moral problems" implies humans, but that does not mean that the
killing of animals is a moral problem per se. That is "The False Dilemma".

> Consider "ethnic cleansing" or "the final solution" or the
> campaign against the kulaks in Soviet Russia, or the killing
> of the aristocrats in France during the Terror, or many other
> examples. The humans killed were defined as a threat or even
> a "pest" in much the same way animals are defined in
> agriculture.

That is defined as a moral problem because of the very "rational speciesist"
worldview I already referred to. The elimination of animal pests is not a
real moral problem according to a rational speciesist.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> Paying lip service to collateral deaths is not nearly good enough, the
>> revelation demands that you take account of it in your moral
>> calculations.
>
> Taking account of something does not require that others respond in the
> same way you would. You cannot say someone has not considered the
> issue because you don't like the results of their consideration.

I don't demand that everyone respond in the same way I have, but I can
demand that they respond rationally. If it is your view that the
*exploitation* of animals is unjust for some quasi-political or ethical
reason then I have no argument with that. It's your prerogative, avoid meat
and all the other products. However if you say that the killing of animals
for human gain per se is the overarching moral issue, then your "Perfect
Solution" to borrow Derek's phrase, is a failure. And the problem I have
with it is not even that it's a failure, it's the vegan's refusal to see how
it fails on this level.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> Veganism must be rejected utterly because it creates a false dilemma then
>> addresses it with a solution that does not work.
>
> The solution does not work *for you*. It does work for others,
> because the moral issue for them is, or may be, different. If
> the issue is the property status of farmed animals, and the
> injustice of denying them appropriate liberty and moral status,
> veganism is a solution to that moral issue. You cannot define
> that moral issue as meaningless *for others* because you see it
> as meaningless for you.

As I said above, if you define the issue rationally, then within those
parameters I would have no problem with AR/veganism. The fact is, in the
world veganism always spills out of those parameters. The very definition of
veganism used by The Vegan Society refers to "animal products", which does
NOT address the underlying principle of justice that you just asserted.
Animal products do NOT necessarily imply the denying of liberty or freedom
to animals, unless you mean *killing*, in which case we are back to square
one and "The False Dilemma".

Repeatedly snipping what you can't reply to is a sure display
that you have lost, yet again, killerr...




snippage...

snippage...


there, that should help you alot fool. None of those pesky facts
you can't seem to tolerate, killer...

Glorfindel wrote:
> Derek wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> > There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
> > against veganism is a fallacy.
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
>
> Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
> involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
> animals for food *certainly* do, and always will. The question of
> which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
> basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.

Absolutely!

> However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
> always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
> same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
> involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
> diet would involve at least some animal deaths.

The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a scavenger-gatherer
diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths than
a pure gatherer diet.

> As Derek has noted,
> the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,

Impractical but not impossible.

> so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
> world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
> in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.

Not necessarily. Avoiding all animal products will certainly reduce
the impact of your diet compared with that of any remotely typical
Western omnivore. However it remains plausible that a diet based
around the lowest impact plant foods and supplements you can
obtain to provide adequate nutrition could be improved by replacing
some of these with meat from grass-fed and/or wild animals.

> Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
> is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
> meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
> its death at human hands.

If predation is a violation of an animals rights then why shouldn't we
exterminate predator species? We would be violating the rights of
these animals but in doing so we would prevent the rights of many
more animals from being violated. My answer to this is that predators
have a useful role to play in the ecosystem, maintaining the balance
between vegan animals and their food supply but this then begs the
obvious question, why shouldn't man play the role of predator as
and when it is in the interests of a given ecosystem for him to do so?

> An equivalent diet of gathering need not
> involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
> If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
> are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
> them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,

I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
to economic resources either.

> and
> again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
> the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
> most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
> rights in "pest control."

Which is every bit an injustice as killing an animal for food. In fact
if we ate the victims of 'pest control' then we would need to grow
less food and hence cause fewer injustices.

> There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
> just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
> applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
> different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
> including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
> This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.

What about if it is impractical to eat a sufficient variety of plant
foods
without consuming at least some that are more harmful to animals
than certain obtainable animal foods? Note I am not claiming it
to be true but I have not seen it shown to be an implausible scenario
either.

> BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
> animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.

Derek wrote:
> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>
> (Critic)
> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
> still die for their food during crop production.
>
> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
> implemented.

There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
like this:

(Critic)
Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
cause any animals to die. This justification is false. Therefore
veganism
can not be logically justified.

The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
Therefore
B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?

Doug Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>"Derek" > wrote
> >>>
> >>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
> >>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
> >>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
> >>
> >>Veganism
> >>
> >>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
> >>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
> >>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
> >>> would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
> >>> Still, many people (notably utopians)
> >>
> >>ie vegans
> >>
> >>> seem to find the idea of
> >>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
> >>> imagine.
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
> >>>
> >>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
> >>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
> >>
> >>Har har
> >
> >There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
> >against veganism is a fallacy.
>
> Actually, it isn't.
>
> However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.
> It is not healthier than other diets, it is not more environmentally
> friendly, it does not cause fewer deaths, and it not more efficient.

The problem with all these claims is that there is no single "vegan
diet"
and no single "other diet".

> Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data, of which
> the collateral deaths argument is one.

As a general rule vegan diets compare favourably to other diets in
terms
of environmental impact and number of deaths caused. When you consume
a piece of meat you also indirectly consume the plants that were fed to
the animals.
"about 21 percent of the world's arable area is used for the production
of livestock feed"
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cd...e/x5305e05.htm
> The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
> one. Everything else is garbage.
>
> ----== 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 =----

Dave wrote:

> Glorfindel wrote:

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

>>However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
>>always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
>>same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>>involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
>>diet would involve at least some animal deaths.

> The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a scavenger-gatherer
> diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths than
> a pure gatherer diet.

That is completely true. I can see no ethical problem with a diet
including scavenged meat, gathered unfertilized eggs, and so on.

>>As Derek has noted,
>>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,

> Impractical but not impossible.

You are probably right -- *very* impractical for most people,
though.

>
>>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
>>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
>>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.

> Not necessarily. Avoiding all animal products will certainly reduce
> the impact of your diet compared with that of any remotely typical
> Western omnivore. However it remains plausible that a diet based
> around the lowest impact plant foods and supplements you can
> obtain to provide adequate nutrition could be improved by replacing
> some of these with meat from grass-fed and/or wild animals.

I'd agree if the meat were scavenged, as you said above. However,
on an animal rights basis, hunting or ranching animals for meat
would not be acceptable on ethical grounds.

>>Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
>>is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
>>meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
>>its death at human hands.

> If predation is a violation of an animals rights then why shouldn't we
> exterminate predator species?

There are several answers to this given by various writers on
animal rights. Regan, and those who accept his basic rights-based
concept, feel that because humans are the only moral agents we
know, only humans have an obligation to act ethically toward moral
patients, which include most animals above a certain degree of
self-awareness. Francione takes a legal-style approach, which
is reasonable since he is a professor who teaches law. He uses
the human example that we are obligated not to violate the rights
of others actively, but we are not legally obligated to aid other
humans, and the same applies to animals. What we are obligated to
do is not to treat animals as property or mere resources. Linzey,
like C.S. Lewis in an earlier generation, refers to predation as
"the vampire's dilemma," regards it as a result of the Fall and
the corrupt state of Creation, and sees no end to it until the
Second Coming when all creation will be made new. He says that
"there is no pure land" and we can only change our own behavior
toward animals.

> We would be violating the rights of
> these animals

Yes.

> but in doing so we would prevent the rights of many
> more animals from being violated.

Not according to the rights-based theories, which hold that
only a moral agent can violate rights, and so that, while
prey animals would suffer death, their *rights* would not
be violated, because moral patients cannot hold rights against
other moral patients.

Most pro-animal-rights people simply note that obligate
carnivores *must* kill, and that when there is
real necessity, this cannot be a moral issue.

I think the most convincing position, for me, is that of
Sapontzis in his _Morals, Reason, and Animals_. His
answer is somewhat like yours below. He says that "humans
are morally obligated to prevent predation whenever doing
so would not occasion as much or more suffering than it
would prevent." This seems very much in tune with a common
sense approach in the real world. For example, humans are
obligated to prevent predation by their companion animals,
to defend animals over whom they have stewardship (animals
in zoos, domestic flocks and herds, and so on) from
predation by other animals, and so on. However, exterminating
wild predators not only causes suffering to them, but suffering
to their prey when the ecosystem in unbalanced, and there is
no practical way to make it work. We've seen this many time
in the real world when predators have been removed from an
ecosystem. However, because we *are* moral agents, and
because humans are not obligate carnivores, we cannot take
over the role of predators without violating the rights of
the prey animals. Recent efforts to reintroduce top predators
to ecosystems where they have been eliminated, such as the
wolves in Yellowstone, seem to me to be the best solution.

> My answer to this is that predators
> have a useful role to play in the ecosystem, maintaining the balance
> between vegan animals and their food supply but this then begs the
> obvious question, why shouldn't man play the role of predator as
> and when it is in the interests of a given ecosystem for him to do so?

I'd say that ecosystems have no interests -- an ecosystem is not
conscious. Only individual conscious beings within an ecosystem
have interests _per se_. However, preserving a healthy, balanced
ecosystem is usually the best way to foster the interests of the
conscious members of the ecosystem.

>>An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,

> I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
> to economic resources either.

>>and
>>again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
>>the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
>>most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
>>rights in "pest control."

> Which is every bit an injustice as killing an animal for food.

Yes, in and of itself. However, the other additional injustices
involved in farming animals make it, as I see it, worse. An
animal spending a lifetime in a factory farm surely suffers
more, and has his natural behaviors frustrated longer and worse, than
a free animal who lives his own life and pursues his own interests
up until the time of his death.

> In fact
> if we ate the victims of 'pest control' then we would need to grow
> less food and hence cause fewer injustices.

By that logic, a murderer who ate his victim would be less
culpable than one who did not. I can't see that would be a
good ethical act in itself.

>>There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
>>just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
>>applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
>>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
>>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
>>This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.

> What about if it is impractical to eat a sufficient variety of plant
> foods
> without consuming at least some that are more harmful to animals
> than certain obtainable animal foods? Note I am not claiming it
> to be true but I have not seen it shown to be an implausible scenario
> either.

If we go back to the scavenger model, that would certainly be true.

We'd have to ask if we are considering "harmful" in a pure
utilitarian sense, the net balance of suffering for all concerned,
or if we are talking about harm in an at-least-partly rights-based
sense, in which harm cannot justly be done in violation of a being's
rights, even if such harm will provide a benefit to others. We
already generally agree this is unethical in the case of rights-
bearing beings (e.g. humans).

"Dave" > wrote
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> > There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>> > against veganism is a fallacy.
>>
>> Glorfindel wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
>>
>> Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
>> involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
>> animals for food *certainly* do, and always will. The question of
>> which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
>> basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
>
> Absolutely!

Having said that, she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans won't do that, it goes
against their nature.

>> However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
>> always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
>> same parameters in each case.

See?

>> An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>> involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
>> diet would involve at least some animal deaths.

What about an very good non-vegan diet including a nominal amount of
free-range game or fish compared with a less-than-ideal vegan diet?

> The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a scavenger-gatherer
> diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths than
> a pure gatherer diet.

There's no reason to believe that anyone with access to fresh or game cannot
cause as little or less harm than a person who consumes all commercially
obtained plant-based foods.

>> As Derek has noted,
>> the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
>
> Impractical but not impossible.

There is no reason to talk in absolutes except to create false impressions.

>> so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
>> world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
>> in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
>
> Not necessarily. Avoiding all animal products will certainly reduce
> the impact of your diet compared with that of any remotely typical
> Western omnivore. However it remains plausible that a diet based
> around the lowest impact plant foods and supplements you can
> obtain to provide adequate nutrition could be improved by replacing
> some of these with meat from grass-fed and/or wild animals.

That's the idea, except that I would not replace the lowest impact plant
foods if I wanted to reduce animal harm, I would focus on high-impact foods
like imported fruit, rice and grain products.

>> Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
>> is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
>> meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
>> its death at human hands.
>
> If predation is a violation of an animals rights then why shouldn't we
> exterminate predator species? We would be violating the rights of
> these animals but in doing so we would prevent the rights of many
> more animals from being violated. My answer to this is that predators
> have a useful role to play in the ecosystem, maintaining the balance
> between vegan animals and their food supply but this then begs the
> obvious question, why shouldn't man play the role of predator as
> and when it is in the interests of a given ecosystem for him to do so?

This is another indicator of what I said previously about the absurdity of
extrapolating human moral ideals to animals.

>
>> An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>> involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>> If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>> are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>> them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,
>
> I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
> to economic resources either.

We are all economic resources, we are all exploited in many different ways.
Are we all killed? No, but now we're back to square one and the "Perfect
Solution Fallacy". Rational speciesim recognizes that the killing of animals
is a phantom moral dilemma, and veganism is a false solution to it.


>> and
>> again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
>> the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
>> most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
>> rights in "pest control."
>
> Which is every bit an injustice as killing an animal for food. In fact
> if we ate the victims of 'pest control' then we would need to grow
> less food and hence cause fewer injustices.

Excellent point in theory, except that in reality they're usually poisoned.
Too bad birds and other scavengers don't know that.

>> There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
>> just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
>> applied to any individual example.

This is a lie.

>> It is only by comparing vastly
>> different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
>> including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.

Same lie. A typical urban vegan diet can plausibly be improved by replacing
some of the high-impact plant-based foods with fresh caught fish. This is
not "apples and oranges".

>> This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.

And lying isn't?

> What about if it is impractical to eat a sufficient variety of plant
> foods
> without consuming at least some that are more harmful to animals
> than certain obtainable animal foods? Note I am not claiming it
> to be true but I have not seen it shown to be an implausible scenario
> either.

Of course it's plausible, I have been a living example in my own life. I
have relatives now in the north who hunt every autumn to fill the freezer
with moose or venison for the winter. This food goes a very long way in
reducing their dependence on imported foodstuffs.

[..]

"Dave" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Derek wrote:
>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>>
>> (Critic)
>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>> still die for their food during crop production.
>>
>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>> implemented.
>
> There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
> appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
> be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
> like this:
>
> (Critic)
> Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
> cause any animals to die. This justification is false. Therefore
> veganism
> can not be logically justified.
>
> The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
> Therefore
> B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?

You may be talking about this.. Denying the Antecedent

1. Animal products are related to animal deaths
2. I don't consume animal products, therefore
3. My consumption is not related to animal deaths.

"Dave" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Doug Jones wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>"Derek" > wrote
>> >>>
>> >>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>> >>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>> >>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>> >>
>> >>Veganism
>> >>
>> >>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>> >>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>> >>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>> >>> would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
>> >>> Still, many people (notably utopians)
>> >>
>> >>ie vegans
>> >>
>> >>> seem to find the idea of
>> >>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
>> >>> imagine.
>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
>> >>>
>> >>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>> >>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>> >>
>> >>Har har
>> >
>> >There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>> >against veganism is a fallacy.
>>
>> Actually, it isn't.
>>
>> However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.
>> It is not healthier than other diets, it is not more environmentally
>> friendly, it does not cause fewer deaths, and it not more efficient.
>
> The problem with all these claims is that there is no single "vegan
> diet"
> and no single "other diet".

Excellent observation, you are failing veganism 101.

>> Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data, of which
>> the collateral deaths argument is one.

> As a general rule vegan diets compare favourably to other diets in
> terms
> of environmental impact and number of deaths caused. When you consume
> a piece of meat you also indirectly consume the plants that were fed to
> the animals.
> "about 21 percent of the world's arable area is used for the production
> of livestock feed"
> http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cd...e/x5305e05.htm

But veganism is not a "general rule" proposition, it's a binary "solution".
It does not refer only to animals that are fed supplementally, it refers to
all animals killed to obtain "products" therefore this argument is a red
herring.

"Glorfindel" > wrote
>
>
> Dave wrote:
>
>> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
>>>always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
>>>same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>>>involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
>>>diet would involve at least some animal deaths.
>
>> The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a scavenger-gatherer
>> diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths than
>> a pure gatherer diet.
>
> That is completely true. I can see no ethical problem with a diet
> including scavenged meat, gathered unfertilized eggs, and so on.

There is no ethical problem with the killing of animals to obtain food, it's
how the world works for god's sake.

>>>As Derek has noted,
>>>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
>
>> Impractical but not impossible.
>
> You are probably right -- *very* impractical for most people,
> though.

Impossible. A recent example pointed out the minute arthropods that live in
broccoli.

>>>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
>>>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
>>>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
>
>> Not necessarily. Avoiding all animal products will certainly reduce
>> the impact of your diet compared with that of any remotely typical
>> Western omnivore. However it remains plausible that a diet based
>> around the lowest impact plant foods and supplements you can
>> obtain to provide adequate nutrition could be improved by replacing
>> some of these with meat from grass-fed and/or wild animals.
>
> I'd agree if the meat were scavenged, as you said above. However,
> on an animal rights basis, hunting or ranching animals for meat
> would not be acceptable on ethical grounds.

Veganism: Fabricate a dilemma, create a solution for it that doesn't work.

Why? That's an interesting question.Why fabricate a dilemma? Idle minds...
Why one that doesn't work? Because it is impossible to create one that
*would* work.

>>>Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
>>>is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
>>>meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
>>>its death at human hands.
>
>> If predation is a violation of an animals rights then why shouldn't we
>> exterminate predator species?
>
> There are several answers to this given by various writers on
> animal rights. Regan, and those who accept his basic rights-based
> concept, feel that because humans are the only moral agents we
> know, only humans have an obligation to act ethically toward moral
> patients, which include most animals above a certain degree of
> self-awareness. Francione takes a legal-style approach, which
> is reasonable since he is a professor who teaches law. He uses
> the human example that we are obligated not to violate the rights
> of others actively, but we are not legally obligated to aid other
> humans, and the same applies to animals. What we are obligated to
> do is not to treat animals as property or mere resources. Linzey,
> like C.S. Lewis in an earlier generation, refers to predation as
> "the vampire's dilemma," regards it as a result of the Fall and
> the corrupt state of Creation, and sees no end to it until the
> Second Coming when all creation will be made new. He says that
> "there is no pure land" and we can only change our own behavior
> toward animals.

Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as other
animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all. Ii is a phantom moral dilemma
created by fuzzy-headed intellectuals with nothing better to do, lapped up
by fuzzy headed pseudo intellectuals with nothing better to do.

>
>> We would be violating the rights of
>> these animals
>
> Yes.

No, we'd simply be killing them for phoney reasons.

>> but in doing so we would prevent the rights of many
>> more animals from being violated.
>
> Not according to the rights-based theories, which hold that
> only a moral agent can violate rights, and so that, while
> prey animals would suffer death, their *rights* would not
> be violated, because moral patients cannot hold rights against
> other moral patients.

Convoluted balderdash.

> Most pro-animal-rights people simply note that obligate
> carnivores *must* kill, and that when there is
> real necessity, this cannot be a moral issue.

The weasel word, necessity. Like I couldn't get any decent substitues for my
leather shoes man...

> I think the most convincing position, for me, is that of
> Sapontzis in his _Morals, Reason, and Animals_. His
> answer is somewhat like yours below. He says that "humans
> are morally obligated to prevent predation whenever doing
> so would not occasion as much or more suffering than it
> would prevent." This seems very much in tune with a common
> sense approach in the real world. For example, humans are
> obligated to prevent predation by their companion animals,
> to defend animals over whom they have stewardship (animals
> in zoos, domestic flocks and herds, and so on) from
> predation by other animals, and so on. However, exterminating
> wild predators not only causes suffering to them, but suffering
> to their prey when the ecosystem in unbalanced, and there is
> no practical way to make it work. We've seen this many time
> in the real world when predators have been removed from an
> ecosystem. However, because we *are* moral agents, and
> because humans are not obligate carnivores, we cannot take
> over the role of predators without violating the rights of
> the prey animals. Recent efforts to reintroduce top predators
> to ecosystems where they have been eliminated, such as the
> wolves in Yellowstone, seem to me to be the best solution.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


>
>> My answer to this is that predators
>> have a useful role to play in the ecosystem, maintaining the balance
>> between vegan animals and their food supply but this then begs the
>> obvious question, why shouldn't man play the role of predator as
>> and when it is in the interests of a given ecosystem for him to do so?
>
> I'd say that ecosystems have no interests -- an ecosystem is not
> conscious. Only individual conscious beings within an ecosystem
> have interests _per se_. However, preserving a healthy, balanced
> ecosystem is usually the best way to foster the interests of the
> conscious members of the ecosystem.

Ecosystems are chock-full of animals killing one another for food.

>>>An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>>>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>>>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>>>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>>>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,
>
>> I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
>> to economic resources either.
>
>>>and
>>>again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
>>>the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
>>>most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
>>>rights in "pest control."
>
>> Which is every bit an injustice as killing an animal for food.
>
> Yes, in and of itself. However, the other additional injustices
> involved in farming animals make it, as I see it, worse. An
> animal spending a lifetime in a factory farm surely suffers
> more, and has his natural behaviors frustrated longer and worse, than
> a free animal who lives his own life and pursues his own interests
> up until the time of his death.
>
>> In fact
>> if we ate the victims of 'pest control' then we would need to grow
>> less food and hence cause fewer injustices.
>
> By that logic, a murderer who ate his victim would be less
> culpable than one who did not. I can't see that would be a
> good ethical act in itself.

There's an excellent example of vegan logic for you.

>>>There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
>>>just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
>>>applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
>>>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
>>>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
>>>This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
>
>> What about if it is impractical to eat a sufficient variety of plant
>> foods
>> without consuming at least some that are more harmful to animals
>> than certain obtainable animal foods? Note I am not claiming it
>> to be true but I have not seen it shown to be an implausible scenario
>> either.
>
> If we go back to the scavenger model, that would certainly be true.
>
> We'd have to ask if we are considering "harmful" in a pure
> utilitarian sense, the net balance of suffering for all concerned,
> or if we are talking about harm in an at-least-partly rights-based
> sense, in which harm cannot justly be done in violation of a being's
> rights, even if such harm will provide a benefit to others. We
> already generally agree this is unethical in the case of rights-
> bearing beings (e.g. humans).

Begging the question. Again the phantom moral dilemma followed by the failed
attempts to solve it.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:33:23 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:21:31 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:11:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Critic)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals still die for their food during crop production.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
>>>>>>>>>>>lifestyle".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
>>>>>>>>>> to the killing of animals in food production.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No,
>>>>>
>>>>>What *do* they think is the best solution?
>>>>
>>>> I'll leave you to ask them that;
>>>
>>>Aren't you one?
>>
>> Yes, I am.
>>
>>>Or at least I thought you were representing their position
>>
>> No, I let them represent their own position.
>>
>>>YOU answer.
>>
>> Veganism.
>
>That would tend to prove my point now wouldn't it?

Now that you've switched from 'the perfect solution' to
'the best solution', yes, if indeed that was the point you
were trying to make. As per your usual way of going
about things, you're trying to get the reader to believe
that vegans claim their solution (veganism) is the perfect
solution to the problem of animal deaths associated with
man's diet rather than the best solution. Look at the first
line I wrote in the first post of this thread;

"There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral deaths found in agriculture, ...."

Your first point was;

"The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-
free lifestyle"."

To which I replied;

"Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
to the killing of animals in food production."

So no, your original point hasn't been made, and yes, you're
still trying to build another straw man from the ashes of the
first one I burned down in my earlier reply.

>> Now, that behind us, when are you going to
>> summon the courage to address this post you keep
>> snipping away and explain why you insist on arguing
>> with your straw man vegan instead of the real vegans
>> if not to knock your straw vegan down easily to then
>> declare a defeat of the real vegan's position?
>
>Since we just established that the position I am addressing *is* indeed your
>position, you can dispense with all the rubbish.

No, you aren't addressing my position, as we've seen by
your attempt to pretend I believe veganism is the perfect
solution rather than the best solution. You're addressing
your straw man vegan's position so you can knock it down
easily and then declare a defeat over my position. You
just can't help yourself because the true vegan's position
is indomitable.

>> <restore entire post>
>> No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans.
>> That's your straw man again. Abstaining from meat is a
>> solution to avoid the killing of animals for food, and while
>> that solution still involves the killing of some animals in
>> crop production, it's a fallacy to reject that solution on
>> that basis.
>
>No, it's a fallacy that the killing of animals in food production is a moral
>problem in the first place.

If you believe that, then you have no criticism against the
vegan. But that's entirely besides the point I've raised
above your non-sequitur. The point being made is that
it is specious to reject veganism as a solution on the basis
that animals still die after veganism has been implemented
in a World where animal deaths in food production are
ubiquitous. Bad dodge.

>>>It's obvious that you're talking through your hat.
>>
>> That's a non-response. You cannot expect your criticism of
>> vegans to be taken seriously while your definition and criticism
>> focuses on your imaginary vegan. What would be the point in
>> arguing against a critic who's only criticism focuses on HIS
>> imaginary vegan? You're a joke.
>
>Since you just admitted that he's not imaginary, who's the joke?

You are.

>>>> When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
>>>> solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
>>>> make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
>>>> some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
>>>> because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
>>>> I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
>>>> issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
>>>> else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.
>>>
>>>Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive
>>>of veganism.
>>
>> Rather, it pertains to the fallacy non-vegans use to reject
>> veganism. Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
>> deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
>> deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
>> World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>
>The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world where collateral
>deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

Ipse dixit and false. Following your logic, the idea that killing
humans is a moral problem in a World where collateral deaths
are ubiquitous is specious. Now, you may want to quibble
that human deaths aren't as ubiquitous as animal deaths, but
your logic doesn't include that. In fact, if human collateral
deaths WERE as ubiquitous as animal deaths, then according
to your logic, the idea that killing humans is a moral problem
in a World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

>The vegan *invents* a moral issue, then invents a false solution.

If you're now claiming there are no moral issues to be dealt
with concerning animal deaths, you have no valid criticism
against the vegan who allegedly causes them.

>>>Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
>>>suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it.

See? Despite my opening line in this thread;

"There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral deaths found in agriculture, ...."

and a later statement from me in this thread;

"Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
to the killing of animals in food production."

you're still insisting that, "Vegans think that there is a Perfect
Solution to animal death and suffering in one's diet and they
think that veganism is it." You just can't help but attack your
straw man vegan instead of the real thing, can you. That's
why you're a joke, Dutch; you can't deal with the real thing.

>> That's good. The collateral deaths argument
>> is debunked, so it's back to the drawing board for you until
>> you can come up with something that doesn't invoke logical
>> fallacies, doesn't include a straw man vegan who refuses to
>> acknowledge collateral deaths, and isn't based on lies.
>
>Paying lip service to collateral deaths is not nearly good enough the
>revelation demands that you take account of it in your moral calculations.

No one but your straw man vegan pays lip service to the
collateral deaths in crop production.

>> You're screwed. All the antis are screwed, and it's your
>> own fault because you've hinged everything on the
>> collateral deaths argument and now been shown that it's
>> nothing more than a common little false dilemma.
>
>Veganism is a non-solution to a non-extistent problem.

I disagree on both counts. Veganism is the best solution
to by-catch;

[About 2.3 billion pounds of sea life were discarded in
the U.S. in 2000 alone, and thousands of the ocean's
most charismatic species - including sea turtles, marine
mammals, sharks and seabirds - are killed each year
by fishing nets, lines and hooks. These deaths have
implications for both marine populations and marine
food webs.

"Considering the documented decline in global fisheries,
this kind of waste is unacceptable. But because this
travesty is unseen by most people, it continues," said
Dr. Crowder.

Experts agree that bottom trawls are one of the worst
offenders, entrapping

**vast numbers of non-targeted animals.**

"The first time I was on a trawler, I was appalled to see
that for every pound of shrimp caught there were 20
pounds of sharks, rays, crabs, and starfish killed. The
shrimpers called this bycatch 'trawl trash' - I call it
'biodiversity'," noted Elliott Norse of the Marine
Conservation Biology Institute. "Of course I recognize
in some trawls it could be only one pound - in others
100 pounds for every pound of shrimp."

**This bycatch is not the only collateral damage**

associated with fishing. Many experts agreed that habitat
destruction that some fishing gears cause is even more
ecologically damaging than the harm caused by bycatch.]
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/innews/destfish2003.htm

And veganism is certainly the best solution to reduce
the collateral deaths associated with the vast majority
of crops, because it's fed to livestock animals which
vegans don't eat. Those two examples alone show that
veganism is a solution to the animal deaths associated
with man's diet, and I haven't even included the billions
of target animals and fish yet.

>> Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
>> addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
>> simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
>> implementation?
>
>Pretty much, yes. Law enforcement is the wrong approach to drug addiction.

So you would disband the drug squad and any solution to
drug addiction on the basis that drug addicts would still
exist after that solution's implementation. Priceless!

>> Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
>> decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
>> simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
>> implementation?
>
>Tooth decay does not occur if oral hygiene is properly followed.

Oral hygiene is followed by the majority of us to a fairly
high degree, yet that majority still suffers from tooth
decay. Do you reject oral hygiene as a solution to tooth
decay on that basis?

>> If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it
>> then follows that the same answer must be given when
>> considering;
>>
>> Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in
>> man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense
>> and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still
>> occur after the solution's implementation?
>
>Absolutely, because the death of animals in agriculture is NOT a real moral
>problem to begin with

Then you have no argument against the vegan who allegedly
causes them.

> AND veganism does not solve it anyway.

Nevertheless, it's a solution which I find to be the best.

>> As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
>> proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
>> is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
>> can think of as well.
>
>Veganism must be rejected utterly because it creates a false dilemma

Only your straw man vegan's veganism does that.

On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>>
>> (Critic)
>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>> still die for their food during crop production.
>>
>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>> implemented.
>
>There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
>appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
>be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
>like this:
>
>(Critic)
>Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
>cause any animals to die. This justification is false. Therefore
>veganism
>can not be logically justified.
>
>The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
>Therefore
>B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?

It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent, or something close
to it because your minor premise states that A (apparently the
antecedent) is false. It's a straw man too because it presumes
vegans make the claim that abstaining from meat means their
diet has no association with animals deaths.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:48:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:19:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>There's no getting away from it
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>So quit wasting your time trying.
>>
>> Rather it's you rather than me whose trying to escape
>> the implications of that fallacy to the collateral deaths
>> argument because it shows you've been posing a false
>> dilemma all these years.
>
>Yes

Exactly.

>>>The "False [moral] Dilemma" here is the killing of animals in the
>>>production of food, and veganism is it's false solution.
>>
>> Once again you have fallen for the same fallacy by
>> rejecting veganism as a solution on the basis that some
>> animals deaths will still occur after its implementation in
>> a World where animal deaths in food production are
>> allegedly inescapable.
>
>No, I reject the vegan premise that the killing of animals in agriculture is
>a Moral Dilemma.

You're now trying to move the goalposts from your original
rejection; that veganism must be rejected because animals
still die in crop production after veganism is implemented,
to a different type of rejection entirely; that the killing of
animals in agriculture isn't a moral dilemma.

>That is patently absurd.

There's nothing absurd about finding the collateral deaths in
agriculture morally wrong. If you don't find anything morally
wrong with it, then you have no valid criticism for those that
do, and you certainly can't reject veganism on those grounds.

>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>
>Irrelevant when the moral problem is imaginary.

If you think the problem is imaginary and irrelevant, you have
no criticism against the vegans who don't, and your lack of
concern takes nothing away from the vegan's position on
them.

>Animal death is ubiquitous and unavoidable.

Then you cannot reject veganism as a solution if they are
unavoidable, because doing so invokes the same fallacy
you've been invoking for years.

>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>> would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
>> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
>> imagine.
>
>Veganism is a false solution to an imaginary moral problem.

Ispe dixit and false, on both counts.

>> Examples:
>> (critic)
>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
>> able to get through!
>
>Terrorism is a real problem, killing of animals in agriculture is not.

The aim of that example wasn't to compare terrorism with
collateral deaths, it's aim is to demonstrate the fallacy you use
when rejecting veganism. You can't reject the "terrorist safety
net" as a bad solution simply because terrorist will still be able
to get through in a World where terrorism is rife, and, likewise,
you cannot reject veganism as a bad solution simply because
animal deaths will still occur in a world where animal deaths
are rife.

>> (Rejoinder)
>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
>> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
>> (critic)
>
>Veganism from a categorical standpoint does not even necessarily reduce the
>number of animal deaths.

Nevertheless, even if your ipse dixit were true, you cannot
reject veganism as a solution on the basis that animal deaths
still occur after its implementation. Doing so invokes the perfect
solution fallacy.

>> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
>> People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
>> (Rejoinder)
>
>Drunk driving is a real problem, animals deaths in agriculture is not.

The aim of that example wasn't to compare drunk driving with
collateral deaths, it's aim is to demonstrate the fallacy you use
when rejecting veganism. You can't reject "anti drunk driving
ad campaigns" as a bad solution simply because people are
still going to drink and drive in a World where drunk-driving is
rife, and likewise, you cannot reject veganism as a bad solution
simply because animal deaths will still occur in a world where
animal deaths are rife.

>> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
>> by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
>> enough to make the policy worthwhile?
>
>Veganism from a categorical standpoint does not even necessarily reduce the
>number of animal deaths.

Nevertheless, even if your ipse dixit were true, you cannot
reject veganism as a solution on that basis simply because
animal deaths still occur after its implementation. Doing so
invokes the perfect solution fallacy.

>> (Critic)
>> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
>
>Dying in car wrecks is a real problem, animals deaths in agriculture is not.

The aim of that example wasn't to compare car wrecks with
collateral deaths, it's aim is to demonstrate the fallacy you use
when rejecting veganism. You can't reject "seat belts" as a
bad solution simply because people still die in car wrecks, and
likewise, you cannot reject veganism as a bad solution simply
because animal deaths will still occur in a world where animal
deaths are rife.

>> (Rejoinder)
>> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
>> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
>> seat belts worthwhile?
>
>Veganism from a categorical standpoint does not even necessarily reduce the
>number of animal deaths.

Nevertheless, even if your ipse dixit were true, you cannot
reject veganism as a solution on that basis simply because
animal deaths still occur after its implementation. Doing so
invokes the perfect solution fallacy.

>> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
>> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
>> work, but express it only in vague terms.
>
>Veganism specifically fails to address the problem of collateral deaths of
>animals

I disagree. Veganism is the best solution to by-catch;

[About 2.3 billion pounds of sea life were discarded in
the U.S. in 2000 alone, and thousands of the ocean's
most charismatic species - including sea turtles, marine
mammals, sharks and seabirds - are killed each year
by fishing nets, lines and hooks. These deaths have
implications for both marine populations and marine
food webs.

"Considering the documented decline in global fisheries,
this kind of waste is unacceptable. But because this
travesty is unseen by most people, it continues," said
Dr. Crowder.

Experts agree that bottom trawls are one of the worst
offenders, entrapping

**vast numbers of non-targeted animals.**

"The first time I was on a trawler, I was appalled to see
that for every pound of shrimp caught there were 20
pounds of sharks, rays, crabs, and starfish killed. The
shrimpers called this bycatch 'trawl trash' - I call it
'biodiversity'," noted Elliott Norse of the Marine
Conservation Biology Institute. "Of course I recognize
in some trawls it could be only one pound - in others
100 pounds for every pound of shrimp."

**This bycatch is not the only collateral damage**

associated with fishing. Many experts agreed that habitat
destruction that some fishing gears cause is even more
ecologically damaging than the harm caused by bycatch.]
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/innews/destfish2003.htm

And veganism is certainly the best solution to reduce
the collateral deaths associated with the vast majority
of crops, because it's fed to livestock animals which
vegans don't eat. Those two examples alone show that
veganism is a solution to the animal deaths associated
with man's diet, and I haven't even included the billions
of target animals and fish yet.

>> Alternatively, it may
>> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
>> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
>> catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
>> heuristic).
>> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
>>
>> Thank you for taking part in such a clear demonstration.
>
>My pleasure

No, it's all mine.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:48:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Glorfindel" > wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world where
>>> collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>>
>> No, of course not. You could just as well claim that the idea that
>> killing *humans* is a moral problem in a world where human deaths,
>> collateral, accidental, and intentional, are ubiquitous is specious.
>
>Human deaths by acts of man are not ubiquitous at all

But if they were, according to your logic, the idea that
killing humans is a moral problem in a World where their
deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

>> The scale may be different in *some* areas -- although not all --
>> for humans.
>
>Taking animals as a group, the scale of killing of animals vs humans is not
>comparable at all.

By that logic, taking Jews as a group, the scale of killing Jews
vs non-Jews during the time when they were being murdered
by Germans is not comparable at all, and so the killing of Jews
is permissible.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:27:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as other
>animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all.

No, you've completely misunderstood the principle. It states that
one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
As usual, you're using these terms to sound erudite without actually
understanding the basic definitions behind them.

On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>Derek wrote:
>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>>
>> (Critic)
>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>> still die for their food during crop production.
>>
>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>> implemented.
>
>There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
>appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
>be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
>like this:
>
>(Critic)
>Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
>cause any animals to die. This justification is false.

No doubt. They contribute to animal deaths with their diet,
use of roads and building, electricity, paper and wood, etc
like everyone else does. ALL they appear to avoid trying to
contribute to is life and death for livestock.

>Therefore
>veganism
>can not be logically justified.
>
>The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
>Therefore
>B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?

Surely it's classified as some form of bullshit, like most
"AR" fantasy. LOL. Do you know the one about the kid
who killed and ate his parents? He then bitched about
being an orphan. That's a Goo/Dutch fantasy they equate
to raising animals for food. Human child sex slavery is
another, and Dutch claims to have developed that
comparison from his own experience(s) with farm animals.
Maybe you can spot the idiocy in their "AR" drenched
fantasies, but then again maybe you can't...they can't...

Hey, maybe you can help them. We've been trying to
figure out which type wildlife we should put in place of
livestock and why, and so far about the best we have is
a short list from Coproph Boy (Dutch) which consists of:
mice, frogs and groundhogs. Unless it would be paved
or used for crops as I'm convinced it would, the land would
probably provide life for some types of animals. What type
animals do YOU want it to support INSTEAD OF livestock,
and why? If/when you can't answer the question, you
might finally consider that it would be just about as good
to provide the livestock with decent lives as it would to
instead provide life for wildlife that you don't care enough
about to even know what kind(s) you're trying to talk about.
Because so far it certainly appears that's the way it is in
some cases. Even if you do manage to explain a few wild
animals you'd want to promote life for, like mice, then we
(those of us who think it through) would also have to wonder
why it wouldn't be just as well to raise some other form of
livestock than your mice...it just keeps on and on... But
hate it though you do, it ALWAYS comes down to which
animals we're going to promote life for and which ones
we're not. That's just the way it is, so I'm still suprised that
even the honest "ARAs" can hate a fact so much, and
can not believe that true "AR" opponents hate it, since
there's no reason why any of us should.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:26:54 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>>>
>>> (Critic)
>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>>> still die for their food during crop production.
>>>
>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>>> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>>> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>>> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>>> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>>> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>>> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>>> implemented.
>>
>>There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
>>appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
>>be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
>>like this:
>>
>>(Critic)
>>Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
>>cause any animals to die. This justification is false. Therefore
>>veganism
>>can not be logically justified.
>>
>>The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
>>Therefore
>>B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?
>
>It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent, or something close
>to it because your minor premise states that A (apparently the
>antecedent) is false. It's a straw man too because it presumes
>vegans make the claim that abstaining from meat means their
>diet has no association with animals deaths.

I've heard other lies from veg*ns too. Amusingly, I've more
than once seen people estimate how many chickens, pigs,
cows etc they've "saved" by being veg*n. It's really disgusting,
since veg*nism does absolutely NOTHING to help any animals
raised for food, much less does it save any. People can't save
animals with their diet. They CAN contribute to decent lives for
food animals with their diet, but NOT by being veg*n, so you
couldn't care about anything like that. So back to the disgusting
veg*n/"AR" lying which you like much better than anything to
do with providing decent lives for livestock: savour the veg*n
"pride" you're entitled to feel as you read the lies one of your
"AR" representatives tells to deform children's view of reality:
__________________________________________________ _______
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!

http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE CHICKENS?

Life for chickens on factory farms is awful!
Chickens can feel things just as dogs and
cats do. Please help animals and stay healthy
by becoming a vegetarian! Call or write to
PETA for free recipes.

[...]

HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE PIGS?

Pigs value their lives just as much as you
and I value ours. So please don't eat them!
Call or write to PETA for free animal-
friendly, vegetarian recipes.

http://www.peta-online.org/pdfs/Lchickid.pdf
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:11:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>> No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
>> unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
>
>Shut up ****wit, nobody gives a shit about your stupic illogic.

If you think it's illogic Coproph, then explain WHY we should
never consider the lives of livestock or wildlife.

>> So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
>>animals do we want to promote life for. If you feel it's
>>none, then explain why. If you feel we should promote
>>life for some and not for others, explain that. You, Dutch
>>and Goo all agree that we should provide lives for wildlife
>>INSTEAD OF lives for wildlife AND livestock, but none
>>of you can explain WHICH wildlife, and/or WHY.
>
>No it should never be asked.

Why should we never consider any animals when we think
about human influence on animals?

dh@. wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:26:54 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>
>
>>On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>>>when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>>>>
>>>>(Critic)
>>>>Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>>>>requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>>>>still die for their food during crop production.
>>>>
>>>>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>>>>assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>>>>for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>>>>abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>>>>food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>>>>and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>>>>some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>>>>implemented.
>>>
>>>There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
>>>appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
>>>be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
>>>like this:
>>>
>>>(Critic)
>>>Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
>>>cause any animals to die. This justification is false. Therefore
>>>veganism
>>>can not be logically justified.
>>>
>>>The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
>>>Therefore
>>>B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?
>>
>>It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent, or something close
>>to it because your minor premise states that A (apparently the
>>antecedent) is false. It's a straw man too because it presumes
>>vegans make the claim that abstaining from meat means their
>>diet has no association with animals deaths.
>
>
> I've heard other lies from veg*ns too. Amusingly, I've more
> than once seen people estimate how many chickens, pigs,
> cows etc they've "saved" by being veg*n. It's really disgusting,

It's no more disgusting - actually, much less - than
your absurd belief that you are doing chickens, pigs
and cows some kind of "good deed" by causing them to be
bred into existence. You aren't doing them any favor
and they do not "benefit", in any way, by coming into
existence. You are merely and absurdly and stupidly
trying to rationalize your own self interest.

dh@. wrote:

> On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>>when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>>>
>>>(Critic)
>>>Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>>>requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>>>still die for their food during crop production.
>>>
>>>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>>>assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>>>for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>>>abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>>>food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>>>and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>>>some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>>>implemented.
>>
>>There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
>>appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
>>be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
>>like this:
>>
>>(Critic)
>>Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
>>cause any animals to die. This justification is false.
>
>
> No doubt. They contribute to animal deaths with their diet,
> use of roads and building, electricity, paper and wood, etc
> like everyone else does. ALL they appear to avoid trying to
> contribute to is life and death for livestock.

They are not doing a disservice to any animals by not
eating meat. Your phony "consideration" of their lives
is total bullshit.

dh@. wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:11:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>
>>> No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
>>>unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
>>
>>Shut up ****wit, nobody gives a shit about your stupic illogic.
>
>
> If you think it's illogich,

It is. It has been conclusively shown to be illogic.


> then explain WHY we should
> never consider the lives of livestock or wildlife.

No, YOU explain why we should consider the lives of
livestock.


>
>
>>>So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
>>>animals do we want to promote life for. If you feel it's
>>>none, then explain why. If you feel we should promote
>>>life for some and not for others, explain that. You, Dutch
>>>and Goo all agree that we should provide lives for wildlife
>>>INSTEAD OF lives for wildlife AND livestock, but none
>>>of you can explain WHICH wildlife, and/or WHY.
>>
>>No it should never be asked.
>
>
> Why should we never consider any animals when we think
> about human influence on animals?

There is no moral good that results from the basic
existence of livestock. The animals do not, in any
way, "benefit" from coming into existence. The benefit
is entirely a material one for the people who consume
the animals.

Guarantee: you will puke out your "some do, some
don't" bullshit. You are wrong. NO animals "benefit"
from coming into existence.

The only consideration due the lives of livestock is
potentially negative: one might, and "vegans" do,
conclude that their lives are too bad, even at their
best, to justify breeding them into existence, and so
one might choose not to consume products made from
domestic livestock (interestingly, I think one could
justify consuming products from opportunistically
obtained wild animals.) But no one should conclude
that the lives of livestock animals are somehow "worth
it" to them; that is complete illogic and a transparent
rationalization of *your* interest, not theirs.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:26:16 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:08:38 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>>>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>>>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>>>[...]
>>>>>(Rejoinder)
>>>>>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>>>>>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
>>>>>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
>>>>>intentionally for food.
>>>>
>>>>The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
>>>>Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
>>>>
>>>>S.L. Davis,
>>>
>>> .. and how many times those figures have been found
>>>to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork
>>>is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;
>>>
>>> [While eating animals who are grazed rather than
>>> intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare
>>> of farmed animals given their current mistreatment,
>>> Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable
>>> to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical
>>> error in using total rather than per capita estimates
>>> of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number
>>> of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
>>> systems and ignores important considerations about
>>> the welfare of animals under both systems; and third,
>>> he does not consider the number of animals who are
>>> prevented from existing under the two systems.
>>[...]
>>>Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>
>> No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
>
>So, playing a game of chess will involve animals existing, will
>it?
>
>>unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
>>So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
>>animals do we want to promote life for.
>
>No it shouldn't. It's a stupid question.

It seems stupid to you, but that's because as I've often
pointed out: you "ARAs" only care about yourselves and
promoting veganism, and are not capable of considering
what the animals get out of it.

>>If you feel it's none, then explain why.
>
>Why should I waste my time even considering such a stupid
>question in the first place?

You can't consider the animals because all YOU/"ARAs"
are capable of considering is yourself.

>>If you feel we should promote
>>life for some and not for others, explain that.
>
>That's exactly the question being put to you by Dutch and Jon
>for over two weeks now, and you've dodged answering it at
>every turn, so explain to me why you favour livestock animals
>over wild animals

Your brother Coproph pasted the answer years ago:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "apostate" >
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:25 GMT

Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious. I've never seen a steer starve and die in the snow, or be torn
apart by predators.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
though amusingly none of you are able to understand what it
really means. Not you, not Goo, not even Copro who pasted
the idea. So now in addition to wondering why he lies, I wonder
why the damn fool pastes things that he doesn't even understand.
Check out how stupid he would have to be:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: <UZxjf.3237$Gd6.1095@pd7tw3no>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:53:24 GMT

Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Surprisingly close to reality for him.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

[...]
Who decides where the line is drawn between animals "benefitting" and not
benefitting? Surely the only person who could do it is the individual.
[...]
Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all". Which
is better? Why?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The vegan line being none is true, though the belief vegans hold
is a lie. Most people having a line at all is a lie imo. Both ideas are
incorrect, so why choose one over the other instead of the truth?
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
Message-ID: >

The method of husbandry determines
whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
That is a true fact that Copro got from somewhere else but does
not understand. How could he understand all of this, but still be
opposed to considering animals when we think about human
influence on animals? Answer: he could not. So since we KNOW
he is opposed to considering animals when considering human
influence on animals, we KNOW he either can't understand that
life can have positive value for animals, or is opposed to the fact
being taken into consideration because it works against what
he WANTS people to believe.

****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:26:16 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>>>>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>>>>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>(Rejoinder)
>>>>>>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>>>>>>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
>>>>>>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
>>>>>>intentionally for food.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
>>>>>Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
>>>>>
>>>>>S.L. Davis,
>>>>
>>>>.. and how many times those figures have been found
>>>>to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork
>>>>is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;
>>>>
>>>>[While eating animals who are grazed rather than
>>>> intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare
>>>> of farmed animals given their current mistreatment,
>>>> Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable
>>>> to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical
>>>> error in using total rather than per capita estimates
>>>> of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number
>>>> of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
>>>> systems and ignores important considerations about
>>>> the welfare of animals under both systems; and third,
>>>> he does not consider the number of animals who are
>>>> prevented from existing under the two systems.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>>collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>>
>>> No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
>>
>>So, playing a game of chess will involve animals existing, will
>>it?
>>
>>
>>>unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
>>>So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
>>>animals do we want to promote life for.
>>
>>No it shouldn't. It's a stupid question.
>
>
> It seems stupid to you, but that's because as I've often
> pointed out: you "ARAs" only care about yourselves and
> promoting veganism, and are not capable of considering
> what the animals get out of it.

No, it's stupid just because it's plainly absurd on its
face. As we have regularly pointed out, YOU only care
about yourself; this laughable "consideration" you
pretend to give to farm animals is a bullshit rationale
on your part. You don't give them any such
consideration. You *CAN'T*, because there is no moral
meaning to them of coming into existence.

Dutch wrote:

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

>>The problem with all these claims is that there is no single "vegan
>>diet"
>>and no single "other diet".

> Excellent observation, you are failing veganism 101.

You are still flailing away at your strawman. Derek, Glorfindel,
and Dave have all specifically *agreed* there is no single
"vegan diet" and no single "other diet."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> But veganism is not a "general rule" proposition, it's a binary "solution".

That is false.

Dutch wrote:

>>Glorfindel wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Having said that, she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
> animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans won't do that, it goes
> against their nature.

No, it goes against the qualification I introduced that when the
parameters are equal, the vegan or scavenger/gatherer diet, will
always cause fewer deaths, less suffering, or less violation of
animals' rights than a diet including hunted or farmed meat.
This is true.

>>>However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
>>>always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
>>>same parameters in each case.

> See?

Yes, see?

>>> An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>>>involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
>>>diet would involve at least some animal deaths.

> What about an very good non-vegan diet including a nominal amount of
> free-range game or fish compared with a less-than-ideal vegan diet?

That is comparing apples and oranges, as I said. You would have
to compare a "very good" vegan/gathering/scavenging diet (which
might well include some amount -- even a fairly large amount --
of scavenged meat or fish) with an *equivalent* diet including
killed meat. The VGS diet would again win easily.


>>The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a scavenger-gatherer
>>diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths than
>>a pure gatherer diet.

> There's no reason to believe that anyone with access to fresh or game cannot
> cause as little or less harm than a person who consumes all commercially
> obtained plant-based foods.

No, there certainly is not -- but that is comparing apples and oranges
again.

>>>As Derek has noted,
>>>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,

>>Impractical but not impossible.

> There is no reason to talk in absolutes except to create false impressions.

Which was what I said below:

>>>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
>>>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
>>>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>>>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>>>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>>>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>>>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,

>>I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
>>to economic resources either.

> We are all economic resources, we are all exploited in many different ways.

But we are not all *reduced* to economic resources *only*. That is
the injustice.

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

>>>It is only by comparing vastly
>>>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
>>>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.

> Same lie. A typical urban vegan diet can plausibly be improved by replacing
> some of the high-impact plant-based foods with fresh caught fish. This is
> not "apples and oranges".

Yes, it is a perfect example of "apples and oranges." A typical urban
diet including factory-farmed meat and battery eggs would be the
equivalent, not an urban vegan diet vs "fresh caught fish". If you
were talking about commercially-caught fish, you would have to consider
the massive deaths involved in by-catch, the collateral deaths involved
in producing the boats, the fuel for them, the nets and other
equipment, the transportation to market, the displacement of animals in
creating highways, factories, supermarkets, and processing and storage
facilities, and so on. Apples and oranges. If you are talking about a
VSG gathered diet vs a diet including "fresh caught fish" caught
one-by-one by an individual and consumed on the spot, the VSG diet
wins again.

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

> Of course it's plausible, I have been a living example in my own life. I
> have relatives now in the north who hunt every autumn to fill the freezer
> with moose or venison for the winter. This food goes a very long way in
> reducing their dependence on imported foodstuffs.

But the *equivalent* diet would be a VSG diet gathered from local
plants and scavenged meat vs one involving hunted meat. Your
example is apples and oranges again.

Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Doug Jones wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>"Derek" > wrote
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
> >> >>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
> >> >>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
> >> >>
> >> >>Veganism
> >> >>
> >> >>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
> >> >>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
> >> >>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
> >> >>> would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
> >> >>> Still, many people (notably utopians)
> >> >>
> >> >>ie vegans
> >> >>
> >> >>> seem to find the idea of
> >> >>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
> >> >>> imagine.
> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
> >> >>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
> >> >>
> >> >>Har har
> >> >
> >> >There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
> >> >against veganism is a fallacy.
> >>
> >> Actually, it isn't.
> >>
> >> However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.
> >> It is not healthier than other diets, it is not more environmentally
> >> friendly, it does not cause fewer deaths, and it not more efficient.
> >
> > The problem with all these claims is that there is no single "vegan
> > diet"
> > and no single "other diet".
>
> Excellent observation, you are failing veganism 101.
>
> >> Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data, of which
> >> the collateral deaths argument is one.
>
> > As a general rule vegan diets compare favourably to other diets in
> > terms
> > of environmental impact and number of deaths caused. When you consume
> > a piece of meat you also indirectly consume the plants that were fed to
> > the animals.
> > "about 21 percent of the world's arable area is used for the production
> > of livestock feed"
> > http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cd...e/x5305e05.htm
>
> But veganism is not a "general rule" proposition, it's a binary "solution".
> It does not refer only to animals that are fed supplementally,

True.

> it refers to
> all animals killed to obtain "products" therefore this argument is a red
> herring.

The statement "vegan diets generally compare favourably to other diets"
is true. The statement "all vegan diets compare favourably to all other
diets"
is false.

Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
> >>always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
> >>same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
> >>involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
> >>diet would involve at least some animal deaths.
>
> > The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a scavenger-gatherer
> > diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths than
> > a pure gatherer diet.
>
> That is completely true. I can see no ethical problem with a diet
> including scavenged meat, gathered unfertilized eggs, and so on.

But technically this is still an omnivore diet.

> >>As Derek has noted,
> >>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
>
> > Impractical but not impossible.
>
> You are probably right -- *very* impractical for most people,
> though.
>
> >
> >>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
> >>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
> >>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
>
> > Not necessarily. Avoiding all animal products will certainly reduce
> > the impact of your diet compared with that of any remotely typical
> > Western omnivore. However it remains plausible that a diet based
> > around the lowest impact plant foods and supplements you can
> > obtain to provide adequate nutrition could be improved by replacing
> > some of these with meat from grass-fed and/or wild animals.
>
> I'd agree if the meat were scavenged, as you said above. However,
> on an animal rights basis, hunting or ranching animals for meat
> would not be acceptable on ethical grounds.

It is understood that shooting hunting or ranching is not compatible
with the priniple of animal rights but what if the products of these
activities accrue fewer animal deaths per calorie of food than
the non-animal foods that represent the real-world alternative?

> >>Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
> >>is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
> >>meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
> >>its death at human hands.
>
> > If predation is a violation of an animals rights then why shouldn't we
> > exterminate predator species?
>
> There are several answers to this given by various writers on
> animal rights.

What do you believe?

> Regan, and those who accept his basic rights-based
> concept, feel that because humans are the only moral agents we
> know, only humans have an obligation to act ethically toward moral
> patients, which include most animals above a certain degree of
> self-awareness.

The only rational reason I can think of for declaring an action (in
this
case predation) unethical is the harm that it does. Now if you accept
that predation is unethical on that basis then it follows that more
predation means more harm and if we predate the foxes then we
decrease the total amount of predation.

> Francione takes a legal-style approach, which
> is reasonable since he is a professor who teaches law. He uses
> the human example that we are obligated not to violate the rights
> of others actively, but we are not legally obligated to aid other
> humans, and the same applies to animals.

Fair enough but not being obligated to exterminate predators is
a long way from being ethically forbidden from doing so.

> What we are obligated to
> do is not to treat animals as property or mere resources. Linzey,
> like C.S. Lewis in an earlier generation, refers to predation as
> "the vampire's dilemma," regards it as a result of the Fall and
> the corrupt state of Creation, and sees no end to it until the
> Second Coming when all creation will be made new. He says that
> "there is no pure land" and we can only change our own behavior
> toward animals.

With all due respect to Linzey this reads like a load of babble.
>
> > We would be violating the rights of
> > these animals
>
> Yes.
>
> > but in doing so we would prevent the rights of many
> > more animals from being violated.
>
> Not according to the rights-based theories, which hold that
> only a moral agent can violate rights, and so that, while
> prey animals would suffer death, their *rights* would not
> be violated, because moral patients cannot hold rights against
> other moral patients.

This is an example of what I like to term "arbitrary ethics" They
are self consistent and superficially reasonable but serve no
obvious practical purpose in terms of making the planet a better
place for those sentient creatures who inhabit it.

> Most pro-animal-rights people simply note that obligate
> carnivores *must* kill, and that when there is
> real necessity, this cannot be a moral issue.
>
> I think the most convincing position, for me, is that of
> Sapontzis in his _Morals, Reason, and Animals_. His
> answer is somewhat like yours below. He says that "humans
> are morally obligated to prevent predation whenever doing
> so would not occasion as much or more suffering than it
> would prevent."

That's more like it.

> This seems very much in tune with a common
> sense approach in the real world. For example, humans are
> obligated to prevent predation by their companion animals,
> to defend animals over whom they have stewardship (animals
> in zoos, domestic flocks and herds, and so on) from
> predation by other animals, and so on. However, exterminating
> wild predators not only causes suffering to them,

Sterilization programmes or even humane culls could, in theory at
least be conducted with none or at least minimal suffering. Naturally
they would also prevent suffering to large numbers of future prey
animals.

> but suffering
> to their prey when the ecosystem in unbalanced, and there is
> no practical way to make it work. We've seen this many time
> in the real world when predators have been removed from an
> ecosystem. However, because we *are* moral agents, and
> because humans are not obligate carnivores, we cannot take
> over the role of predators without violating the rights of
> the prey animals. Recent efforts to reintroduce top predators
> to ecosystems where they have been eliminated, such as the
> wolves in Yellowstone, seem to me to be the best solution.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Although predation may
cause considerable distress to the victims and their companions
it is also an important means of maintaining a healthy balance
within an ecosystem. Thus although we violate the theoretical
rights of prey animals when we take on the role of predator, our
actions do not seem so inexcusable when we consider the
bigger picture.

> > My answer to this is that predators
> > have a useful role to play in the ecosystem, maintaining the balance
> > between vegan animals and their food supply but this then begs the
> > obvious question, why shouldn't man play the role of predator as
> > and when it is in the interests of a given ecosystem for him to do so?
>
> I'd say that ecosystems have no interests -- an ecosystem is not
> conscious. Only individual conscious beings within an ecosystem
> have interests _per se_. However, preserving a healthy, balanced
> ecosystem is usually the best way to foster the interests of the
> conscious members of the ecosystem.

Although it isn't strictly accurate it makes sense to think of the
ecosystem as a single organism whose consciousness is
basically the total consciousness of the individuals within it.

> >>An equivalent diet of gathering need not
> >>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
> >>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
> >>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
> >>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,
>
> > I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
> > to economic resources either.
>
> >>and
> >>again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
> >>the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
> >>most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
> >>rights in "pest control."
>
> > Which is every bit an injustice as killing an animal for food.
>
> Yes, in and of itself. However, the other additional injustices
> involved in farming animals make it, as I see it, worse.

We can remove these injustices from the equation by considering
only wild animals. I realise this leads to an apples and oranges
type of equation but unless you are able to eat "justly" in the real
world then the comparison is still highly relevant.

> An
> animal spending a lifetime in a factory farm surely suffers
> more, and has his natural behaviors frustrated longer and worse, than
> a free animal who lives his own life and pursues his own interests
> up until the time of his death.

Absolutely. the CD argument is absolutely no excuse for the welfare
standards on the factory farm.
>
> > In fact
> > if we ate the victims of 'pest control' then we would need to grow
> > less food and hence cause fewer injustices.
>
> By that logic, a murderer who ate his victim would be less
> culpable than one who did not. I can't see that would be a
> good ethical act in itself.

Only if by eating his victim he would "need" to kill fewer people
in the futu-)

> >>There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
> >>just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
> >>applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
> >>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
> >>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
> >>This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
>
> > What about if it is impractical to eat a sufficient variety of plant
> > foods
> > without consuming at least some that are more harmful to animals
> > than certain obtainable animal foods? Note I am not claiming it
> > to be true but I have not seen it shown to be an implausible scenario
> > either.
>
> If we go back to the scavenger model, that would certainly be true.
>
> We'd have to ask if we are considering "harmful" in a pure
> utilitarian sense, the net balance of suffering for all concerned,

Essentially yes, I think a system of ethics that does not attempt
to justify itself on utilitarian grounds is arbitrary. Pardoxically
I am not saying utilitarianism is the best system because it is
so much harder to follow than systems with clear moral boundaries
and can be used to justify doing just about anything.

> or if we are talking about harm in an at-least-partly rights-based
> sense, in which harm cannot justly be done in violation of a being's
> rights, even if such harm will provide a benefit to others. We
> already generally agree this is unethical in the case of rights-
> bearing beings (e.g. humans).

Do we?

"Derek" > wrote
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:33:23 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Critic)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals still die for their food during crop production.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>"death-free
>>>>>>>>>>>>lifestyle".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
>>>>>>>>>>> to the killing of animals in food production.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What *do* they think is the best solution?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll leave you to ask them that;
>>>>
>>>>Aren't you one?
>>>
>>> Yes, I am.
>>>
>>>>Or at least I thought you were representing their position
>>>
>>> No, I let them represent their own position.
>>>
>>>>YOU answer.
>>>
>>> Veganism.
>>
>>That would tend to prove my point now wouldn't it?
>
> Now that you've switched from 'the perfect solution' to
> 'the best solution', yes, if indeed that was the point you
> were trying to make.

That WAS the question I asked, "At the very least they claim that it is "the
best" solution"

you answered "No".

> As per your usual way of going
> about things, you're trying to get the reader to believe
> that vegans claim their solution (veganism) is the perfect
> solution to the problem of animal deaths associated with
> man's diet rather than the best solution. Look at the first
> line I wrote in the first post of this thread;
>
> "There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
> collateral deaths found in agriculture, ...."

I realize vegans say that to cover their asses, despite that fact is the
attitude of vegans screams out "We have THE solution!"

This is a self-serving fallacy. It's a misstep to say that the killing of
animals in food production is a moral problem in the first place, and
veganism is a grossly inept solution to even this imagined problem.

[..]

>>The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world where
>>collateral
>>deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>
> Ipse dixit and false. Following your logic, the idea that killing
> humans is a moral problem in a World where collateral deaths
> are ubiquitous is specious.

Non-sequitor.

> Now, you may want to quibble
> that human deaths aren't as ubiquitous as animal deaths, but
> your logic doesn't include that.

Yes it does, and it's no quibble.

> In fact, if human collateral
> deaths WERE as ubiquitous as animal deaths, then according
> to your logic, the idea that killing humans is a moral problem
> in a World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

You don't know that and you do not get to base your logic on an imaginary
world. That's just another indication of the faulty logic of veganism.

>>The vegan *invents* a moral issue, then invents a false solution.
>
> If you're now claiming there are no moral issues to be dealt
> with concerning animal deaths, you have no valid criticism
> against the vegan who allegedly causes them.

The killing of animals in the production of food is not a real moral issue.
My criticism of vegans is that they select some of the animals which are
killed, imagine that those pose a moral dilemma, then project that imagined
moral dilemma on me.

>>>>Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
>>>>suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it.
>
> See? Despite my opening line in this thread;

Yes, despite vegan lip service to the contrary, they behave as if they have
discovered "The Solution".


[..]

>>Paying lip service to collateral deaths is not nearly good enough the
>>revelation demands that you take account of it in your moral calculations.
>
> No one but your straw man vegan pays lip service to the
> collateral deaths in crop production.

It's more accurate to say that veganism does not even do that. 99.9% of all
vegans are totally oblivious, and those like you who are compelled to
address the issue, do nothing but make lame excuses.

>>> You're screwed. All the antis are screwed, and it's your
>>> own fault because you've hinged everything on the
>>> collateral deaths argument and now been shown that it's
>>> nothing more than a common little false dilemma.
>>
>>Veganism is a non-solution to a non-extistent problem.
>
> I disagree on both counts. Veganism is the best solution
> to by-catch;

Sustainable, non-destructive fishing is an equally good solution.

<snip excessive copy/paste>

>>> Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
>>> addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
>>> simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
>>> implementation?
>>
>>Pretty much, yes. Law enforcement is the wrong approach to drug addiction.
>
> So you would disband the drug squad and any solution to
> drug addiction on the basis that drug addicts would still
> exist after that solution's implementation. Priceless!

The question was do I reject "drug squads" as a solution to drug addiction,
the answer is yes. The fact that they don't work is one good reason. I have
served on drug squads, they are absurd. This is a good analogy. Society has
taken drug addiction, a health issue, and artifically made it into a "Crime
Problem", just as vegans have taken the issue of animal deaths and made it
into a "Moral Dilemma". Humans have a propensity for creating problems where
they don't exist.


>>> Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
>>> decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
>>> simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
>>> implementation?
>>
>>Tooth decay does not occur if oral hygiene is properly followed.
>
> Oral hygiene is followed by the majority of us to a fairly
> high degree,

I doubt that very much.

> yet that majority still suffers from tooth
> decay.

The you don't follow proper oral hygiene.

Do you reject oral hygiene as a solution to tooth
> decay on that basis?

Tooth decay is a real problem, the killing of animals in obtaining food is
an imaginary one.

[..]

>>Absolutely, because the death of animals in agriculture is NOT a real
>>moral
>>problem to begin with
>
> Then you have no argument against the vegan who allegedly
> causes them.

My argument is with the vegan is not that he kills animals per se, it is
that he concocts this imaginary moral problem which he systematically
violates, then sanctimoniously presumes to characterize MY lifestyle with
his grotesque rhetoric.

>> AND veganism does not solve it anyway.
>
> Nevertheless, it's a solution which I find to be the best.

Good for you, now mind your own business.

>>> As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
>>> proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
>>> is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
>>> can think of as well.
>>
>>Veganism must be rejected utterly because it creates a false dilemma
>
> Only your straw man vegan's veganism does that.

No, all veganism proposes this false dilemma.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:48:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]

>>I reject the vegan premise that the killing of animals in agriculture is
>>a Moral Dilemma.
>
> You're now trying to move the goalposts from your original
> rejection;

I'm not moving any goalposts, both are true. The original dilemma is false,
and so is the so-called solution.

[..]

> There's nothing absurd about finding the collateral deaths in
> agriculture morally wrong.

I think it is absurd per se.

> If you don't find anything morally
> wrong with it, then you have no valid criticism for those that
> do, and you certainly can't reject veganism on those grounds.

My view is that killing animals to obtain food is natural, normal, and not a
real moral dilemma. Since veganism pretends that it is, I therefore reject
it.

>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>>
>>Irrelevant when the moral problem is imaginary.
>
> If you think the problem is imaginary and irrelevant, you have
> no criticism against the vegans who don't, and your lack of
> concern takes nothing away from the vegan's position on
> them.

Except that they are living according to a rule that doesn't solve an
imaginary problem...

>
>>Animal death is ubiquitous and unavoidable.
>
> Then you cannot reject veganism as a solution if they are
> unavoidable, because doing so invokes the same fallacy
> you've been invoking for years.

I am rejecting the problem AND the solution.

>>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>>> would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
>>> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
>>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
>>> imagine.
>>
>>Veganism is a false solution to an imaginary moral problem.
>
> Ispe dixit and false, on both counts.

Right on both counts.

>>> Examples:
>>> (critic)
>>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
>>> able to get through!
>>
>>Terrorism is a real problem, killing of animals in agriculture is not.
>
> The aim of that example wasn't to compare terrorism with
> collateral deaths, it's aim is to demonstrate the fallacy you use
> when rejecting veganism. You can't reject the "terrorist safety
> net" as a bad solution simply because terrorist will still be able
> to get through in a World where terrorism is rife, and, likewise,
> you cannot reject veganism as a bad solution simply because
> animal deaths will still occur in a world where animal deaths
> are rife.

All futile efforts to solve imaginary problems should be abandoned as a
waste of time.

>>> (Rejoinder)
>>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
>>> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
>>> (critic)
>>
>>Veganism from a categorical standpoint does not even necessarily reduce
>>the
>>number of animal deaths.
>
> Nevertheless, even if your ipse dixit were true,

Which it is..

> you cannot
> reject veganism as a solution on the basis that animal deaths
> still occur after its implementation. Doing so invokes the perfect
> solution fallacy.

That is not the foundation of the collateral deaths argument. The revelation
of Collateral Deaths intoduces the real possibility that rather than
*solving* this alleged "problem", abstaining unconditionally from animal
products may exacerbate it. Under those conditions, and they are many, it is
very reasonable to consume animal products, *even considering* your alleged
moral issue. So despite the obvious attraction of this animal product
"tee-totalling" to some people, it must be rejected as a universal solution
to this alleged problem. Then add to that the fact that we don't accept that
killing animals per se is a problem in the first place and you understand my
rejection of veganism.

Nonetheless, you have a GREAT Xmas old chop, and don't choke on your
Tofurkey ;^]



<<snip more of the same>>

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>>Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Having said that, she will not entertain any comparison of
>> diets wrt to animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins,
>> vegans won't do that, it goes against their nature.
>
> No, it goes against the qualification I introduced that when
> the
> parameters are equal, the vegan or scavenger/gatherer diet,
> will
> always cause fewer deaths, less suffering, or less violation of
> animals' rights than a diet including hunted or farmed meat.
> This is true.
========================
And yet you, like twits, cannot address a real-world diet, can
you? One that is conveninet and easily available.
You, like all usenet vegans eat commercially grown veggies
without once considering the death and suffering behind each one.
Why is that? The only reason is your simple rule for your simple
mind, 'eat no meat.' Regardless of the cost to animals. It's
very easy to show that a modern, convenince oriented diet of all
veggies can be improved, wrt animal deaths, with the substitution
of some meats that are as equally convenient and available.


>
>>>>However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet
>>>>will
>>>>always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given
>>>>the
>>>>same parameters in each case.
>
>> See?
>
> Yes, see?
===================
No, it's a strawman, easily tossed aside.


>
>>>> An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>>>>involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal*
>>>>omnivore
>>>>diet would involve at least some animal deaths.
>
>> What about an very good non-vegan diet including a nominal
>> amount of free-range game or fish compared with a
>> less-than-ideal vegan diet?
>
> That is comparing apples and oranges, as I said.
================================
No, it is not, it's just another fairy-tale diet.


You would have
> to compare a "very good" vegan/gathering/scavenging diet (which
> might well include some amount -- even a fairly large amount --
> of scavenged meat or fish) with an *equivalent* diet including
> killed meat. The VGS diet would again win easily.

>
>
>>>The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a
>>>scavenger-gatherer
>>>diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths
>>>than
>>>a pure gatherer diet.
>
>> There's no reason to believe that anyone with access to fresh
>> or game cannot cause as little or less harm than a person who
>> consumes all commercially obtained plant-based foods.
>
> No, there certainly is not -- but that is comparing apples and
> oranges
> again.
===========================
Again, no it is not. It is talking about items that are both
readily available and convenient.
Tell us how much comparisons you have done between veggies.
Which ones do you avoid because of their greater impact on
animals/environment? Any?


>
>>>>As Derek has noted,
>>>>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real
>>>>world,
>
>>>Impractical but not impossible.
>
>> There is no reason to talk in absolutes except to create false
>> impressions.
>
> Which was what I said below:
>
>>>>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the
>>>>real
>>>>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical
>>>>concept, and
>>>>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>>>>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at
>>>>all.
>>>>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals'
>>>>rights
>>>>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and
>>>>raising
>>>>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,
>
>>>I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
>>>to economic resources either.
>
>> We are all economic resources, we are all exploited in many
>> different ways.
>
> But we are not all *reduced* to economic resources *only*.
> That is
> the injustice.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>It is only by comparing vastly
>>>>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any
>>>>diet
>>>>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian
>>>>basis.
>
>> Same lie. A typical urban vegan diet can plausibly be improved
>> by replacing some of the high-impact plant-based foods with
>> fresh caught fish. This is not "apples and oranges".
>
> Yes, it is a perfect example of "apples and oranges."
==========================
Again, no it is not. Both are readily available items.

A typical urban
> diet including factory-farmed meat and battery eggs would be
> the
> equivalent, not an urban vegan diet vs "fresh caught fish".
===============================
No fool. The types of meat represented by fish are easily
available to any urban clueless loon like you.

If you
> were talking about commercially-caught fish, you would have to
> consider
> the massive deaths involved in by-catch, the collateral deaths
> involved
> in producing the boats, the fuel for them, the nets and other
> equipment, the transportation to market, the displacement of
> animals in
> creating highways, factories, supermarkets, and processing and
> storage
> facilities, and so on. Apples and oranges. If you are talking
> about a VSG gathered diet vs a diet including "fresh caught
> fish" caught
> one-by-one by an individual and consumed on the spot, the VSG
> diet
> wins again.
====================
No, because you have now resorted to your fairy-tale diet again,
not one that is reasonable or readily available.


>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> Of course it's plausible, I have been a living example in my
>> own life. I have relatives now in the north who hunt every
>> autumn to fill the freezer with moose or venison for the
>> winter. This food goes a very long way in reducing their
>> dependence on imported foodstuffs.
>
> But the *equivalent* diet would be a VSG diet gathered from
> local
> plants and scavenged meat vs one involving hunted meat. Your
> example is apples and oranges again.
=====================
Again, no it is not.

Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote
> >
> > Glorfindel wrote:
> >> Derek wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >> > There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
> >> > against veganism is a fallacy.
> >>
> >> Glorfindel wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
> >>
> >> Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
> >> involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
> >> animals for food *certainly* do, and always will. The question of
> >> which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
> >> basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
> >
> > Absolutely!
>
> Having said that, she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
> animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans won't do that, it goes
> against their nature.
>
> >> However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
> >> always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
> >> same parameters in each case.
>
> See?
>
> >> An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
> >> involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
> >> diet would involve at least some animal deaths.
>
> What about an very good non-vegan diet including a nominal amount of
> free-range game or fish compared with a less-than-ideal vegan diet?
>
> > The ideal omnivore diet in this context would be a scavenger-gatherer
> > diet. There is no reason why this need cause any more deaths than
> > a pure gatherer diet.
>
> There's no reason to believe that anyone with access to fresh or game cannot
> cause as little or less harm than a person who consumes all commercially
> obtained plant-based foods.
>
> >> As Derek has noted,
> >> the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
> >
> > Impractical but not impossible.
>
> There is no reason to talk in absolutes except to create false impressions.
>
> >> so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
> >> world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
> >> in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Avoiding all animal products will certainly reduce
> > the impact of your diet compared with that of any remotely typical
> > Western omnivore. However it remains plausible that a diet based
> > around the lowest impact plant foods and supplements you can
> > obtain to provide adequate nutrition could be improved by replacing
> > some of these with meat from grass-fed and/or wild animals.
>
> That's the idea, except that I would not replace the lowest impact plant
> foods if I wanted to reduce animal harm, I would focus on high-impact foods
> like imported fruit, rice and grain products.

I see I have been misunderstood. If you wish to show that following the
LHP within the constraints of what you consider "practical" then it is
not enough to show that replacing imported fruit, rice and grain
products
with flesh from local grass-fed and/or wild animals will lead to
reduced
harm if they can instead be replaced by locally grown, organic,
minimally
packaged fruit, rice and grain products. You would need to show that
your omnivorous LHP diet compares favourably with a vegan LHP diet.
>
> >> Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
> >> is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
> >> meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
> >> its death at human hands.
> >
> > If predation is a violation of an animals rights then why shouldn't we
> > exterminate predator species? We would be violating the rights of
> > these animals but in doing so we would prevent the rights of many
> > more animals from being violated. My answer to this is that predators
> > have a useful role to play in the ecosystem, maintaining the balance
> > between vegan animals and their food supply but this then begs the
> > obvious question, why shouldn't man play the role of predator as
> > and when it is in the interests of a given ecosystem for him to do so?
>
> This is another indicator of what I said previously about the absurdity of
> extrapolating human moral ideals to animals.
>
> >
> >> An equivalent diet of gathering need not
> >> involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
> >> If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
> >> are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
> >> them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property,
> >
> > I am not comfortable with the idea of animals being reduced
> > to economic resources either.
>
> We are all economic resources, we are all exploited in many different ways.

In a way this is true but we still treat each other as sentient beings
first and
economic resources second. Where animals are concerned it often
seems the other way round.

> Are we all killed? No, but now we're back to square one and the "Perfect
> Solution Fallacy".
> Rational speciesim recognizes that the killing of animals
> is a phantom moral dilemma, and veganism is a false solution to it.

What is "Rational speciesim"?

> >> and
> >> again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
> >> the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
> >> most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
> >> rights in "pest control."
> >
> > Which is every bit an injustice as killing an animal for food. In fact
> > if we ate the victims of 'pest control' then we would need to grow
> > less food and hence cause fewer injustices.
>
> Excellent point in theory, except that in reality they're usually poisoned.

Posioning is not the only method of pest control. It is usually the
most
economic but if we were prepared to eat pests then maybe that would
change. I must admit that for reasons I can't quite put my finger on
I find the idea of eating rats or mice quite repulsive. Pet food maybe?


> Too bad birds and other scavengers don't know that.
>
> >> There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
> >> just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
> >> applied to any individual example.
>
> This is a lie.
>
> >> It is only by comparing vastly
> >> different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
> >> including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
>
> Same lie. A typical urban vegan diet can plausibly be improved by replacing
> some of the high-impact plant-based foods with fresh caught fish. This is
> not "apples and oranges".

Irrelevant to the question "does following the LHP require one to be
vegan?"
>
> >> This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
>
> And lying isn't?
>
> > What about if it is impractical to eat a sufficient variety of plant
> > foods
> > without consuming at least some that are more harmful to animals
> > than certain obtainable animal foods? Note I am not claiming it
> > to be true but I have not seen it shown to be an implausible scenario
> > either.
>
> Of course it's plausible, I have been a living example in my own life. I
> have relatives now in the north who hunt every autumn to fill the freezer
> with moose or venison for the winter. This food goes a very long way in
> reducing their dependence on imported foodstuffs.

I'm sure it does. The relevant question is whether there nutritonal
needs could
be met by replacing the moose and venison with alternatives that cause
less harm?

> [..]

Derek wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >
> >> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
> >> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
> >> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
> >> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
> >>
> >> (Critic)
> >> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
> >> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
> >> still die for their food during crop production.
> >>
> >> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
> >> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
> >> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
> >> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
> >> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
> >> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
> >> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
> >> implemented.
> >
> >There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
> >appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
> >be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
> >like this:
> >
> >(Critic)
> >Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
> >cause any animals to die. This justification is false. Therefore
> >veganism
> >can not be logically justified.
> >
> >The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
> >Therefore
> >B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?
>
> It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent, or something close
> to it because your minor premise states that A (apparently the
> antecedent) is false.

Thank you.

> It's a straw man too because it presumes
> vegans make the claim that abstaining from meat means their
> diet has no association with animals deaths.

Unfortunately it is not a straw man. I have seen this naive view
expressed by some vegans.

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:26:54 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>
> >On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
> >>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
> >>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
> >>> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
> >>>
> >>> (Critic)
> >>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
> >>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
> >>> still die for their food during crop production.
> >>>
> >>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
> >>> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
> >>> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
> >>> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
> >>> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
> >>> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
> >>> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
> >>> implemented.
> >>
> >>There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
> >>appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
> >>be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
> >>like this:
> >>
> >>(Critic)
> >>Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
> >>cause any animals to die. This justification is false. Therefore
> >>veganism
> >>can not be logically justified.
> >>
> >>The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
> >>Therefore
> >>B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?
> >
> >It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent, or something close
> >to it because your minor premise states that A (apparently the
> >antecedent) is false. It's a straw man too because it presumes
> >vegans make the claim that abstaining from meat means their
> >diet has no association with animals deaths.
>
> I've heard other lies from veg*ns too. Amusingly, I've more
> than once seen people estimate how many chickens, pigs,
> cows etc they've "saved" by being veg*n. It's really disgusting,
> since veg*nism does absolutely NOTHING to help any animals
> raised for food, much less does it save any.

Considering the conditions some farm animals are kept
in this statement is false. Veganism saves animals from
all manner of abuses, imprisonment in barren, crowded
cages being the most obvious. Of course any non-vegan
diet that also excludes animals raised under unsatisfactory
welfare conditions can make the same claims.

> People can't save
> animals with their diet. They CAN contribute to decent lives for
> food animals with their diet, but NOT by being veg*n, so you
> couldn't care about anything like that.

*yawn* The reason farming causes farm animals to live is
(effectively) because it causes animals to be farmed not
because it causes them to live. There is a good reason why
no one except you seems to care!

> So back to the disgusting
> veg*n/"AR" lying which you like much better than anything to
> do with providing decent lives for livestock: savour the veg*n
> "pride" you're entitled to feel as you read the lies one of your
> "AR" representatives tells to deform children's view of reality:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Here you come to save the day!
> [...]
> And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
> their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
> make milk for their babies, not for people!
> [...]
> Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
> be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
> your life cheese-free!
>
> http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE CHICKENS?
>
> Life for chickens on factory farms is awful!
> Chickens can feel things just as dogs and
> cats do. Please help animals and stay healthy
> by becoming a vegetarian! Call or write to
> PETA for free recipes.
>
> [...]
>
> HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE PIGS?
>
> Pigs value their lives just as much as you
> and I value ours. So please don't eat them!
> Call or write to PETA for free animal-
> friendly, vegetarian recipes.
>
> http://www.peta-online.org/pdfs/Lchickid.pdf
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

dh@. wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Derek wrote:
> >> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
> >> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
> >> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
> >> when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
> >>
> >> (Critic)
> >> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
> >> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
> >> still die for their food during crop production.
> >>
> >> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
> >> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
> >> for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
> >> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
> >> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
> >> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
> >> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
> >> implemented.
> >
> >There is a related fallicious argument that I have seen people
> >appear to invoke including in this thread although I will probably
> >be accused of attacking a straw man. In any event it goes something
> >like this:
> >
> >(Critic)
> >Vegans claim that abstaining from meat means their diet does not
> >cause any animals to die. This justification is false.
>
> No doubt. They contribute to animal deaths with their diet,
> use of roads and building, electricity, paper and wood, etc
> like everyone else does. ALL they appear to avoid trying to
> contribute to is life and death for livestock.
>
> >Therefore
> >veganism
> >can not be logically justified.
> >
> >The fallacy is of the type: A is used to justify B. A is false.
> >Therefore
> >B is not justified. Do you know the official title of this fallacy?
>
> Surely it's classified as some form of bullshit, like most
> "AR" fantasy. LOL. Do you know the one about the kid
> who killed and ate his parents? He then bitched about
> being an orphan. That's a Goo/Dutch fantasy they equate
> to raising animals for food. Human child sex slavery is
> another, and Dutch claims to have developed that
> comparison from his own experience(s) with farm animals.
> Maybe you can spot the idiocy in their "AR" drenched
> fantasies, but then again maybe you can't...they can't...
>
> Hey, maybe you can help them. We've been trying to
> figure out which type wildlife we should put in place of
> livestock and why,
> and so far about the best we have is
> a short list from Coproph Boy (Dutch) which consists of:
> mice, frogs and groundhogs.

Maybe if you asked a question that actually has some sort
of relevance you might get more of a response.

Unless it would be paved
> or used for crops as I'm convinced it would, the land would
> probably provide life for some types of animals. What type
> animals do YOU want it to support INSTEAD OF livestock,
> and why? If/when you can't answer the question, you
> might finally consider that it would be just about as good
> to provide the livestock with decent lives as it would to
> instead provide life for wildlife that you don't care enough
> about to even know what kind(s) you're trying to talk about.

*yawn*. We are not the ones trying to determine which
animals come into existence in the future. You are.

> Because so far it certainly appears that's the way it is in
> some cases. Even if you do manage to explain a few wild
> animals you'd want to promote life for, like mice, then we
> (those of us who think it through) would also have to wonder
> why it wouldn't be just as well to raise some other form of
> livestock than your mice...it just keeps on and on... But
> hate it though you do, it ALWAYS comes down to which
> animals we're going to promote life for and which ones
> we're not.

No. That is most definately not the issue. The issue is whether
we should rear, milk and kill some of those animals.

> That's just the way it is, so I'm still suprised that
> even the honest "ARAs" can hate a fact so much, and
> can not believe that true "AR" opponents hate it, since
> there's no reason why any of us should.

I have no doubt that you are sincere about your inability to
comprehend.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:48:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Glorfindel" > wrote
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world where
>>>> collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>>>
>>> No, of course not. You could just as well claim that the idea that
>>> killing *humans* is a moral problem in a world where human deaths,
>>> collateral, accidental, and intentional, are ubiquitous is specious.
>>
>>Human deaths by acts of man are not ubiquitous at all
>
> But if they were,

But they aren't, therefore the logic does not apply.

> according to your logic, the idea that
> killing humans is a moral problem in a World where their
> deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>
>>> The scale may be different in *some* areas -- although not all --
>>> for humans.
>>
>>Taking animals as a group, the scale of killing of animals vs humans is
>>not
>>comparable at all.
>
> By that logic, taking Jews as a group, the scale of killing Jews
> vs non-Jews during the time when they were being murdered
> by Germans is not comparable at all,

Yes it was comparable, millions of Russians were killed, Allies and others
as well.

> and so the killing of Jews
> is permissible.

I invoke Godwin, you lose.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:27:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as other
>>animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all.
>
> No, you've completely misunderstood the principle. It states that
> one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

And the minimum assumptions needed about the moral implications of killing
animals to obtain food is none.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:11:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>>> No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
>>> unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
>>
>>Shut up ****wit, nobody gives a shit about your stupic illogic.
>
> If you think it's illogic Coproph, then explain WHY we should
> never consider the lives of livestock or wildlife.

Because the lives of livestock or wildlife per se do not present a real
moral issue. ARAs say that the lives of animals present a moral issue,
legitimate critics of AR say that this is a false issue. You accept their
premise then proceed to make it worse.

>>> So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
>>>animals do we want to promote life for. If you feel it's
>>>none, then explain why. If you feel we should promote
>>>life for some and not for others, explain that. You, Dutch
>>>and Goo all agree that we should provide lives for wildlife
>>>INSTEAD OF lives for wildlife AND livestock, but none
>>>of you can explain WHICH wildlife, and/or WHY.
>>
>>No it should never be asked.
>
> Why should we never consider any animals when we think
> about human influence on animals?

That depends on what you mean by "consider". If you are implying invoking
the Logic of the Larder, then the reason is as I stated above.

"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>The problem with all these claims is that there is no single "vegan
>>>diet"
>>>and no single "other diet".
>
>> Excellent observation, you are failing veganism 101.
>
> You are still flailing away at your strawman. Derek, Glorfindel,
> and Dave have all specifically *agreed* there is no single
> "vegan diet" and no single "other diet."

Vegans consistently claim that following a vegan diet greatly reduces or
eliminates death and suffering of animals, that a vegan diet is always
"better" in this respect. This notion is so easily foiled that it is
laughable. Necessarily implicit in all claims of this sort is the false
notion that all vegan diets and all non-vegan diets must be alike.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> But veganism is not a "general rule" proposition, it's a binary
>> "solution".
>
> That is false.

Veganism means the elimination of the consumption of "animal products".
That is not just a "general rule" for vegans by any coherent meaning of the
term.

"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>>Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Having said that, she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
>> animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans won't do that, it
>> goes against their nature.
>
> No, it goes against the qualification I introduced that when the
> parameters are equal, the vegan or scavenger/gatherer diet, will
> always cause fewer deaths, less suffering, or less violation of
> animals' rights than a diet including hunted or farmed meat.
> This is true.

This is not some sport where good players are only matched against players
of comparable strength, we are talking about life, where people are
simultaneously confronted by sources and types of food and possible
combinations thereof. Therefore it is grossly disingenuous and dishonest to
say that you cannot compare fresh-caught fish or game to factory-farmed or
imported fruit and vegetables when in life people *are* presented with those
very choices. *I* cannot refuse to compare factory-farmed beef against
hand-raised vegetables, those are two foods that are possible choices for
me, and I must compare them on that basis, not refuse on some artifical
idealogical restriction, or because I don't like the result.

>>>>However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
>>>>always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
>>>>same parameters in each case.
>
>> See?
>
> Yes, see?

Oh yes.

>>>> An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>>>>involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
>>>>diet would involve at least some animal deaths.
>
>> What about an very good non-vegan diet including a nominal amount of
>> free-range game or fish compared with a less-than-ideal vegan diet?
>
> That is comparing apples and oranges, as I said.

And what exactly is wrong with comparing apples and oranges? If they are
both foods, we *must* compare them.

This is an argument worthy of Scented Nectar, not you.

<<snip more of the same>>