"Dave" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:

>> 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.

Bingo. If vegans simply toned down their claims to make them more
supportable they would be on to something.

But what fun would that be? The way it is now vegans get to have a pretty
darn good diet AND get to feel like martyrs all on the same dime.

Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote

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

>>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.

Strawmanvegan Rides Again. What I have said is that *given the
same parameters* a Vegan/scavenging/gathering (than you, Dave)
diet will be better than an *equivalent* diet involving animals
intentionally killed for food.

> 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.

No, it's not.

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

Dutch 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.

Glorfindel wrote:

>>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,

But if the comparison is to be meaningful, we must discuss on that
basis.

> 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.

Oh, you can compare them, but you can equally compare fruits and
vegetables raised in small-scale (perhaps backyard) organic
gardens with minimal, non-toxic pest control, and harvested by
hand, with factory-farmed battery chicken eggs. Both are
choices available to consumers. The comparison would be of
limited value, however.

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

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.

Yes, true. I am more concerned with the spirit than the letter
here. Scavenging meat, gathering unfertilized eggs, etc.,
would not violate animal rights or animal welfare, so I see
no ethical issue.

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


>>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?

Because I do accept the idea of animal rights, I would not
generally agree that the rights of individual animals can be
sacrificed in a purely utilitarian calculation. There would
have to be consideration of other factors also, such as how
the animals were treated before their deaths, whether the
methods of producing non-animal products could be improved,
and so on. A simple one-to-one comparison of number of deaths
might not be the best way of making an ethical choice in every
case.

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

> The only rational reason I can think of for declaring an action (in
> this
> case predation) unethical is the harm that it does.

Harm can have many meanings; I think you would have to define
your term.

> Now if you accept
> that predation is unethical on that basis

I don't believe predation is *unethical* except when it is
carried out by moral agents. There is a difference between
an act which is harmful and an act which is unethical. Most
unethical acts will cause harm of some kind, but the reverse
is not necessarily true.

> then it follows that more
> predation means more harm and if we predate the foxes then we
> decrease the total amount of predation.

But not necessarily the total amount of harm, especially if
the prey population then increases to levels the ecosystem
cannot support well.

>>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.

Agreed. I don't find Francione convincing here.

>>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.

I think it does make sense, but only in a specifically theological
context.

>>>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.

I think you have to consider such questions as soon as you
introduce the concept of rights at all. You don't *need*
to involve a concept of rights. You can go with a purely
utilitarian ethic. That can present problems of its own,
however. Singer's support for infanticide has been
criticized on that basis.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 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.

It is not quite that easy. There is the ethical issue if one
believes in animal rights, but there are also a variety of
practical issues involved in humans trying to artificially
reproduce a natural predator/prey system. Most predation
by humans would be by sport or subsistence hunters, and they
( especially sport hunters )often do not remove the same animals
other animal predators would. Culls by biologists might be
closer to natural predation, but would still be artificial and
couldn't include *all* the subtle factors involved in
animal/animal prey/predator interactions. We don't -- possibly
can't -- understand the natural systems well enough to
reproduce them exactly, and that can have drastic results.

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

>>>>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.

It is relevant, but it is indeed "apples and oranges," because
large-scale pest control only applies to large-scale farming
of vegetables. The artificial quantity of food in a limited
area is what brings the "pest" animals in large numbers, so
in a sense, humans "farm" "pests" just as much as they farm
domestic animals. The only really wild animals would be those
humans ran into in your scavenging/gathering or a hunting/gathering
lifestyle.

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

>>>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-)

Or fewer other animals. Given a rigorous animal rights approach,
a human who ate his human victim would need less other food, and
so would cause fewer direct deaths of animals slaughtered for meat,
or indirect collateral deaths. (This is probably an excessively
theoretical discussion ).

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

>>>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.

I think utilitarian results have to be part of the calculation,
but only part.

> 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?

Well, society in general does, I would say. We generally agree
things like human slavery or medical testing on unwilling subjects
are unethical even if they would benefit other humans, for
example. Some do disagree, but the consensus is quite strong
that some things cannot ethically be done to rights-bearing
beings no matter the benefit to others. That is, in effect,
the very definition of a right.

"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch 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.
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
>>>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,
>
> But if the comparison is to be meaningful, we must discuss on that
> basis.

On the contrary, for it to be meaningful we must NOT impose arbitrary rules
when comparing foods. There ARE no *rules* about comparing or choosing foods
in day to day life, the foods are available and you choose them or not,
period. Limiting how you compare foods creates an unrealistic artificial
"playing field" that makes the whole exercise a game rather than a genuine
objective comparison.

>> 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.
>
> Oh, you can compare them, but you can equally compare fruits and
> vegetables raised in small-scale (perhaps backyard) organic
> gardens with minimal, non-toxic pest control, and harvested by
> hand, with factory-farmed battery chicken eggs. Both are
> choices available to consumers.

Absolutely you can compare those foods. If you are going to attempt to
compare foods you can and should compare ALL foods that are available to
you.

> The comparison would be of
> limited value, however.

Limited value to whom? The only comparison that lacks merit is the
artifically controlled comparison you are suggesting. Imagine going into a
market looking for the best possible foods and being told that the foods in
Aisle One cannot be compared to the foods in Aisle Six due to some arbitrary
"Comparison Restriction" imposed by the store. Would a consumer find that
reasonable?

Anyway, have a really good Tofurkey Holiday..

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:16:51 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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

The logic you used applies whether they are or not; it stands
on its own. According to it, it would be permissible to kill
humans if human collateral deaths in agriculture were
ubiquitous.

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

As`we can plainly see, the logic behind your principle that
allows you to kill animals for food is false.

>>>> 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.

Then, taking Germany's victims of ethnic cleansing as a group, the
scale of killing them vs non-victims during that time when they
were being murdered is not comparable at all, and so the killing
of Jews, Russians and gypsies was permissible.

>> and so the killing of Jews
>> is permissible.
>
>I invoke Godwin, you lose.

Desperately trying to escape the foolishness of your remarks by
hiding a disputed Usenet rule is pathetic and doesn't get you
off the hook.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:16:51 GMT, "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
>
> The logic you used applies whether they are or not; it stands
> on its own. According to it, it would be permissible to kill
> humans if human collateral deaths in agriculture were
> ubiquitous.

This isn't an exercise in high school logic, it's reality. Animals not only
exist in numbers many orders of magnitude greater than humans, animals are
frankly "worth-less" than humans. For the first part, *if* indeed through
some doomsday scenario humans were as numerous as the rest of the animal
kingdom, in such a world I figure that it probably *would* be quite all
right to kill them, in fact we would likely all have bountys on our heads
because the world could not support us all. And as for the second part, the
only sensible worldview is one of "rational speciesism", to pretend that
animals deserve the same consideration as humans is right daft. You people
who pretend to believe so need your heads examined.

>>> according to your logic, the idea that
>>> killing humans is a moral problem in a World where their
>>> deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>
> As`we can plainly see, the logic behind your principle that
> allows you to kill animals for food is false.

It's not false at all, it's dead right, and it does not *allow* me to kill
animals for food, it is merely an attempt to re-introduce your brain to a
little of the common sense you have abandoned.

>>>>> 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.
>
> Then, taking Germany's victims of ethnic cleansing as a group, the
> scale of killing them vs non-victims during that time when they
> were being murdered is not comparable at all, and so the killing
> of Jews, Russians and gypsies was permissible.

You're WRONG. The scale in numbers of humans killed in various ways, by
ethnic cleansing, in battle, by starvation, were all comparable within
similiar orders of magnitude, hundreds of thousands and millions.

>>> and so the killing of Jews
>>> is permissible.
>>
>>I invoke Godwin, you lose.
>
> Desperately trying to escape the foolishness of your remarks by
> hiding a disputed Usenet rule is pathetic and doesn't get you
> off the hook.

I'm not on any hook, ****ant.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:51:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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".

That's a lie, as I'll show. Go back up this thread and see
where I answered, and you will see that in response to
your comment;

"At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"

I wrote;

"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."

As we can see, you removed everything after the "No,",
and that "No" pertained to your making claims on behalf
of all vegans, not to the comment;

"At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"

as you're now insisting it does. You just can't help yourself,
can you? You lie and twist, thrash straw men, and cut your
opponent's sentences down to misrepresent their answers,
and just about anything you can think of instead of making
an effort to deal with the real thing. You're a joke.

>> 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

Then you cannot keep lying by claiming they don't. You're
a stupid joke and a liar.

>>>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.

Learn to spell these terms correctly if you're going to try
using them, and make sure they apply, because in this
case, as always, you've misused 'non sequitur because
my comment DOES follow from yours. If;

"The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world
where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious."

then it logically follows that;

"The idea that killing humans is a moral problem in a world
where human collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious."

You're an idiot, and you've misused the term 'non sequitur.'

>> 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

No, it doesn't include it anywhere. You're lying again.

>> 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

Logic demands it, so everyone knows that.

>>>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.

Then you have no criticism against the vegan who allegedly
causes them if killing them 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.

Your straw man vegan probably does, but you've no evidence
to assert real vegans do. Once again, instead of trying to deal
with the real vegan you can only attack your straw man vegan
instead in the hope of declaring a defeat over the true vegan's
position, and that's why you're such a joke; you refuse to deal
with the real thing. Your criticisms certainly don't pertain to me
or any vegans I know of, so you're wasting your time if you
think they're worth objecting to or defending against.

>>>>>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.
>
>Yes

Then it's plainly clear that you're lying about the vegan's true
position again, even after being shown repeatedly where
you've lied. You're a joke, not a critic of any worth worth
defending against.

>>>> 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.

Nonsense; abstaining from fish is always the BEST solution
to bycatch.

><snip excessive copy/paste>

You just HAD to snip away the evidence of YOUR collateral
deaths, didn't you? And why would that be, I wonder. Pah!

<restored evidence of the meat eater's collateral deaths>

[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.
<end restore>

Pathetic dodge, but not unexpected.

>>>> 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.

No, the question was;

"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?"

and you answered;

"Pretty much, yes."

It's right in this post, you pathetic liar.

>>>> 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.

I don't care that you doubt it; your doubt is irrelevant. What
DOES matter here is that oral hygiene is practiced by the
majority of people who still suffer tooth decay. That being
so;

"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?

Try to answer the question instead of dodging it with your
opinion on whether people practice oral hygiene to a high
degree.

>> 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.

The aim of that example wasn't to compare tooth decay with
collateral deaths, it's aim is to demonstrate the fallacy you use
when rejecting veganism. You can't reject "oral hygiene" as a
bad solution simply because people still suffer tooth decay, 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.

>>>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.

Your straw man vegan probably does those things, but not
the real vegan. Once again, instead of dealing with the real
thing you thwack away at your straw man in the hope that
once you've knocked it down you can then declare a victory
over the true vegan's position. You're a bad joke.

>>> 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.

It's my business to tell you that vegans have no association
with the massive collateral deaths found in fishing, farmed
meat, or the target animals eaten by corpse eaters. Retain
that information and stop lying by claiming veganism does
nothing to reduce animal deaths in food production.

> >>> 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.

I don't, and I don't know of any others that do, so when you
say that all vegans pose this alleged false dilemma you're
clearly lying and hardly worth trying to defend against as
a real critic.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:41:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:16:51 GMT, "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
>>
>> The logic you used applies whether they are or not; it stands
>> on its own. According to it, it would be permissible to kill
>> humans if human collateral deaths in agriculture were
>> ubiquitous.
>
>This isn't an exercise in high school logic, it's reality.

And the reality of your false thinking and logic dictates that
it would be permissible to kill humans if humans were already
being killed ubiquitously in agriculture.

>>>> according to your logic, the idea that
>>>> killing humans is a moral problem in a World where their
>>>> deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>>
>> As`we can plainly see, the logic behind your principle that
>> allows you to kill animals for food is false.
>
>It's not false at all

Of course it's false, you stupid moron. It would NOT be
permissible to kill humans if humans were already being
killed ubiquitously in agriculture.

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Then, taking Germany's victims of ethnic cleansing as a group, the
>> scale of killing them vs non-victims during that time when they
>> were being murdered is not comparable at all, and so the killing
>> of Jews, Russians and gypsies was permissible.
>
>You're WRONG.

Rather, YOU'RE wrong because it would not be morally
permissible to kill Jews, Russians and gypsies on the basis
that these groups are already being murdered on a grand
scale. You're an imbecile!

> >>> and so the killing of Jews is permissible.
>>>
>>>I invoke Godwin, you lose.
>>
>> Desperately trying to escape the foolishness of your remarks by
>> hiding a disputed Usenet rule is pathetic and doesn't get you
>> off the hook.
>
>I'm not on any hook

Yes, you a firmly fixed and dangling.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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.

It requires at least two; 'it is' and 'it is not', so you're plainly
wrong to assert it requires none at all, and you're plainly
wrong to assert that, "Occam's Razor says that killing other
animals to obtain food, as other animals do, is not a moral
dilemma at all." Occam's razor says nothing of the kind.

On 21 Dec 2005 15:04:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >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'm about to show you that it is. Hold tight.

>I have seen this naive view expressed by some vegans.

Then your first premise should have been;

"SOME vegans claim that abstaining from meat means
their diet does not cause any animals to die.",

not the collective "Vegans", as in ALL vegans, you stupid
imbecile. Your argument IS a straw man because it clearly
pertains to ALL vegans instead of just SOME.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"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.
>
> It requires at least two;

It requires NO assumptions, ZERO, the minimum number needed.

> 'it is' and 'it is not', so you're plainly
> wrong to assert it requires none at all, and you're plainly
> wrong to assert that, "Occam's Razor says that killing other
> animals to obtain food, as other animals do, is not a moral
> dilemma at all." Occam's razor says nothing of the kind.

It says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one, and the
most obvious answer here is, well, obvious.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:51:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"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".
>
> That's a lie, as I'll show. Go back up this thread and see
> where I answered, and you will see that in response to
> your comment;
>
> "At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"
>
> I wrote;
>
> "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."
>
> As we can see, you removed everything after the "No,",
> and that "No" pertained to your making claims on behalf
> of all vegans, not to the comment;
>
> "At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"
>
> as you're now insisting it does. You just can't help yourself,
> can you? You lie and twist, thrash straw men, and cut your
> opponent's sentences down to misrepresent their answers,
> and just about anything you can think of instead of making
> an effort to deal with the real thing. You're a joke.

Recovered from the sewage below..

"Nonsense; abstaining from fish is always the BEST solution..."

har har

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:21:44 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:48:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
<restore>
>>>>>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.
<end restore>
>
>I'm not moving any goalposts

It's plain from your above statements which you tried to
snip away that you are, liar Ditch. You moved 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.

>> There's nothing absurd about finding the collateral deaths in
>> agriculture morally wrong.
>
>I think it is absurd per se.

Then you have no valid argument against the vegan who
allegedly causes them if they're not 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.
>
>My view is that killing animals to obtain food is natural, normal, and not a
>real moral dilemma.

Then you have no valid argument against the vegan who
allegedly causes them if they're not morally wrong. It's
as simple as that, and your criticisms are rightly dismissed.

>>>> 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's true.

>that doesn't solve an imaginary problem...

That's false on both counts. Veganism would certainly be
a solution to the collateral deaths found in by catch and
the feed fed to livestock animals, and it would certainly
be a solution to the billions of deaths of target animals.

>>>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.

On false grounds, no less, by invoking the perfect solution
fallacy.

>>>> 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.

I've shown that you're wrong by referring to the collateral
deaths associated with fishing and livestock feed, plus
the deaths of target animals for food. You can't dismiss
those facts and go on to claim veganism is a false solution
to an imaginary problem after that.

>>>> 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.

Terrorism isn't an imaginary problem, you stupid imbecile!
Abandoning the "terrorist safety net" as a bad solution on
the basis that terrorist will still exist is specious and shows
you incapable of any critical thought. You're a joke.

>>>> (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.
>
>That is not the foundation of the collateral deaths argument.

It certainly is. As with the "terrorism safety net", you think
veganism should be rejected on the basis that animals still
die in food production after its implementation. That, stupid,
invokes the perfect solution fallacy.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:41:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:16:51 GMT, "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
>>>
>>> The logic you used applies whether they are or not; it stands
>>> on its own. According to it, it would be permissible to kill
>>> humans if human collateral deaths in agriculture were
>>> ubiquitous.
>>
>>This isn't an exercise in high school logic, it's reality.
>
> And the reality of your false thinking and logic dictates that
> it would be permissible to kill humans if humans were already
> being killed ubiquitously in agriculture.

If we lived in a completely different reality than the one we live then it's
possible your moral ideas might make sense.

OK I'll grant you that much.

>>>>> according to your logic, the idea that
>>>>> killing humans is a moral problem in a World where their
>>>>> deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>>>
>>> As`we can plainly see, the logic behind your principle that
>>> allows you to kill animals for food is false.
>>
>>It's not false at all
>
> Of course it's false, you stupid moron. It would NOT be
> permissible to kill humans if humans were already being
> killed ubiquitously in agriculture.
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Then, taking Germany's victims of ethnic cleansing as a group, the
>>> scale of killing them vs non-victims during that time when they
>>> were being murdered is not comparable at all, and so the killing
>>> of Jews, Russians and gypsies was permissible.
>>
>>You're WRONG.
>
> Rather, YOU'RE wrong because it would not be morally
> permissible to kill Jews, Russians and gypsies on the basis
> that these groups are already being murdered on a grand
> scale. You're an imbecile!
>
>> >>> and so the killing of Jews is permissible.
>>>>
>>>>I invoke Godwin, you lose.
>>>
>>> Desperately trying to escape the foolishness of your remarks by
>>> hiding a disputed Usenet rule is pathetic and doesn't get you
>>> off the hook.
>>
>>I'm not on any hook
>
> Yes, you a firmly fixed and dangling.

If we lived in a different reality than this one, maybe, I'll grant you
that.

har har

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:41:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:51:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"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".
>>
>> That's a lie, as I'll show. Go back up this thread and see
>> where I answered, and you will see that in response to
>> your comment;
>>
>> "At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"
>>
>> I wrote;
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> As we can see, you removed everything after the "No,",
>> and that "No" pertained to your making claims on behalf
>> of all vegans, not to the comment;
>>
>> "At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"
>>
>> as you're now insisting it does. You just can't help yourself,
>> can you? You lie and twist, thrash straw men, and cut your
>> opponent's sentences down to misrepresent their answers,
>> and just about anything you can think of instead of making
>> an effort to deal with the real thing. You're a joke.
>
>Recovered from the sewage below..
>
>"Nonsense; abstaining from fish is always the BEST solution..."

And it is, so why did you try to claim I wrote otherwise by
deleting the rest of my sentence after "No," to make it appear
that way, liar Ditch?

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:21:44 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:48:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
> <restore>
>>>>>>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.
> <end restore>
>>
>>I'm not moving any goalposts
>
> It's plain from your above statements which you tried to
> snip away that you are, liar Ditch. You moved 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.

Those are two separate non-contradictory true statements, not a goalpost
move.

>>> There's nothing absurd about finding the collateral deaths in
>>> agriculture morally wrong.
>>
>>I think it is absurd per se.
>
> Then you have no valid argument against the vegan who
> allegedly causes them if they're not morally wrong.

That's not an argument against veganism, they OUGHT TO BE wrong TO YOU based
on your claims about animal rights, but you pay the issue nothing but
reluctant lip service.

>>> 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.
>
> Then you have no valid argument against the vegan who
> allegedly causes them if they're not morally wrong. It's
> as simple as that, and your criticisms are rightly dismissed.

But they OUGHT TO BE wrong TO YOU, or else you are a hypocrite.

>>>>> 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's true.
>
>>that doesn't solve an imaginary problem...
>
> That's false on both counts. Veganism would certainly be
> a solution to the collateral deaths found in by catch and
> the feed fed to livestock animals, and it would certainly
> be a solution to the billions of deaths of target animals.

It does not solve the fundamental problem that it pretends to solve, in fact
it stands firmly in the way of solutions.

Someone might as well demand that you must stop eating vegetables because it
results in animal deaths, and demand that you must eat only meat. That is
the same logic you are using.

>>>>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.
>
> On false grounds, no less, by invoking the perfect solution
> fallacy.

No, by invoking the common sense argument.

>>>>> 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.
>
> I've shown that you're wrong by referring to the collateral
> deaths associated with fishing and livestock feed, plus
> the deaths of target animals for food. You can't dismiss
> those facts and go on to claim veganism is a false solution
> to an imaginary problem after that.

You have not demonstrated that the killing of animals in food production is
an actual moral problem, you only assume it.

>>>>> 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.
>
> Terrorism isn't an imaginary problem, you stupid imbecile!

I didn't say it was, I was referring to veganism. You're losing your already
tenuous grip on reality.

> Abandoning the "terrorist safety net" as a bad solution on
> the basis that terrorist will still exist is specious and shows
> you incapable of any critical thought. You're a joke.
>
>>>>> (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.
>>
>>That is not the foundation of the collateral deaths argument.
>
> It certainly is. As with the "terrorism safety net", you think
> veganism should be rejected on the basis that animals still
> die in food production after its implementation. That, stupid,
> invokes the perfect solution fallacy.

No, moron, it does not. Veganism should be rejected because it's an
imperfect solution to a non-existent problem, aka a waste of time.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:44:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:41:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:16:51 GMT, "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
>>>>
>>>> The logic you used applies whether they are or not; it stands
>>>> on its own. According to it, it would be permissible to kill
>>>> humans if human collateral deaths in agriculture were
>>>> ubiquitous.
>>>
>>>This isn't an exercise in high school logic, it's reality.
>>
>> And the reality of your false thinking and logic dictates that
>> it would be permissible to kill humans if humans were already
>> being killed ubiquitously in agriculture.
>
>If we lived in a completely different reality than the one we live then it's
>possible your moral ideas might make sense.

It's your "moral ideas", or rather your sloppy logic that dictates
it would be permissible to kill humans if humans were already
being killed ubiquitously in agriculture, not mine, so I don't
know where you get the idea that it was mine, unless you're
trying to escape the embarrassment you're feeling right now
and want to pretend someone other than you came up with
the idea.

>>>>>> according to your logic, the idea that
>>>>>> killing humans is a moral problem in a World where their
>>>>>> deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>>>>
>>>> As`we can plainly see, the logic behind your principle that
>>>> allows you to kill animals for food is false.
>>>
>>>It's not false at all
>>
>> Of course it's false, you stupid moron. It would NOT be
>> permissible to kill humans if humans were already being
>> killed ubiquitously in agriculture.

Do you get that yet?

>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Then, taking Germany's victims of ethnic cleansing as a group, the
>>>> scale of killing them vs non-victims during that time when they
>>>> were being murdered is not comparable at all, and so the killing
>>>> of Jews, Russians and gypsies was permissible.
>>>
>>>You're WRONG.
>>
>> Rather, YOU'RE wrong because it would not be morally
>> permissible to kill Jews, Russians and gypsies on the basis
>> that these groups are already being murdered on a grand
>> scale. You're an imbecile!

Did you get that, Ditch; you're wrong and a stupid imbecile.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:41:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:51:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"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".
>>>
>>> That's a lie, as I'll show. Go back up this thread and see
>>> where I answered, and you will see that in response to
>>> your comment;
>>>
>>> "At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"
>>>
>>> I wrote;
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> As we can see, you removed everything after the "No,",
>>> and that "No" pertained to your making claims on behalf
>>> of all vegans, not to the comment;
>>>
>>> "At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"
>>>
>>> as you're now insisting it does. You just can't help yourself,
>>> can you? You lie and twist, thrash straw men, and cut your
>>> opponent's sentences down to misrepresent their answers,
>>> and just about anything you can think of instead of making
>>> an effort to deal with the real thing. You're a joke.
>>
>>Recovered from the sewage below..
>>
>>"Nonsense; abstaining from fish is always the BEST solution..."
>
> And it is, so why did you try to claim I wrote otherwise by
> deleting the rest of my sentence after "No," to make it appear
> that way, liar Ditch?

The rest of that paragraph is consistent with your "No". You just
contradicted yourself. Why did you make such a fuss denying that vegans
claim that veganism is the best solution when everyone knows that it's true.
Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:36:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"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.
>>
>> It requires at least two;
>
>It requires NO assumptions

Wrong, it requires at least two: 'it is' and 'it is not'.

> ZERO, the minimum number needed.

If it requires zero assumptions, as you claim, then you've plainly
misused Occam's razor because it wouldn't be needed. You've
misused the principle because you clearly don't understand it.

>> 'it is' and 'it is not', so you're plainly
>> wrong to assert it requires none at all, and you're plainly
>> wrong to assert that, "Occam's Razor says that killing other
>> animals to obtain food, as other animals do, is not a moral
>> dilemma at all." Occam's razor says nothing of the kind.
>
>It says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one

NO, it doesn't.

[In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make
no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it
says

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]

or

Given **two** equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

As we can see, your statement;

"Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as
other animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all."

is false. Occam's razor deals with assumption[s], not zero
assumptions, you idiot.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:00:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:21:44 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:48:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>> <restore>
>>>>>>>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.
>> <end restore>
>>>
>>>I'm not moving any goalposts
>>
>> It's plain from your above statements which you tried to
>> snip away that you are, liar Ditch. You moved 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.
>
>Those are two separate non-contradictory true statements,

... one made at the start, and the other made after that first
one was dealt with: a goal post move.

>>>> There's nothing absurd about finding the collateral deaths in
>>>> agriculture morally wrong.
>>>
>>>I think it is absurd per se.
>>
>> Then you have no valid argument against the vegan who
>> allegedly causes them if they're not morally wrong.
>
>That's not an argument against veganism,

It's not meant to be. It's to show that you have no valid criticism
against vegans while believing the collateral deaths they allegedly
cause isn't morally wrong.

> they OUGHT TO BE wrong TO YOU based
>on your claims about animal rights,

Then the truth of your original claim, that the killing of animals in
agriculture isn't wrong is false. You can't have it both ways; you've
got to decide whether they're morally wrong or they aren't.

>but you pay the issue nothing but reluctant lip service.

Your straw man vegan might, but I don't. Ergo, your criticism
doesn't apply to me and is rejected on that basis.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> Then you have no valid argument against the vegan who
>> allegedly causes them if they're not morally wrong. It's
>> as simple as that, and your criticisms are rightly dismissed.
>
>But they OUGHT TO BE wrong TO YOU

If your earlier statement is true, then according to it they aren't
morally wrong to anyone.

>>>>>> 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's true.
>>
>>>that doesn't solve an imaginary problem...
>>
>> That's false on both counts. Veganism would certainly be
>> a solution to the collateral deaths found in by catch and
>> the feed fed to livestock animals, and it would certainly
>> be a solution to the billions of deaths of target animals.
>
>It does not solve the fundamental problem that it pretends to solve,

Veganism would certainly be a solution to the collateral deaths
found in fishing our oceans and the feed fed to livestock animals,
and it would certainly be a solution to the billions of deaths of
target animals, so you're wrong to still insist it isn't a solution to
these problems.

>>>>>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.
>>
>> On false grounds, no less, by invoking the perfect solution
>> fallacy.
>
>No

Yes, as shown numerous times now.

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> I've shown that you're wrong by referring to the collateral
>> deaths associated with fishing and livestock feed, plus
>> the deaths of target animals for food. You can't dismiss
>> those facts and go on to claim veganism is a false solution
>> to an imaginary problem after that.
>
>You have not demonstrated that the killing of animals in food production is
>an actual moral problem, you only assume it.

Again, if you believe that the killing of animals in food production
isn't a moral problem, you have no valid criticism against the
vegans that do, and you have no grounds for rejecting veganism
on those empty grounds either. In short, you have no case at all.
You're just whining at them for no reason other than your own.

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Terrorism isn't an imaginary problem, you stupid imbecile!
>
>I didn't say it was

Then you cannot reject the solution to this problem on the
basis that terrorists will still exist after the solution has been
implemented. Doing so invokes the perfect solution fallacy.

>> Abandoning the "terrorist safety net" as a bad solution on
>> the basis that terrorist will still exist is specious and shows
>> you incapable of any critical thought. You're a joke.

Did you get that?

>>>>>> (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.
>>>
>>>That is not the foundation of the collateral deaths argument.
>>
>> It certainly is. As with the "terrorism safety net", you think
>> veganism should be rejected on the basis that animals still
>> die in food production after its implementation. That, stupid,
>> invokes the perfect solution fallacy.
>
>No, moron, it does not.

Yes, it does, as shown earlier.

>Veganism should be rejected because it's an imperfect solution

You've just posed that same false dilemma again.

Seat belts should be rejected because it's an imperfect solution.
Oral hygiene should be rejected because it's an imperfect solution.
Recycling should be rejected because it's an imperfect solution.
etc. etc.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:04:28 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:41:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:51:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"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".
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie, as I'll show. Go back up this thread and see
>>>> where I answered, and you will see that in response to
>>>> your comment;
>>>>
>>>> "At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"
>>>>
>>>> I wrote;
>>>>
>>>> "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."
>>>>
>>>> As we can see, you removed everything after the "No,",
>>>> and that "No" pertained to your making claims on behalf
>>>> of all vegans, not to the comment;
>>>>
>>>> "At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"
>>>>
>>>> as you're now insisting it does. You just can't help yourself,
>>>> can you? You lie and twist, thrash straw men, and cut your
>>>> opponent's sentences down to misrepresent their answers,
>>>> and just about anything you can think of instead of making
>>>> an effort to deal with the real thing. You're a joke.
>>>
>>>Recovered from the sewage below..
>>>
>>>"Nonsense; abstaining from fish is always the BEST solution..."
>>
>> And it is, so why did you try to claim I wrote otherwise by
>> deleting the rest of my sentence after "No," to make it appear
>> that way, liar Ditch?
>
>The rest of that paragraph is consistent with your "No".

The rest of my sentence after "No," pertained to your making
claims on behalf of all vegans;

"No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans."

It had nothing to do with your comment;

"At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution"

You lied, Ditch, but I'm not surprised in the least.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:39:10 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:


>>>>>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy

>>>It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent

Here's a thought; look at those two statements from this thread, Jon.
After a while it dawned on me that yes, in this particular instance,
rejecting veganism on the basis that it doesn't fully solve the problem
of animal deaths found in agriculture is denying the antecedent.

1) If veganism fully solves the problem of animal deaths found in agriculture, then veganism should be implemented.
2) Veganism doesn't fully solve the problem of animal deaths found in agriculture (not a)
therefore
3) Veganism should not be implemented.

The collateral deaths argument is specious in more ways than
one; it denies the antecedent and poses a false dilemma at
the same time.

Derek wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2005 15:04:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >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'm about to show you that it is. Hold tight.
>
> >I have seen this naive view expressed by some vegans.
>
> Then your first premise should have been;
>
> "SOME vegans claim that abstaining from meat means
> their diet does not cause any animals to die.",

The qualifier "some" should indeed be used to remove
any ambiguity.

> not the collective "Vegans", as in ALL vegans,

"vegans" in that context does not necessarily mean "all vegans".

> you stupid
> imbecile.

No need to be abusive. Calm down!

>Your argument

It isn't my argument.

>IS a straw man because it clearly
> pertains to ALL vegans instead of just SOME.

On 22 Dec 2005 07:06:58 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2005 15:04:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 20 Dec 2005 17:59:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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'm about to show you that it is. Hold tight.
>>
>> >I have seen this naive view expressed by some vegans.
>>
>> Then your first premise should have been;
>>
>> "SOME vegans claim that abstaining from meat means
>> their diet does not cause any animals to die.",
>
>The qualifier "some" should indeed be used to remove
>any ambiguity.

To remove the straw man in the premise, more like.

>> not the collective "Vegans", as in ALL vegans,
>
>"vegans" in that context does not necessarily mean "all vegans".

Yes, it does. There's no getting away from it. "Vegans" is the
collective of "vegan." Your claim pertains to all vegans while
the quantifier "some" is left out.

Dutch wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Occam's Razor ...

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

> It says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

No, that's not at all what Occam's razor is about. Occam
or William of Ockham (do you even know who he was?) was a
medieval philosopher (c 1285 - 1349)involved in the
argument against the reality of Platonic Universals, the
philosophical position known as Nominalism. His position
was that only individual entities exist, and that abstract
categories (such as "Man" or "Tree" ) exist only as
intellectual concepts, not as realities in themselves.
When he said that entities should not be multiplied without
necessity, that was what he was talking about. His "razor"
had nothing to do with claiming the "most *obvious* answer
is usually correct. The most obvious answer is
frequently wrong.

Dutch wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
> This isn't an exercise in high school logic, it's reality.

An excuse used by every person who wants to ignore morality
in his treatment of the weaker.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> For the first part, *if* indeed through
> some doomsday scenario humans were as numerous as the rest of the animal
> kingdom, in such a world I figure that it probably *would* be quite all
> right to kill them, in fact we would likely all have bountys on our heads
> because the world could not support us all.

Do you have any concept of what you are actually saying? I hope not.
This is a truly evil philosophy.

You understand, I hope, that in this scenario, we would not *all*
have bounties on our heads, but that the most powerful would
simply kill those whose resources they wished to take. That
probably would happen, as it has happened in many times and places
where the fabric of society has broken down and force become the
only factor. But there has *never* been any society which has
seen this as a legitimate morality in and of itself. Even the
most naked force has always been cloaked in some claim to a
"right" of the stronger or more powerful to take things away from
the weaker for some reason.

In many ways, this *is* the way some humans treat animals, but
it is, simply, wrong, and it is seen as wrong by most people.

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

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
> Yes, true. I am more concerned with the spirit than the letter
> here. Scavenging meat, gathering unfertilized eggs, etc.,
> would not violate animal rights or animal welfare, so I see
> no ethical issue.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>>>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?
>
> Because I do accept the idea of animal rights,
================
You say it, but your actions disprove it. You don't believe
animals have rights because here you are posting to usenet for
nothing more than your entertainment. Entertainmnet that
contributes to million upon millions of animal deaths yearly.

I would not
> generally agree that the rights of individual animals can be
> sacrificed in a purely utilitarian calculation. There would
> have to be consideration of other factors also, such as how
> the animals were treated before their deaths, whether the
> methods of producing non-animal products could be improved,
> and so on. A simple one-to-one comparison of number of deaths
> might not be the best way of making an ethical choice in every
> case.
====================
ROTFLMAO So for you it's OK to kill 100s of animals as long as
you 'save' the one 'right' animal? What a useless pile of crap.


>>>>>
>
>> The only rational reason I can think of for declaring an
>> action (in
>> this
>> case predation) unethical is the harm that it does.
>
> Harm can have many meanings; I think you would have to define
> your term.
>
>> Now if you accept
>> that predation is unethical on that basis
>
> I don't believe predation is *unethical* except when it is
> carried out by moral agents. There is a difference between
> an act which is harmful and an act which is unethical. Most
> unethical acts will cause harm of some kind, but the reverse
> is not necessarily true.
=======================
Wow, what twisted idiocy.

>
>> then it follows that more
>> predation means more harm and if we predate the foxes then we
>> decrease the total amount of predation.
>
> But not necessarily the total amount of harm, especially if
> the prey population then increases to levels the ecosystem
> cannot support well.
>
>>>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.
>
> Agreed. I don't find Francione convincing here.
>
>>>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.
>
> I think it does make sense, but only in a specifically
> theological
> context.
>
>>>>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.
>
> I think you have to consider such questions as soon as you
> introduce the concept of rights at all. You don't *need*
> to involve a concept of rights. You can go with a purely
> utilitarian ethic. That can present problems of its own,
> however. Singer's support for infanticide has been
> criticized on that basis.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> 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.
>
> It is not quite that easy. There is the ethical issue if one
> believes in animal rights, but there are also a variety of
> practical issues involved in humans trying to artificially
> reproduce a natural predator/prey system. Most predation
> by humans would be by sport or subsistence hunters, and they
> ( especially sport hunters )often do not remove the same
> animals
> other animal predators would. Culls by biologists might be
> closer to natural predation, but would still be artificial and
> couldn't include *all* the subtle factors involved in
> animal/animal prey/predator interactions. We don't -- possibly
> can't -- understand the natural systems well enough to
> reproduce them exactly, and that can have drastic results.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>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.
>
> It is relevant, but it is indeed "apples and oranges," because
> large-scale pest control only applies to large-scale farming
> of vegetables.
===========================
Which are the ones you eat.

The artificial quantity of food in a limited
> area is what brings the "pest" animals in large numbers, so
> in a sense, humans "farm" "pests" just as much as they farm
> domestic animals.
=========================
Exactly. All for veggies. Your crop production facilitates an
unnatural population explosion every growing season, an explosion
that cannot be maitained once the easy food and cover has been
harvested. The animals that don't die outright from the
machinazation, are left to die from starvation and predation. A
couple of very inhumane deaths. Combined with the slicing and
dicing in machines you contibute to quite a nassive amount of
very brutal, inhumane deaths of animals that YOU claim have
rights. Your claim is false, as shown.


The only really wild animals would be those
> humans ran into in your scavenging/gathering or a
> hunting/gathering
> lifestyle.
==================
So, since they aren't 'really wild' it's quite OK for you to kill
them, eh hypocrite?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>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-)
>
> Or fewer other animals. Given a rigorous animal rights
> approach,
> a human who ate his human victim would need less other food,
> and
> so would cause fewer direct deaths of animals slaughtered for
> meat,
> or indirect collateral deaths. (This is probably an
> excessively
> theoretical discussion ).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>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.
>
> I think utilitarian results have to be part of the calculation,
> but only part.
>
>> 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?
>
> Well, society in general does, I would say. We generally agree
> things like human slavery or medical testing on unwilling
> subjects
> are unethical even if they would benefit other humans, for
> example. Some do disagree, but the consensus is quite strong
> that some things cannot ethically be done to rights-bearing
> beings no matter the benefit to others. That is, in effect,
> the very definition of a right.
>
>
>

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Glorfindel" > wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>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.
>
> Strawmanvegan Rides Again. What I have said is that *given the
> same parameters* a Vegan/scavenging/gathering (than you, Dave)
> diet will be better than an *equivalent* diet involving animals
> intentionally killed for food.
=================================
No, the strawman is yours. You're the one that refuses to look at
real diets. I have provided you two real-life, convenience
oriented diets readily available. Your typical urban feel-good
vegan loon diet of fruits and veggies which include many imported
foods, and a diet that includes grass-fed meats. The problem
for you is that you automatically deny the truth because of your
simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'


>
>> 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.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>

"Derek" > wrote a vile bunch of crap...

You've gotten boring now Derek, run along and have a good Christmas..

"Derek" > wrote
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:39:10 GMT, Leif Erikson
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy
>
>>>>It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent
>
> Here's a thought; look at those two statements from this thread, Jon.
> After a while it dawned on me that yes, in this particular instance,
> rejecting veganism on the basis that it doesn't fully solve the problem
> of animal deaths found in agriculture is denying the antecedent.
>
> 1) If veganism fully solves the problem of animal deaths found in
> agriculture, then veganism should be implemented.

Only based on a phantom moral dilemma created by vegans. Even if it did what
vegans like to pretend it does, I would not implement it in my life, nor
would most people.

> 2) Veganism doesn't fully solve the problem of animal deaths found in
> agriculture (not a)
> therefore

That part is true.

> 3) Veganism should not be implemented.

I don't care. Anyone who wants to abstain from animal products is free to do
so. If they make unsustainable categorical claims about that choice then I
will correct them.

> The collateral deaths argument is specious in more ways than
> one; it denies the antecedent and poses a false dilemma at
> the same time.

It does neither. Veganism poses a false moral dilemma, the killing of
animals in agriculture, then proposes a *best/perfect* solution which does
not solve the alleged "moral dilemma".

Karen Winter > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Occam's Razor ...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> It says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>
> No, that's not at all what Occam's razor is about. Occam
> or William of Ockham (do you even know who he was?) was a
> medieval philosopher (c 1285 - 1349)involved in the
> argument against the reality of Platonic Universals, the
> philosophical position known as Nominalism. His position
> was that only individual entities exist, and that abstract
> categories (such as "Man" or "Tree" ) exist only as
> intellectual concepts, not as realities in themselves.
> When he said that entities should not be multiplied without
> necessity, that was what he was talking about. His "razor"
> had nothing to do with claiming the "most *obvious* answer
> is usually correct. The most obvious answer is
> frequently wrong.

"Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval
philosopher
William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make
more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the
principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory
building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent
models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's
razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that
are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing
the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing
inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies."

The simplest model for how to obtain food exists in the world of other
animals.

"Karen Winter" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>> This isn't an exercise in high school logic, it's reality.
>
> An excuse used by every person who wants to ignore morality
> in his treatment of the weaker.

No it's not, it's simply fact, see below.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> For the first part, *if* indeed through some doomsday scenario humans
>> were as numerous as the rest of the animal kingdom, in such a world I
>> figure that it probably *would* be quite all right to kill them, in fact
>> we would likely all have bountys on our heads because the world could not
>> support us all.
>
> Do you have any concept of what you are actually saying? I hope not.
> This is a truly evil philosophy.

You need to rewind back to where Derek proposed a theoretical world where
humans were as ubiquitous as non-human animals. Of course such a world is
implausible, but for the sake of argument I accepted his premise in a
somewhat toned down form so that each human has at least enough space to
stand. Let's say there are 100 billion people in the world, probably close
to the worldwide population of some rodents. This is now Science Fiction
Horror, we have a human race SO numerous that there is no food left at all
and the only way to survive is to kill and eat other people. Of course in
such a world or anything like it, all moral ideas that we currently take for
granted would be meaningless.

> You understand, I hope, that in this scenario, we would not *all*
> have bounties on our heads, but that the most powerful would
> simply kill those whose resources they wished to take. That
> probably would happen, as it has happened in many times and places
> where the fabric of society has broken down and force become the
> only factor. But there has *never* been any society which has
> seen this as a legitimate morality in and of itself. Even the
> most naked force has always been cloaked in some claim to a
> "right" of the stronger or more powerful to take things away from
> the weaker for some reason.
>
> In many ways, this *is* the way some humans treat animals, but
> it is, simply, wrong, and it is seen as wrong by most people.

This is nice but all irrelevant to the case at hand. My point is made, you
cannot simply extrapolate human moral concepts and apply them to animals,
the world (reality) will not allow it.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:36:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"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.
>>>
>>> It requires at least two;
>>
>>It requires NO assumptions
>
> Wrong

No, right, it requires no assumptions, ZERO, the minimum number needed.

> If it requires zero assumptions, as you claim, then you've plainly
> misused Occam's razor because it wouldn't be needed. You've
> misused the principle because you clearly don't understand it.

ZERO is the least number of assumptions required.

>>> 'it is' and 'it is not', so you're plainly
>>> wrong to assert it requires none at all, and you're plainly
>>> wrong to assert that, "Occam's Razor says that killing other
>>> animals to obtain food, as other animals do, is not a moral
>>> dilemma at all." Occam's razor says nothing of the kind.
>>
>>It says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one
>
> NO, it doesn't.

"This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all
scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a
set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one."


> [In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make
> no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it
> says
>
> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
>
> or
>
> Given **two** equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

The simpler in this case being that the same fundamental model applies to
humans when competing for food as applies to every other species.

> As we can see, your statement;
>
> "Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as
> other animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all."
>
> is false. Occam's razor deals with assumption[s], not zero
> assumptions, you idiot.

Zero is a number, dingbat.

Dutch wrote:

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

> You need to rewind back to where Derek proposed a theoretical world where
> humans were as ubiquitous as non-human animals.

Glorfindel wrote:

That wasn't what he was proposing, nor what I was talking about.

You concentrate of numbers, but numbers are irrelevant to the
ethical argument. It doesn't matter if more animals are
killed and fewer humans are killed. Deaths are no more
"ubiquitous" among non-humans than among humans. Even if they
were, it would not make them right or wrong. You are deaf to
the entire issue of ethics; you claim it doesn't even exist.

Why should you have such anger toward people who do see an
ethical issue you don't believe exist? Why should it matter
to you? Why don't you just shrug your shoulders and walk away
from the whole thing? I don't see what you get out of all
this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> This is nice but all irrelevant to the case at hand. My point is made,

No, it is not.

> you
> cannot simply extrapolate human moral concepts and apply them to animals

That is not what animal rights is about.

> the world (reality) will not allow it.

Thank God my reality is not yours! I wouldn't want to live in the
kind of world you have created for yourself. You have gradually
dismantled all concept of morality in an attempt to discredit
applying moral standards to treatment of animals, and have slid
down into nihilism like a Nietzsche on steroids.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:00:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>>>My view is that killing animals to obtain food is natural, normal,
>>>>and not a real moral dilemma.
>>>
>>> Then you have no valid argument against the vegan who
>>> allegedly causes them if they're not morally wrong. It's
>>> as simple as that, and your criticisms are rightly dismissed.
>>
>>But they OUGHT TO BE wrong TO YOU
>
> If your earlier statement is true, then according to it they aren't
> morally wrong to anyone.

I'm glad you finally agree, it's about time.

Have a good Christmas.

[..]

"Karen" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> You need to rewind back to where Derek proposed a theoretical world where
>> humans were as ubiquitous as non-human animals.
>
> "Karen" wrote:
>
> That wasn't what he was proposing, nor what I was talking about.

Of course it is, he claimed to refute my argument by proposing a scenario
where humans were as ubiquitous as non-human animals.

> You concentrate of numbers, but numbers are irrelevant to the
> ethical argument.

No they are not. Numbers are a central factor when we decide how to behave
towards animals. Consider our attitude towards endangered species like white
tigers vs our attitude towards plagues of tens-of-millions of grasshoppers
or deer mice.

> It doesn't matter if more animals are
> killed and fewer humans are killed.

It matters, the moral superstructure you are trying to create is an
absurdity, a fantasy.

> Deaths are no more
> "ubiquitous" among non-humans than among humans.

That's ridiculous. More animals probably die every second than humans die in
a year.

> Even if they
> were, it would not make them right or wrong.

What we judge as right or wrong is dictated by the cards the world deals us.
Disneyland is not real.

> You are deaf to
> the entire issue of ethics; you claim it doesn't even exist.

That's untrue, I believe very strongly in morals and ethics, and consider
myself a highly ethical person.

> Why should you have such anger toward people who do see an
> ethical issue you don't believe exist?

I don't harbour anger towards vegans generally, although I lose my patience
at times, especially with people like Derek, who is so rude and
disrespectful. I have said it many times, I think vegans for the most part
are very compassionate people, that's how they get drawn into it. I feel an
empathy with them.

> Why should it matter
> to you? Why don't you just shrug your shoulders and walk away
> from the whole thing? I don't see what you get out of all
> this.

I find veganism, and the way vegans defend and promote their ideas an
interesting and poorly understood phenomenon.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> This is nice but all irrelevant to the case at hand. My point is made,
>
> No, it is not.

Yes, it is.

>> you cannot simply extrapolate human moral concepts and apply them to
>> animals
>
> That is not what animal rights is about.

Yes it is.

>> the world (reality) will not allow it.
>
> Thank God my reality is not yours! I wouldn't want to live in the
> kind of world you have created for yourself. You have gradually
> dismantled all concept of morality in an attempt to discredit
> applying moral standards to treatment of animals, and have slid
> down into nihilism like a Nietzsche on steroids.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. I have argued many times to the chagrin of
other anti-ARAs that animals have rights.

See what I mean? I find it interesting that you are not able to understand
what I'm about at all. I attribute that to the effects of veganism. I'm not
angry at you for it, I don't blame you. Some people are just not able to
resist the pull of cultism.

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.
>
> Yes, true. I am more concerned with the spirit than the letter
> here. Scavenging meat, gathering unfertilized eggs,

Aside: Is it possible to determine whether eggs are fertilized
or not as you gather them?

etc.,
> would not violate animal rights or animal welfare, so I see
> no ethical issue.

Sure. Similarly there is no ethical issue concerning the gathering
of wild plants.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
> >>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?
>
> Because I do accept the idea of animal rights, I would not
> generally agree that the rights of individual animals can be
> sacrificed in a purely utilitarian calculation. There would
> have to be consideration of other factors also, such as how
> the animals were treated before their deaths, whether the
> methods of producing non-animal products could be improved,
> and so on. A simple one-to-one comparison of number of deaths
> might not be the best way of making an ethical choice in every
> case.

Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase my question:
What if hunting and ranching involved fewer violations of animal
rights than the non-animal foods that represent the real world
alternative?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> > The only rational reason I can think of for declaring an action (in
> > this
> > case predation) unethical is the harm that it does.
>
> Harm can have many meanings; I think you would have to define
> your term.

In this context destruction of life or a negative impact on the
emotional welfare of another.
>
> > Now if you accept
> > that predation is unethical on that basis
>
> I don't believe predation is *unethical* except when it is
> carried out by moral agents. There is a difference between
> an act which is harmful and an act which is unethical. Most
> unethical acts will cause harm of some kind, but the reverse
> is not necessarily true.

To my way of thinking the idea that other humans or companion
animals should be prevented or discouraged from prevention
does not sit easily side by side with the idea that preventing wild
predators from doing the same is actively wrong.

> > then it follows that more
> > predation means more harm and if we predate the foxes then we
> > decrease the total amount of predation.
>
> But not necessarily the total amount of harm, especially if
> the prey population then increases to levels the ecosystem
> cannot support well.

Then we're back to predation is not necessarily harmful
within the context of the bigger picture.

> >>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.
>
> Agreed. I don't find Francione convincing here.
>
> >>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.
>
> I think it does make sense, but only in a specifically theological
> context.
>
> >>>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.
>
> I think you have to consider such questions as soon as you
> introduce the concept of rights at all. You don't *need*
> to involve a concept of rights.

Perhaps not although it is possible to frame plausible utilitarian
arguments to justify the concept of rights.

> You can go with a purely
> utilitarian ethic. That can present problems of its own,
> however. Singer's support for infanticide has been
> criticized on that basis.

To me it is not good enough to say Singer supports infanticide
therefore there must be something wrong with his
utilitarian ethic. A better approach would be to consider his
reasoning and either come up with a counter argument or
revise your assumption that infanticide is never justified.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 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.
>
> It is not quite that easy. There is the ethical issue if one
> believes in animal rights, but there are also a variety of
> practical issues involved in humans trying to artificially
> reproduce a natural predator/prey system. Most predation
> by humans would be by sport or subsistence hunters, and they
> ( especially sport hunters )often do not remove the same animals
> other animal predators would. Culls by biologists might be
> closer to natural predation, but would still be artificial and
> couldn't include *all* the subtle factors involved in
> animal/animal prey/predator interactions. We don't -- possibly
> can't -- understand the natural systems well enough to
> reproduce them exactly, and that can have drastic results.

These are all good points but it must also be noted that natural
predators don't bother to analyse the effects of their predation
on their ecosystems.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>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.
>
> It is relevant, but it is indeed "apples and oranges," because
> large-scale pest control only applies to large-scale farming
> of vegetables. The artificial quantity of food in a limited
> area is what brings the "pest" animals in large numbers, so
> in a sense, humans "farm" "pests" just as much as they farm
> domestic animals. The only really wild animals would be those
> humans ran into in your scavenging/gathering or a hunting/gathering
> lifestyle.

Then the LHP indicates scavenged/gathered products as the first
preference. If it is not practical to meet your nutritional needs that
way
then the next best thing would be local organic plant foods harvested,
packaged processed and stored in an animal friendly manner.
If it is still not practical to meet your nutritional needs then it is
at least plausible that eating the flesh of hunted wild animals or
handlined fish is in accordance with the LHP or the
least violations of animal rights principle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>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-)
>
> Or fewer other animals. Given a rigorous animal rights approach,
> a human who ate his human victim would need less other food, and
> so would cause fewer direct deaths of animals slaughtered for meat,
> or indirect collateral deaths. (This is probably an excessively
> theoretical discussion ).

Indeed.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>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.
>
> I think utilitarian results have to be part of the calculation,
> but only part.

Then what is the purpose of ethics in your view?

> > 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?
>
> Well, society in general does, I would say. We generally agree
> things like human slavery or medical testing on unwilling subjects
> are unethical even if they would benefit other humans, for
> example. Some do disagree, but the consensus is quite strong
> that some things cannot ethically be done to rights-bearing
> beings no matter the benefit to others. That is, in effect,
> the very definition of a right.

Dutch wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

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

>>You concentrate of numbers, but numbers are irrelevant to the
>>ethical argument.

> No they are not. Numbers are a central factor when we decide how to behave
> towards animals. Consider our attitude towards endangered species like white
> tigers vs our attitude towards plagues of tens-of-millions of grasshoppers
> or deer mice.

Your attitude may be different, but the ethical issue is not. If we are
granting preference to species on the basis of numbers, humans are one
of the least endangered, and should be down there with the pigeons.

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

>>Deaths are no more
>>"ubiquitous" among non-humans than among humans.

> That's ridiculous. More animals probably die every second than humans die in
> a year.

This is debatable, but, in any case, we're into apples and oranges
again. You are trying to compare (without any hard data ) one species
vs an aggregate of all other species. This makes no sense. If we
compare the *percentage* of each species which dies, the numbers
are probably similar -- 'though this is just a guess, as your claim is.

Of all mice, how many die per year, and what percentage is that in
terms of the total number and the shorter lifespan of mice vs the
much longer lifespan and total number of human? Given the enthusiasm
with which humans kill each other in wars and political disputes and
crimes, I would guess the numbers are probably not that different.
To make any rational comparison, rather than an emotional outburst,
you would have to compare species one to one, and to make any legitimate
comparison you would have to have some hard numbers species-wide. You
would also have to distinguish between mice killed by non-human
predators and mice killed specifically by humans.

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

> I find veganism, and the way vegans defend and promote their ideas an
> interesting and poorly understood phenomenon.

It would be better understood (by you) if you would listen to what
the vegans here actually write, instead of dismissing it and
pointing at a strawman.

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

"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>You concentrate of numbers, but numbers are irrelevant to the
>>>ethical argument.
>
>> No they are not. Numbers are a central factor when we decide how to
>> behave towards animals. Consider our attitude towards endangered species
>> like white tigers vs our attitude towards plagues of tens-of-millions of
>> grasshoppers or deer mice.
>
> Your attitude may be different, but the ethical issue is not. If we are
> granting preference to species on the basis of numbers, humans are one
> of the least endangered, and should be down there with the pigeons.

Rational speciesism is an integral part of a sane worldview.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>Deaths are no more
>>>"ubiquitous" among non-humans than among humans.
>
>> That's ridiculous. More animals probably die every second than humans die
>> in a year.
>
> This is debatable, but, in any case, we're into apples and oranges
> again. You are trying to compare (without any hard data ) one species
> vs an aggregate of all other species. This makes no sense. If we
> compare the *percentage* of each species which dies, the numbers
> are probably similar -- 'though this is just a guess, as your claim is.
>
> Of all mice, how many die per year, and what percentage is that in
> terms of the total number and the shorter lifespan of mice vs the
> much longer lifespan and total number of human? Given the enthusiasm
> with which humans kill each other in wars and political disputes and
> crimes, I would guess the numbers are probably not that different.
> To make any rational comparison, rather than an emotional outburst,
> you would have to compare species one to one, and to make any legitimate
> comparison you would have to have some hard numbers species-wide. You
> would also have to distinguish between mice killed by non-human
> predators and mice killed specifically by humans.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> I find veganism, and the way vegans defend and promote their ideas an
>> interesting and poorly understood phenomenon.
>
> It would be better understood (by you) if you would listen to what
> the vegans here actually write, instead of dismissing it and
> pointing at a strawman.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Whatever you want to think is fine with me Karen, I just feel genuinely
happy in the spirit of the season and I hope you can supress the crocodile
tears long enough to feel the same way. All the very best to you and yours,
and I mean that sincerely.