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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 02:27 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The astonishing lunacy of Karen Winter

I wrote,

"vegans" who become aware of this flaw [denying the
antecedent] most frequently fall back on an equally
defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least
harm" practice.

To this, Karen replied, "No, that veganism *can*
represent a least-harm practice."

The potential of a practice is morally meaningless.
There only is meaning to what one *does*, not what one
*might* do but doesn't.

Karen continued:

The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that
it is "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis,
but that it is a more -- not *absolutely*, but
*more* -- just practice because it better respects
animals.

Karen seems to want to take a cafeteria approach to
utilitarianism and deontology. (For those not familiar
with her, Karen - "glorfindel", bleaghh - historically
has leaned toward deontology, believing that animals
should hold "rights".) She wants to try to cadge as
much prestige as she can from utilitarian beliefs
without really adopting them. But there is *no*
improvement, in utility or otherwise, from adopting a
belief system, and some half measures based on it, that
don't actually reduce the level of harm one causes.

By trying to make much of her belief that "veganism"
has more potential to reduce harm, but not actually
*doing* things to reduce harm, Karen is demonstrating
once again that "veganism" is almost entirely about
symbolic gestures.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2005, 12:29 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default The astonishing lunacy of Karen Winter


Leif Erikson wrote:
I wrote,

"vegans" who become aware of this flaw [denying the
antecedent] most frequently fall back on an equally
defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least
harm" practice.

To this, Karen replied, "No, that veganism *can*
represent a least-harm practice."

The potential of a practice is morally meaningless.
There only is meaning to what one *does*, not what one
*might* do but doesn't.

Karen continued:

The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that
it is "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis,
but that it is a more -- not *absolutely*, but
*more* -- just practice because it better respects
animals.

Karen seems to want to take a cafeteria approach to
utilitarianism and deontology. (For those not familiar
with her, Karen - "glorfindel", bleaghh - historically
has leaned toward deontology, believing that animals
should hold "rights".) She wants to try to cadge as
much prestige as she can from utilitarian beliefs
without really adopting them. But there is *no*
improvement, in utility or otherwise, from adopting a
belief system, and some half measures based on it, that
don't actually reduce the level of harm one causes.

By trying to make much of her belief that "veganism"
has more potential to reduce harm, but not actually
*doing* things to reduce harm, Karen is demonstrating
once again that "veganism" is almost entirely about
symbolic gestures.




~jonnie~?....................why do you wear your underpants on the
outside of your clothing?

  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2005, 02:00 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The astonishing lunacy of Karen Winter


"Ron" wrote in message
oups.com...

Leif Erikson wrote:
I wrote,

"vegans" who become aware of this flaw [denying the
antecedent] most frequently fall back on an equally
defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least
harm" practice.

To this, Karen replied, "No, that veganism *can*
represent a least-harm practice."

The potential of a practice is morally meaningless.
There only is meaning to what one *does*, not what one
*might* do but doesn't.

Karen continued:

The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that
it is "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis,
but that it is a more -- not *absolutely*, but
*more* -- just practice because it better respects
animals.

Karen seems to want to take a cafeteria approach to
utilitarianism and deontology. (For those not familiar
with her, Karen - "glorfindel", bleaghh - historically
has leaned toward deontology, believing that animals
should hold "rights".) She wants to try to cadge as
much prestige as she can from utilitarian beliefs
without really adopting them. But there is *no*
improvement, in utility or otherwise, from adopting a
belief system, and some half measures based on it, that
don't actually reduce the level of harm one causes.

By trying to make much of her belief that "veganism"
has more potential to reduce harm, but not actually
*doing* things to reduce harm, Karen is demonstrating
once again that "veganism" is almost entirely about
symbolic gestures.




~jonnie~?....................why do you wear your underpants on
the
outside of your clothing?

=======================
Typical response from a usenet vegan loon. Nothing....





  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2005, 12:10 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
 
Posts: n/a
Default The astonishing lunacy of Karen Winter


rick wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
oups.com...

Leif Erikson wrote:
I wrote,

"vegans" who become aware of this flaw [denying the
antecedent] most frequently fall back on an equally
defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least
harm" practice.

To this, Karen replied, "No, that veganism *can*
represent a least-harm practice."

The potential of a practice is morally meaningless.
There only is meaning to what one *does*, not what one
*might* do but doesn't.

Karen continued:

The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that
it is "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis,
but that it is a more -- not *absolutely*, but
*more* -- just practice because it better respects
animals.

Karen seems to want to take a cafeteria approach to
utilitarianism and deontology. (For those not familiar
with her, Karen - "glorfindel", bleaghh - historically
has leaned toward deontology, believing that animals
should hold "rights".) She wants to try to cadge as
much prestige as she can from utilitarian beliefs
without really adopting them. But there is *no*
improvement, in utility or otherwise, from adopting a
belief system, and some half measures based on it, that
don't actually reduce the level of harm one causes.

By trying to make much of her belief that "veganism"
has more potential to reduce harm, but not actually
*doing* things to reduce harm, Karen is demonstrating
once again that "veganism" is almost entirely about
symbolic gestures.




~jonnie~?....................why do you wear your underpants on
the
outside of your clothing?

=======================
Typical response from a usenet vegan loon. Nothing....




Please make sure ~jonnie~ is properly dressed before he comes out to
play.










Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians chico chupacabra Vegan 146 29-12-2017 07:54 PM
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear Jonathan Ball Vegan 48 20-12-2003 12:34 AM
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear Jonathan Ball Vegan 0 12-12-2003 07:52 AM
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v. Bill Vegan 133 18-11-2003 09:10 PM
Karen Winter's evil hypocrisy and evasion Bill Vegan 16 01-11-2003 07:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017