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
  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 06:24 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:28:32 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:26:53 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The conclusion logically follows from the premises you
stated. You can't escape what you wrote and deny the
implications of it.

I provided the clarification of my statement, that is all that should be
required, if you were discussing the issue in good faith.

Your statements are categorical and therefore need
no further clarification.


The clarification is there, you cannot reasonably reject it.


"Every legal right is preceded by a moral right."
Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju

is a categorical statement without any need for further
clarification. How many times must you be told these
simple rules before they sink in?


ROTFL!!! Your stupidity is exceeed only by your arrogance.



  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 08:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


"Derek" wrote same old shite.

Shut up, you're an idiot.


  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 08:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen

"Derek" wrote same old shite.

Shut up, you're an idiot.


  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 08:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen

"Derek" wrote same old shite.

Shut up, you're an idiot.


  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 09:27 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


"Dave" wrote

Derek wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" wrote:

Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather
than study your clarifications.


No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand
clarification when they make no sense.


I have absolutely no problem with that.


Except he is telling a bald-faced lie, in this case he took my original
statement at face value, concluded that it made no sense, then not only
didn't ask for a clarification, he then refused to accept a clarification
when it was offered, because it undermined the case he had built up against
me using the original imperfect statement.

In this instance he
clarified his position describing his previous use of langauge
as informal (personally I would use the term inaccurate) but
instead of accepting his clarifications you continued to attack
the original statements. To me that's assaulting a strawman.

Take his latest, for example;

"I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to
be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible.
It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against
us not to be abused."
Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d

That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying
to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a
greater one,


Perhaps he is arguing that it is practical and realistic
to grant rights against the lesser moral harm but not
against the greater moral harm. Perhaps he disputes
that slaughter is a greater moral harm to an animal
than abuse. Perhaps both.


Read what I wrote again, particularly the word "plausible", morals have to
be plausible. For example we can't say that it's is immoral to kill plants,
that's not plausible. We could decide that it is immoral to kill white
roses, that *is* plausible, but why should we do that? It makes more sense
to allow people to kill their own white roses if they want to. By the same
reasoning it's not plausible to say it's immoral to kill animals. Animal
life is as ubiquitous as plant life, probably more so. So we can say it's
immoral to kill, say pigs, but why should we?

The only context in which killing an animal is comparable to abusing it is
when it is killed in the course of or as a form of abuse, in that case it is
a severe outcome of abuse. If an animal is killed in a justifiable way, then
it has no relation to abuse. Killing and abuse (i.e. torture) are two
completely different things. Torture is virtually always considered wrong in
every circumstance. Killing is not, killing is part of living, it's a harsh
reality of life.


but when asked for it he refuses to give it,
opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds
the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say
that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face
value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you
arse-licking ******?


Arse-licking. Isn't that what you do to Leif?


He sure does. He turns into an obseqiuous little toady when addressing Leif,
despite the fact that their views are 180 degrees apart.

Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else.


If revealing his and your stupidity is point scoring, then
so be it because the tally is enormous and still growing.






  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 06:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen

Dutch wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dutch wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dutch wrote:
"Dave" wrote

The "some animals" in that statement refers not to some miniscule
statistical number, but massive and systematic harm. In that sense the
statement is entirely correct. The AR/vegan idealism only holds
together
if
veganism by it's nature eliminates all but statisically small amounts
of
animal harm. It does not do that.

To paraphrase that stupidity;

"If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to
*some* [humans] is acceptable, then the theoretical
concept of "[human] rights" collapses utterly and
must be discarded in favor of a more logical world-
view."
Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s

I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human"
makes no difference to the logic here.

Yes it absolutely does make a difference. Derek slyly removed the
first
sentence from the paragraph which changes the context. The entire
paragraph
is...

----start------
Under normal circumstances we always can avoid harm to humans.

Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a
result
of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global
warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances".

You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference
between
doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something
that
kills outright.


Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
collateral and intentional animal deaths?


Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk
of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
populations.


Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
kind. Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
"statistical" deaths.

There is little doubt that
human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.


It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to the
treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied subdivisions with
giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.


If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
entirely of degree. If you wish to make distinctions based on how
"direct"
,for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no reason to
deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the head and
undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.

We don't
continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans.

Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but it
is still there.

On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear accidents,
not
on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.


Granted.


That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some* harm
always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.


That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
style. By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
harm principle" quite pertinent.

If we
are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
acceptable,
then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and
must
be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.

Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths that
are
an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of yet
more
animals.

It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place it
into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products
actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think,
then
that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die either
way,


Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.


The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
produced.


Of course.

so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad dichotomy
between farming animals and not doing so,


Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
between,...


If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by non-vegan
foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.


Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
rather harder to establish.

provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly.


Yes. That's a very important qualification.

----end-----

The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet"
status
that vegans like to pretend to is a sham.

Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim that
it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous.

I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating,
misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done
with
honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable.

Animals are killed in large
numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy
in
that light is an outright lie.

This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather more
convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed but
it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve
fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant
foods.

That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view.


The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock
farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt
that some day.


Read this. http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/...malsplace.html


Thanks for that. There was one particular fragment of the article that
made an impression on me: " a human morality based on individual
rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world.
This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human
culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good
for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an
adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric
to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature?"

It makes a certain pragmatic sense to adopt a moral duality; a system
of thought to guide our conduct within the "human realm" and a seperate

system to guide our conduct within the "natural realm".


It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it
must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive.


  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 06:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


Dutch wrote:
"Dave" wrote

Derek wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" wrote:

Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather
than study your clarifications.

No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand
clarification when they make no sense.


I have absolutely no problem with that.


Except he is telling a bald-faced lie, in this case he took my original
statement at face value, concluded that it made no sense, then not only
didn't ask for a clarification, he then refused to accept a clarification
when it was offered, because it undermined the case he had built up against
me using the original imperfect statement.


Yes. The rest of my paragraph says more or less the same thing.
What I meant was that I had no problem with him taking your
statement at face value, initially, before you clarified it for him.

In this instance he
clarified his position describing his previous use of langauge
as informal (personally I would use the term inaccurate) but
instead of accepting his clarifications you continued to attack
the original statements. To me that's assaulting a strawman.

Take his latest, for example;

"I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to
be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible.
It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against
us not to be abused."
Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d

That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying
to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a
greater one,


Perhaps he is arguing that it is practical and realistic
to grant rights against the lesser moral harm but not
against the greater moral harm. Perhaps he disputes
that slaughter is a greater moral harm to an animal
than abuse. Perhaps both.


Read what I wrote again, particularly the word "plausible", morals have to
be plausible. For example we can't say that it's is immoral to kill plants,
that's not plausible. We could decide that it is immoral to kill white
roses, that *is* plausible, but why should we do that? It makes more sense
to allow people to kill their own white roses if they want to. By the same
reasoning it's not plausible to say it's immoral to kill animals. Animal
life is as ubiquitous as plant life, probably more so. So we can say it's
immoral to kill, say pigs, but why should we?

The only context in which killing an animal is comparable to abusing it is
when it is killed in the course of or as a form of abuse, in that case it is
a severe outcome of abuse. If an animal is killed in a justifiable way, then
it has no relation to abuse. Killing and abuse (i.e. torture) are two
completely different things. Torture is virtually always considered wrong in
every circumstance. Killing is not, killing is part of living, it's a harsh
reality of life.


This appears to me to be a fully adequate clarification of your
position.


but when asked for it he refuses to give it,
opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds
the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say
that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face
value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you
arse-licking ******?


Arse-licking. Isn't that what you do to Leif?


He sure does. He turns into an obseqiuous little toady when addressing Leif,
despite the fact that their views are 180 degrees apart.

Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else.

If revealing his and your stupidity is point scoring, then
so be it because the tally is enormous and still growing.



  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 07:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


"Dave" wrote
Dutch wrote:


[..]

Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
collateral and intentional animal deaths?


Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term
risk
of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
populations.


Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
kind. Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
"statistical" deaths.


Some of that is valid, but the majority of animal harm in agriculture is
much more immediate and large-scale. Pesticides and herbicides are lethal to
small animals, and Davis concludes that running machinery through fields is
also.

There is little doubt that
human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.


It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to
the
treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied subdivisions
with
giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.


If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
entirely of degree.


A difference in numbers counted in many orders of magnitude amounts to a
difference in kind.

If you wish to make distinctions based on how
"direct"
,for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no reason to
deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the head and
undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.


It's not a matter of directness, that wasn't my point. If using a field for
agriculture negatively impacts *most* of the animals on the land, killing,
poisoning, injuring or displacing them, then that is different than
acknowledging that once in a while an animal is caught in the thresher. The
latter would be classed as a statistical anomaly and not a moral factor.



We don't
continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of
humans.

Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but
it
is still there.

On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear
accidents,
not
on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.

Granted.


That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some* harm
always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.


That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
style.


It depends on how you figure the degree of harm. I assume that it is
massive, you may think it's statisically insignificant.

By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
harm principle" quite pertinent.


He does not conclude that the harm done by threshing machines alone is
statistically insignificant, not even factoring in plowing or spraying. He
finds that animal populations are seriously decimated.

If we
are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
acceptable,
then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly
and
must
be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.

Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths
that
are
an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of
yet
more
animals.

It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place
it
into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products
actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think,
then
that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die
either
way,

Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.


The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
produced.


Of course.


Which is why it's a fallacy to simple compare vegetables and meat.

so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad
dichotomy
between farming animals and not doing so,

Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
between,...


If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by
non-vegan
foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.


Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
rather harder to establish.


It's simple to follow, if you place very little value on enjoyment of food,
but it apparently is not simple to follow AND at the same time acknowledge
the limitations of the diet philosophy.


provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly.

Yes. That's a very important qualification.

----end-----

The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet"
status
that vegans like to pretend to is a sham.

Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim
that
it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous.

I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating,
misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done
with
honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable.

Animals are killed in large
numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights"
dichotomy
in
that light is an outright lie.

This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather
more
convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed
but
it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve
fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant
foods.

That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view.

The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock
farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt
that some day.


Read this. http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/...malsplace.html


Thanks for that. There was one particular fragment of the article that
made an impression on me: " a human morality based on individual
rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world.
This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human
culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good
for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an
adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric
to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature?"

It makes a certain pragmatic sense to adopt a moral duality; a system
of thought to guide our conduct within the "human realm" and a seperate

system to guide our conduct within the "natural realm".


This is common sense, and it's a point I have been trying to get across.
ARAs cry foul because they imagine that we ought to use "equal
consideration" when dealing with humans and animals, yet any attempts to
define what that means in practice fail, predictably, because it's not
plausible.



It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it
must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and
inclusive.




  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-06-2006, 10:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen

Dave wrote:

Dutch wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
roups.com...

Dutch wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
legroups.com...

Dutch wrote:

"Dave" wrote

The "some animals" in that statement refers not to some miniscule
statistical number, but massive and systematic harm. In that sense the
statement is entirely correct. The AR/vegan idealism only holds
together
if
veganism by it's nature eliminates all but statisically small amounts
of
animal harm. It does not do that.


To paraphrase that stupidity;

"If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to
*some* [humans] is acceptable, then the theoretical
concept of "[human] rights" collapses utterly and
must be discarded in favor of a more logical world-
view."
Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s

I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human"
makes no difference to the logic here.

Yes it absolutely does make a difference. Derek slyly removed the
first
sentence from the paragraph which changes the context. The entire
paragraph
is...

----start------
Under normal circumstances we always can avoid harm to humans.

Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a
result
of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global
warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances".

You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference
between
doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something
that
kills outright.

Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
collateral and intentional animal deaths?


Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk
of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
populations.



Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
kind.


The difference in numbers is several orders of
magnitude, dummy. A difference that large tells you
there is some *underlying* difference in kind.

What do you suppose it is, davey "pesco-vegan"? Let's
see, below...


Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
"statistical" deaths.


davey, *why* do you suppose there is no mitigation in
place for those things, except in cases of endangered
species? That is, apart from species that are
threatened or endangered, no mitigation is required for
the use of the technologies you mentioned in order to
prevent animal deaths. Our concern is not with
individual animals, who have no right nor expectation
of not being harmed, but rather with species that we
don't want to see become extinct.

But it's different with humans. Technology use must be
done in such a way that the threat to *individual*
humans is minimized. Not only that, but mitigation
efforts are ongoing and constant: cars, appliances,
airplanes, etc. are safer today than they were in 1996,
and they were safer in 1996 than they were in 1986, and
so on.

What do you suppose the difference in kind is, davey,
you ****wit?


There is little doubt that
human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.


It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to the
treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied subdivisions with
giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.



If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
entirely of degree. If you wish to make distinctions based on how
"direct", for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no
reason to deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the
head and undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.


See above, "pesco-vegan", you ****wit. These are not
"merely statistical" differences. There is an
underlying difference in kind that LEADS TO the
orders-of-magnitude difference.


We don't
continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans.

Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but it
is still there.

On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear accidents,


The likelihood of a nuclear accident is extremely
small. Worrying about perishing in a nuclear accident,
or an airplane crash, is a great example of focusing on
the wrong probability.

The wrong probability to which people pay too much
attention, and therefore worry needlessly, is the
conditional probability: *given* that the airplane in
which I'm traveling crashes - that's the condition -
*then* what is the probability that I'll die? That
conditional probability is obviously quite high,
approaching 1, but it's the wrong one on which to focus.

The correct probability is the joint probability: what
is the probability that the plane on which I'm
traveling crashes *and* that I die in the crash? The
probability of the plane crash is extremely small, so
the joint probability also is small. The same holds
for nuclear accidents. If you live near a nuke plant,
and it has a major Chernobyl-scale accident, then the
probability of dying is very high; but the probability
of the accident happening in the first place is
extremely low.


not on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.

Granted.


That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some* harm
always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.



That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
style. By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
harm principle" quite pertinent.


The probability that *some* animals will die every time
a piece of heavy farm machinery ventures into a field
is extremely high; probably nearly 1. By contrast, the
probability that a human will die, other than the
equipment operator himself, is virtually zero. The
probability that humans will die even in the course of
a major urban construction project is extremely low.
One must distinguish between workers who may be killed
or injured in the course of their work, and innocent
bystanders or passers-by. The animals killed
collaterally in agriculture are not like construction
workers or factory workers; they are like a pedestrian
walking along the sidewalk next to a construction
project, and a brick or chunk of metal falls on him and
kills him. The workers know the risks, and they are
compensated for them. *Even so*, we still attempt to
minimize the risks both for the human participants and
the passers-by. No such effort is made for wildlife
living in farm fields.


If we
are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
acceptable,
then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and
must
be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.

Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths that
are
an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of yet
more
animals.

It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place it
into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products
actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think,
then
that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die either
way,

Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.


The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
produced.



Of course.


so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad dichotomy
between farming animals and not doing so,

Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
between,...


If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by non-vegan
foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.



Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
rather harder to establish.


It's childishly simple.


provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly.

Yes. That's a very important qualification.


----end-----

The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet"
status
that vegans like to pretend to is a sham.

Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim that
it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous.

I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating,
misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done
with
honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable.


Animals are killed in large
numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy
in
that light is an outright lie.

This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather more
convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed but
it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve
fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant
foods.

That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view.

The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock
farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt
that some day.


Read this. http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/...malsplace.html



Thanks for that. There was one particular fragment of the article that
made an impression on me: " a human morality based on individual
rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world.
This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human
culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good
for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an
adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric
to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature?"

It makes a certain pragmatic sense to adopt a moral duality; a system
of thought to guide our conduct within the "human realm" and a seperate

system to guide our conduct within the "natural realm".


It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it
must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive.


  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-06-2006, 11:40 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


Leif Erikson wrote:


Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a
result
of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global
warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances".

You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference
between
doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something
that
kills outright.

Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
collateral and intentional animal deaths?

Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk
of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
populations.



Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
kind.


The difference in numbers is several orders of
magnitude, dummy. A difference that large tells you
there is some *underlying* difference in kind.

What do you suppose it is, davey "pesco-vegan"? Let's
see, below...


Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
"statistical" deaths.


davey, *why* do you suppose there is no mitigation in
place for those things, except in cases of endangered
species? That is, apart from species that are
threatened or endangered, no mitigation is required for
the use of the technologies you mentioned in order to
prevent animal deaths. Our concern is not with
individual animals, who have no right nor expectation
of not being harmed, but rather with species that we
don't want to see become extinct.

But it's different with humans. Technology use must be
done in such a way that the threat to *individual*
humans is minimized. Not only that, but mitigation
efforts are ongoing and constant: cars, appliances,
airplanes, etc. are safer today than they were in 1996,
and they were safer in 1996 than they were in 1986, and
so on.

What do you suppose the difference in kind is, davey,
you ****wit?


The lack of mitigation can be seen as a difference in kind
but so can the difference between collateral and intentional
deaths. IOW we have a "hierachy"; collateral mitigated(cm),
collateral unmitigated(cx), intentional(i). You object to vegans
differentiating between the cx deaths and the i deaths but
are insisting on differentiating between cm and cx. This
is arbitrary and self serving of you.



  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2006, 05:13 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dutch wrote:
"Dave" wrote
Dutch wrote:


[..]

Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
collateral and intentional animal deaths?

Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term
risk
of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
populations.

Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
kind. Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
"statistical" deaths.


Some of that is valid, but the majority of animal harm in agriculture is
much more immediate and large-scale. Pesticides and herbicides are lethal
to
small animals, and Davis concludes that running machinery through fields
is
also.

There is little doubt that
human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.

It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to
the
treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied
subdivisions
with
giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.

If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
entirely of degree.


A difference in numbers counted in many orders of magnitude amounts to a
difference in kind.


Yes and no. The alleged fallacy of objetcing to the 101st death applies
to both situations.


That doesn't follow at all. The 1001st death principle refers to the vegan's
obsession with the death of the animal on the dinner plate and his relative
indifference to the 1000 other animals who die in support of a human
lifestyle. Pollution or other indirect long-term harmful practices are not
comparable in kind.

If you wish to make distinctions based on how
"direct"
,for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no reason to
deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the head and
undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.


It's not a matter of directness, that wasn't my point. If using a field
for
agriculture negatively impacts *most* of the animals on the land,
killing,
poisoning, injuring or displacing them, then that is different than
acknowledging that once in a while an animal is caught in the thresher.
The
latter would be classed as a statistical anomaly and not a moral factor.



We don't
continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of
humans.

Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals
but
it
is still there.

On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear
accidents,
not
on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.

Granted.

That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some*
harm
always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.

That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
style.


It depends on how you figure the degree of harm. I assume that it is
massive, you may think it's statisically insignificant.


No. I think you are exaggerating it but I don't claim it is
statistically insignificant.

By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
harm principle" quite pertinent.


He does not conclude that the harm done by threshing machines alone is
statistically insignificant, not even factoring in plowing or spraying.
He
finds that animal populations are seriously decimated.


AFAICR he concludes very little. He cites too studies comparing
populations per ha for a given species before and after but i
unable to say how much of the discrepency is due to displacement
and how much is due to mortality.

If we
are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
acceptable,
then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses
utterly
and
must
be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.

Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths
that
are
an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of
yet
more
animals.

It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they
place
it
into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal
products
actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to
think,
then
that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die
either
way,

Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.

The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
produced.

Of course.


Which is why it's a fallacy to simple compare vegetables and meat.


Meat [...] production causes more harm than vegetable production
is a fallacy if the [...] is "always" but not if the [...] is
"generally".


Exactly, but veganism isn't ever presented assuming "general" validity,
that's one of my primary objections to it.

so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad
dichotomy
between farming animals and not doing so,

Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
between,...

If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by
non-vegan
foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.

Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
rather harder to establish.


It's simple to follow, if you place very little value on enjoyment of
food,


A matter of individual taste how much more enjoyable an omnivore
diet is compared with a vegan one.


Hardly. In fact I think a major factor why vegans proseltyse so vehemently
is their wish to have company in their suffering.




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
Roger Cohen on French food in the NYT [email protected] General Cooking 6 01-09-2009 07:44 PM
Shopping a al Leonard Cohen Gill Smith General Cooking 20 29-10-2008 09:28 PM
Joyce Zac & Allissa Cohen fland514 Vegan 0 02-07-2006 02:43 AM
Alissa Cohen fland514 Vegan 0 14-06-2006 02:43 AM
Ping: Louis Cohen jmcquown General Cooking 1 01-08-2004 03:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:42 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