"Bill" > wrote in message
news
> Your rotten explanation for your appalling
> inconsistency stinks.
>
> Killing animals for meat, and thoughtlessly killing
> them collaterally in the course of vegetable
> production, *both* reflect a failure or refusal to
> recognize what you claim is their intrinsic worth.
> Your adoption of a strictly vegetarian diet does
> nothing to change the societal view of animals; it is a
> symbolic gesture *only*, and is plainly seen as such.
> Likewise, working assiduously to ensure that you
> consumed only CD-free vegetables *also* would be *only*
> a symbolic gesture, and would correctly be seen as
> such. Why do you engage in one purely symbolic,
> utterly ineffectual gesture, but not the other?
>
> Your answer to date is unacceptable. I asked earlier
> what distinguishes the two gestures:
>
> Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
> CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
> gestures. What distinguishes them?
>
> You answered:
>
> What distinguishes them is that buying meat and other
> animal products supports a system which represents
> a view
> of animals which is philosophically opposed to AR: that
> animals are property, that they have a moral
> standing which
> allows us to use them in unjust ways, raise and
> delibrately kill
> them without consideration of their intrinsic worth.
>
>
> That answer is wrong, because collateral deaths in
> vegetable production *also* occur due to societal
> failure to give "consideration of their intrinsic
> worth." In fact, you have ADMITTED as much, in your
> sleazy rationalization for why you refuse to make the
> more difficult and costly symbolic gesture, preferring
> instead to continue to cause CDs:
>
> I am convinced that veganism is a more ethical
> position, since it rejects such animal deaths in
> principle, and if the vegan position is accepted,
> collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the
> awareness
> of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as
> a whole until a moral stance against the intentional
> deaths of animals in production of food and other
> products is seen as unacceptable. Then society can
> and will advance to the consideration of
> unintentional deaths as well.
>
>
> So, your claim about what the distinction is is FALSE.
> What IS the distinction, then?
>
> The distinction is: cost and ease. Being "vegan" is
> cheap and easy, relative to refraining from eating
> CD-causing vegetables. BOTH are merely symbolic, but
> one is much more costly than the other.
>
> Your engagement in one symbolic gesture, but not the
> other, clearly is NOT based on any legitimate
> principle, because the principle - recognition of the
> intrinsic moral worth of animals - should dictate BOTH.
>
> Thus, we see that you are a thorough-going liar, three
> times:
>
> 1. why you're "vegan": it is not based on principle
> 2. why you don't abstain from CD-causing produce: it
> *is* based on cost and convenience, and on making
> your adherence to principle contingent on others'
> acceptance of your views
> 3. what you have said about your dirty rationalization
> of #2
>
> You LIED when you claimed you didn't base your refusal
> to abstain from CD-causing produce on others' views and
> behavior. It is *exactly* what you do:
>
> > You claim that your inaction - your continued
> > participation in the collateral slaughter of
> > animals you don't eat - continues only because the
> > slaughter of animals that are eaten continues.
>
> I have never claimed any such thing.
>
> You are a liar. You do it above:
>
> ...if the vegan position is accepted, collateral
> deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> of farmers.
>
> YOU could stop participating in CDs today, but you
> won't, because others won't. You are waiting for CDs
> to go away by virtue of *others'* changes in attitudes
> and behavior.
>
> Calling you a liar is not a "personal attack". You
> throw that out there as if it invalidates the analysis
> of the appalling inconsistency in your behavior, but
> you are wrong. The analysis of your shoddy moral pose
> is correct. Your lying doesn't begin until you react
> to the correct analysis, and the labeling of you as a
> liar follows that. You ARE a liar, Karen.

Get a life you sad dwarf.
>