Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
>>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
>>>>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
>>>>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
>>>>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
>>>>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
>>>>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
>>>>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
>>>>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
>>>>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
>>>>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
>>>>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
>>>>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
>>>>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
>>>>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
>>>>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
>
> I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.

Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.

> I'm not responsible for any deaths personally.

You are when you purchase their crops.

> You are trying
> to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing,

That's what VEGANS do. You claim it's wrong to kill animals, and when
shown that your diet causes more animals to be killed, you say it's
wrong to eat them.

> when in
> fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> reductions I have made

You haven't reduced animal deaths through your consumption. You're
engaging in a perverse tautology in which you say something is wrong but
that you're not responsible.

> (knowing that it's currently
> impossible to do better).

Only because you're the classically clueless urbanite. You've been told
how it's possible to cause much fewer animal deaths, but you object when
some of the options include eating certain kinds of meat; you've also
suggested -- LAMELY -- that only wealthy landowners can afford to grow
crops "veganically."

> You say I'm not allowed to
> feel content, something you have no say in. I am
> doing the best I can and I'm happy with that.

You're not doing a ****ing thing that minimizes harm to animals. You
still consume commercially-grown crops and overprocessed foods like Yves
fake meat (why do you want the taste of something you find offensive?).

> I have
> seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
> more deaths than local ones, by the way.

Additional storage and transportation, for starters. Rick also gave you
links to articles about how environmentally damaging banana and plantain
crops are in Central America. Environmental damage from monocropped
bananas and plantains means harm to animals through decreased habitat,
pollution, etc.

>>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>>>revealing:
>
> You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
> believe that killing animals is wrong

Wrong? Isn't that an absolute?

> and I find some
> farmers like Lundbergs commendable for reducing
> accidental deaths.

Of migratory birds, not of other species. Your consumption of Lundberg
rice doesn't lead to decreased animal casualties, it still increases it.
Maybe not as much as other kinds of rice, but it's still a net increase
over other crops.

> As for other commercial foods,
> I'm content know there's less deaths from vegan foods

You don't know that, you just keep repeating it.

> than in the meat and dairy industry as a whole due to
> cds in crop/feed growing.

Your attempt to put all meat and dairy production in the same basket
avoids the fact that not all meat or dairy is produced the same. You've
been informed of low-CD products like grass-fed beef, bison, hand-caught
fish, wild game, etc.

<...>
>>>>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>>>>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>>>>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>>>>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>>>>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>>>>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>
> Stop forcing the word absolute into the above and
> into your expectations of vegans.

He'll probably stop once you start honestly answering questions instead
of tap dancing.