All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.

Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. It simply is not credible.

How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.

I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

On Feb 18, 11:51*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> *still* accept it.
>
> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...

> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
> sentance? Actually, don't bother...


I'll go ahead and do it:
100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.

On Feb 20, 5:31 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
> > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > I do not eat meat;
>
> > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > *still* accept it.
>
> > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...

No, you didn't. You just don't have an answer for it.

You commit all the logical fallacies and other slovenly low quality
thinking of "veganism". You do it because you choose to be stupid.

Justin E. Miller wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>
>
> I'll go ahead and do it:
> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.

All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an
irrational belief system.

Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal. I
do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick to
the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out on
that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>>
>>
>> I'll go ahead and do it:
>> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
>
> All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational belief
> system.

Justin E. Miller wrote:
> Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal. I
> do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
> front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick to
> the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out on
> that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.

Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means
not consuming any animal products at all, not just in
your diet: no leather or wool garments, no lotions
that contain lanolin, no products tested on animals,
and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly
ethics, not health.


>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>>>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll go ahead and do it:
>>> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
>>
>> All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
>> belief system.

I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>> Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal.
>> I do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
>> front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick
>> to the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out
>> on that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.
>
> Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means not consuming
> any animal products at all, not just in your diet: no leather or wool
> garments, no lotions that contain lanolin, no products tested on
> animals, and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly ethics, not
> health.
>
>
>>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>>>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>>>>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll go ahead and do it:
>>>> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
>>>
>>> All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
>>> belief system.

Justin E. Miller wrote:
> I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
> don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
> could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.

You seem as if you *do* care - that faced with your own
choice of what to wear on your feet, you would
consciously avoid leather.


>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>> Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal.
>>> I do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
>>> front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick
>>> to the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out
>>> on that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.
>>
>> Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means not consuming
>> any animal products at all, not just in your diet: no leather or wool
>> garments, no lotions that contain lanolin, no products tested on
>> animals, and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly ethics,
>> not health.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>>>>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>>>>>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll go ahead and do it:
>>>>> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
>>>>
>>>> All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
>>>> belief system.

On Feb 21, 8:48*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Justin E. Miller wrote:
> > I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
> > don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
> > could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.
>
> You seem as if you *do* care - that faced with your own
> choice of what to wear on your feet, you would
> consciously avoid leather.
>

He already said he would if he could.

How stupid *are* you really?

On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> *still* accept it.
>
> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
argument. It's you against your straw man.

On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > *still* accept it.
>
> > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
sure the
majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
many
of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
greater
priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
refuse to eat
off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
meat, or
arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
ethics -
I kid you not!

I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
have become
so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
sight of the
objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.

On Feb 25, 10:10*am, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
> sure the
> majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> many
> of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> greater
> priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> refuse to eat
> off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> meat, or
> arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> ethics -
> I kid you not!
>

Are you sure it was an actual vegan who brought up this question and
not just someone trying to satirize the vegan position?

I know plenty of vegans and not one of them would view that as a
serious question. I've had someone bring up the question with me for
the purposes of making fun of veganism.

We may be loopy, but we're not *that* loopy.

> I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> have become
> so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> sight of the
> objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.

There's clearly some truth to this in the sense that there a quite a
few vegans who don't really appreciate the point that you can't really
give a good reason for worrying about which beer and wine to drink if
you're going to allow yourself to eat rice and use electricity.

If Ball is content with saying "Look how silly the vegans are,
worrying about which beer and wine to drink" then that's fine, I
guess. I find him quite silly myself quite frequently and I enjoy
making fun of him. No reason why I should have all the fun.

But to my mind this is not really an interesting issue. Ball agrees
that we have some moral obligations towards nonhuman animals. He
criticizes the animal rights position for failing to find a coherent
foundation for where to "draw the line". Well, fine. But who has found
a coherent foundation for where to draw the line? As far as I can see,
we're all in the same boat. Some of us are actually interested in
making a good faith effort to think about the problem, rather than
getting gratification from insulting people on usenet.

On Feb 25, 7:09*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 10:10*am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
> > sure the
> > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > many
> > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > greater
> > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > refuse to eat
> > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > meat, or
> > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > ethics -
> > I kid you not!
>
> Are you sure it was an actual vegan who brought up this question and
> not just someone trying to satirize the vegan position?
>
> I know plenty of vegans and not one of them would view that as a
> serious question. I've had someone bring up the question with me for
> the purposes of making fun of veganism.
>
> We may be loopy, but we're not *that* loopy.

He was an active member of the animal rights movement. I do have a
confession to
make though. I did not actually hear the conversation. I just heard
about it so I guess
he could have been using irony but it didn't sound that way from the
account I heard.
>
> > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > have become
> > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > sight of the
> > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.
>
> There's clearly some truth to this in the sense that there a quite a
> few vegans who don't really appreciate the point that you can't really
> give a good reason for worrying about which beer and wine to drink if
> you're going to allow yourself to eat rice and use electricity.

Well I can't speak for him but I wouldn't even go that far. Just cos
you don't
do everything shouldn't mean you can't do anything without having
'hypocrite'
shoved down your throat. I guess you could say the time spent figuring
which
wines and beers are OK could be used more productively....

> If Ball is content with saying "Look how silly the vegans are,
> worrying about which beer and wine to drink" then that's fine, I
> guess. I find him quite silly myself quite frequently and I enjoy
> making fun of him. No reason why I should have all the fun.
>
> But to my mind this is not really an interesting issue. Ball agrees
> that we have some moral obligations towards nonhuman animals. He
> criticizes the animal rights position for failing to find a coherent
> foundation for where to "draw the line". Well, fine. But who has found
> a coherent foundation for where to draw the line? As far as I can see,
> we're all in the same boat. Some of us are actually interested in
> making a good faith effort to think about the problem, rather than
> getting gratification from insulting people on usenet.

Oh, I totally agree with you on this point!

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 24, 8:10*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
> sure the
> majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> many
> of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> greater
> priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> refuse to eat
> off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> meat, or
> arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> ethics -
> I kid you not!
>
> I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> have become
> so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> sight of the
> objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
support itself with religious rhetoric.

On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
> > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > I do not eat meat;
>
> > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > *still* accept it.
>
> > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> Your entire premise is basically just wrong.

No, it isn't. It is completely accurate. All "vegans" *do* start by
believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
cause no animal suffering and death. And that's false - they *do*
cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. Most
"vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. Those who
do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
all:

1. They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
2. They claim to be "doing the best they can".
3. They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.

*All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.

> I am a vegan and I'd like
> to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.

I have. I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. All
they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
those who do consume animal parts.

>You only
> contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> argument.

It is.

> It's you against your straw man.

No, there's no straw man. I have accurately described the very
essence of "veganism".

On Feb 25, 3:15 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
> > sure the
> > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > many
> > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > greater
> > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > refuse to eat
> > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > meat, or
> > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > ethics -
> > I kid you not!
>
> > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > have become
> > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > sight of the
> > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
> Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy

No, absolutely not. You recognize no such thing, because there is no
fallacy that you can identify.


> that is
> promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> support itself with religious rhetoric.

Most people who consume animal parts do not accept your inflammatory
and inaccurate language about "subjugating" other animals. That's not
what it is. Instead, they recognize, correctly, that animals do not
have rights, and that no moral wrong is being done by consuming them.
They further recognize that it is morally incoherent to suggest
animals could hold "rights" against us, but not against other
predators that would also consume them.

> Most people who consume animal parts do not accept your
inflammatory
> and inaccurate language about "subjugating" other animals. *That's not
> what it is. *Instead, they recognize, correctly, that animals do not
> have rights, and that no moral wrong is being done by consuming them.
> They further recognize that it is morally incoherent to suggest
> animals could hold "rights" against us, but not against other
> predators that would also consume them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You claim that "animals do not have rights, and that no moral wrong is
being done by consuming them."
Does your moral code permit you to consume any non-human species?

On Feb 25, 11:15*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:10*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
> > sure the
> > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > many
> > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > greater
> > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > refuse to eat
> > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > meat, or
> > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > ethics -
> > I kid you not!
>
> > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > have become
> > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > sight of the
> > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.

Very true.

> Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> support itself with religious rhetoric.

Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
dream
of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
do
what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
for our benefit.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
> > > sure the
> > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > many
> > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > greater
> > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > refuse to eat
> > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > meat, or
> > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > ethics -
> > > I kid you not!
>
> > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > have become
> > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > sight of the
> > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
>
> Very true.
>
> > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > support itself with religious rhetoric.
>
> Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> dream
> of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> do
> what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> for our benefit.

Dictionary.com:
subjugate--
1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.

I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
word "subjugate". Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
Anyway...
I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
worms in your compost pile? (joke)

On Feb 26, 12:37*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > Your entire premise is basically just wrong.
>
> No, it isn't. *It is completely accurate. *All "vegans" *do* start by
> believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> cause no animal suffering and death. *And that's false - they *do*
> cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. *Most
> "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. *Those who
> do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> all:
>
> 1. *They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> 2. *They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> 3. *They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.
>
> *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.
>
> *> I am a vegan and I'd like
>
> > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.
>
> I have. *I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. *All
> they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> those who do consume animal parts.
>
> *>You only
>
> > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > argument.
>
> It is.
>
> *> It's you against your straw man.
>
> No, there's no straw man. *I have accurately described the very
> essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
'veganism'", as you called it. But like I keep telling you, it's not
your job to tell me what my position is, anyway. Let's see how you
like it:
Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings, but
only for food, clothing, health, etc.

Is that about right?

On Feb 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > > > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
> > > > sure the
> > > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > > many
> > > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > > greater
> > > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > > refuse to eat
> > > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > > meat, or
> > > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > > ethics -
> > > > I kid you not!
>
> > > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > > have become
> > > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > > sight of the
> > > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
>
> > Very true.
>
> > > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > > support itself with religious rhetoric.
>
> > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > dream
> > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > do
> > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > for our benefit.
>
> Dictionary.com:
> subjugate--
> 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
>
> I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> word "subjugate".

I wasn't suprised that he objected. People
tend to object when those on the other side
of the debate use "loaded" terms. I don't have a
problem with it though. Nor do I consider it
inaccurate.

> Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> Anyway...
> I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
> what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> worms in your compost pile? (joke)- Hide quoted text -

Well the least controversial example I can think of
would be working dogs, trained to follow orders. I
know it is a minority fringe within the vegan community
but I have seen objection, even to pets on the grounds
that is technically a master-slave relationship as
the owner owns the pet. A working dog would also
be made to work for the owner but would normally
be quite content with its lot and I don't see the
problem.

A more controversial would be a laying hen reared
in a compassionate free range style. You can take
keep the hen and take the unfertilized eggs without
infringing upon the hens freedom. The difference is that
the hen's status is likely to be more like
"economic resource" than companion and therefore
her needs will most likely be given less weight.
If nothing else she is likely to be killed when she
ceases to be "economically viable".

The most controversial situation I would accept
is the raising animals for meat or killing game animals.
I can see why this is very hard to justify in light of my
previous comments. Taking a life is the ultimate
"rights infringement" and example of placing the
animal's needs subservient to ones own.

However I prefer to look at it from another angle.
Predation, I have been led to believe is not merely
an undesirable reality but a way of keeping wild
animal populations in balance. Without a population
of natural predators and in the absense of human
intervention, the numbers of the species would
increase till they deplete their natural resources
and start dying off of starvation. If you can accept
that predation is for the greater good then why
does it matter if the predator is human or not?

The collateral deaths argument much touted on
here also seems quite strong to me. Granted there is
a difference between lives deliberately taken and
lives lost as an incidental, unintended consequence
but is this a difference of practical significance or
is it only relevant to "ivory towers" ethics?

> - Show quoted text -

> You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
> 'veganism'", as you called it. But like I keep telling you, it's not
> your job to tell me what my position is, anyway. Let's see how you
> like it:
> Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
> that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings, but
> only for food, clothing, health, etc.
>
> Is that about right?


I think the only thing Rudy has going is that he's a very good troll.

On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:37 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong.
>
> > No, it isn't. It is completely accurate. All "vegans" *do* start by
> > believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> > cause no animal suffering and death. And that's false - they *do*
> > cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. Most
> > "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. Those who
> > do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> > equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> > all:
>
> > 1. They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> > 2. They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> > 3. They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.
>
> > *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.
>
> > > I am a vegan and I'd like
>
> > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.
>
> > I have. I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> > morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. All
> > they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> > thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> > those who do consume animal parts.
>
> > >You only
>
> > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > argument.
>
> > It is.
>
> > > It's you against your straw man.
>
> > No, there's no straw man. I have accurately described the very
> > essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
> 'veganism'", as you called it.

No, I have *absolutely* described the essence of "veganism". The
empty, symbolic gesture of refusing to consume animal parts is all
there is to it. It has no moral substance to it at all. *ALL* of the
conclusions "vegans" wish to draw from this purely symbolic and
*passive* act are completely false. We've been through this already:
they're not causing zero deaths; they're not causing minimal deaths;
they're not "doing the best they can"; they're not doing *ANYTHING* of
any moral substance. The only thing they're doing is flattering their
egos.

> But like I keep telling you,

No, as you keep falsely claiming.


> it's not your job to tell me what my position is, anyway.

Yet, I know what it is all the same! I know *exactly* what your
position is. Your position is that you falsely believe being "vegan"
somehow is morally meaningful, and I have shown you that it is not.
It is nothing but posturing, and it's really disgusting, because you
continue to delude yourself into thinking there's moral substance to
it, and there isn't.


> Let's see how you
> like it:
> Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
> that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings,

No, I've never advanced any such argument; your conclusion is false.

> but only for food, clothing, health, etc.
>
> Is that about right?

No - not because it doesn't incorporate some of what I believe,but
because I have not advanced *any* argument about what I believe. I
have only pointed out that "veganism" isn't what its adherents believe
it to be; and that, in fact, it ("veganism") isn't *any* kind of
coherent moral belief.

Justin E. Miller wrote:
>> You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
>> 'veganism'", as you called it. But like I keep telling you, it's not
>> your job to tell me what my position is, anyway. Let's see how you
>> like it:
>> Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
>> that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings, but
>> only for food, clothing, health, etc.
>>
>> Is that about right?
>
>
> I think the only thing Rudy has going is that he's a very good troll.

Not a troll at all.

I have quite accurately stated the essence of
"veganism", and I have addressed the moral claims
"vegans" believe they can make based merely on not
putting animal parts into their mouths, and shown that
the moral claims are not warranted.

stupid ****stain jerk-off runny hamilton lied:

> On Feb 21, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > Justin E. Miller wrote:
> > > I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
> > > don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
> > > could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.
>
> > You seem as if you *do* care - that faced with your own
> > choice of what to wear on your feet, you would
> > consciously avoid leather.
>
> He already said he would if he could.

He said he "[doesn't] care". He lied - he cares. Like most "vegans"
and wannabes, he really doesn't have a coherent belief.

Full truth: Wife's a vegan. I'm a vegan by association. I do it because
I'm for lack of a batter word, whipped.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> stupid ****stain jerk-off runny hamilton lied:
>
>> On Feb 21, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>>> I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
>>>> don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
>>>> could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.
>>> You seem as if you *do* care - that faced with your own
>>> choice of what to wear on your feet, you would
>>> consciously avoid leather.
>> He already said he would if he could.
>
> He said he "[doesn't] care". He lied - he cares. Like most "vegans"
> and wannabes, he really doesn't have a coherent belief.

On Feb 27, 3:34*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > > > > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
> > > > > sure the
> > > > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > > > many
> > > > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > > > greater
> > > > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > > > refuse to eat
> > > > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > > > meat, or
> > > > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > > > ethics -
> > > > > I kid you not!
>
> > > > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > > > have become
> > > > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > > > sight of the
> > > > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > > > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
>
> > > Very true.
>
> > > > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > > > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > > > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > > > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > > > support itself with religious rhetoric.
>
> > > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > > dream
> > > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > > do
> > > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > > for our benefit.
>
> > Dictionary.com:
> > subjugate--
> > 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> > 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
>
> > I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> > word "subjugate".
>
> I wasn't suprised that he objected. People
> tend to object when those on the other side
> of the debate use "loaded" terms. I don't have a
> problem with it though. Nor do I consider it
> inaccurate.
>
> > Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> > Anyway...
> > I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> > not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
> > what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> > worms in your compost pile? (joke)- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well the least controversial example I can think of
> would be working dogs, trained to follow orders. I
> know it is a minority fringe within the vegan community
> but I have seen objection, even to pets on the grounds
> that is technically a master-slave relationship as
> the owner owns the pet. A working dog would also
> be made to work for the owner but would normally
> be quite content with its lot and I don't see the
> problem.
>
> A more controversial would be a laying hen reared
> in a compassionate free range style. You can take
> keep the hen and take the unfertilized eggs without
> infringing upon the hens freedom. The difference is that
> the hen's status is likely to be more like
> "economic resource" than companion and therefore
> her needs will most likely be given less weight.
> If nothing else she is likely to be killed when she
> ceases to be "economically viable".
>
> The most controversial situation I would accept
> is the raising animals for meat or killing game animals.
> I can see why this is very hard to justify in light of my
> previous comments. Taking a life is the ultimate
> "rights infringement" and example of placing the
> animal's needs subservient to ones own.
>
> However I prefer to look at it from another angle.
> Predation, I have been led to believe is not merely
> an undesirable reality but a way of keeping wild
> animal populations in balance. Without a population
> of natural predators and in the absense of human
> intervention, the numbers of the species would
> increase till they deplete their natural resources
> and start dying off of starvation. If you can accept
> that predation is for the greater good then why
> does it matter if the predator is human or not?
>
> The collateral deaths argument much touted on
> here also seems quite strong to me. Granted there is
> a difference between lives deliberately taken and
> lives lost as an incidental, unintended consequence
> but is this a difference of practical significance or
> is it only relevant to "ivory towers" ethics?
>
> > - Show quoted text -
I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
have the right to limit another's freedom?
I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
intentional harm and unintentional harm.

On Feb 28, 10:32*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 12:37 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong.
>
> > > No, it isn't. *It is completely accurate. *All "vegans" *do* start by
> > > believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> > > cause no animal suffering and death. *And that's false - they *do*
> > > cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. *Most
> > > "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. *Those who
> > > do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> > > equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> > > all:
>
> > > 1. *They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> > > 2. *They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> > > 3. *They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.
>
> > > *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.
>
> > > *> I am a vegan and I'd like
>
> > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.
>
> > > I have. *I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> > > morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. *All
> > > they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> > > thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> > > those who do consume animal parts.
>
> > > *>You only
>
> > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > argument.
>
> > > It is.
>
> > > *> It's you against your straw man.
>
> > > No, there's no straw man. *I have accurately described the very
> > > essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
> > 'veganism'", as you called it.
>
> No, I have *absolutely* described the essence of "veganism". *The
> empty, symbolic gesture of refusing to consume animal parts is all
> there is to it. *It has no moral substance to it at all. **ALL* of the
> conclusions "vegans" wish to draw from this purely symbolic and
> *passive* act are completely false. *We've been through this already:
> they're not causing zero deaths; they're not causing minimal deaths;
> they're not "doing the best they can"; they're not doing *ANYTHING* of
> any moral substance. *The only thing they're doing is flattering their
> egos.
>
> > *But like I keep telling you,
>
> No, as you keep falsely claiming.
>
> > it's not your job to tell me what my position is, anyway.
>
> Yet, I know what it is all the same! *I know *exactly* what your
> position is. *Your position is that you falsely believe being "vegan"
> somehow is morally meaningful, and I have shown you that it is not.
> It is nothing but posturing, and it's really disgusting, because you
> continue to delude yourself into thinking there's moral substance to
> it, and there isn't.
>
> > Let's see how you
> > like it:
> > Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
> > that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings,
>
> No, I've never advanced any such argument; your conclusion is false.
>
> > but only for food, clothing, health, etc.
>
> > Is that about right?
>
> No - not because it doesn't incorporate some of what I believe,but
> because I have not advanced *any* argument about what I believe. *I
> have only pointed out that "veganism" isn't what its adherents believe
> it to be; and that, in fact, it ("veganism") isn't *any* kind of
> coherent moral belief.

You only need to point out your own beliefs. Come on... I even gave
you an example of what it should look like.

On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 12:37 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong.
>
> > > > No, it isn't. It is completely accurate. All "vegans" *do* start by
> > > > believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> > > > cause no animal suffering and death. And that's false - they *do*
> > > > cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. Most
> > > > "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. Those who
> > > > do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> > > > equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> > > > all:
>
> > > > 1. They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> > > > 2. They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> > > > 3. They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.
>
> > > > *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.
>
> > > > > I am a vegan and I'd like
>
> > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.
>
> > > > I have. I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> > > > morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. All
> > > > they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> > > > thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> > > > those who do consume animal parts.
>
> > > > >You only
>
> > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > argument.
>
> > > > It is.
>
> > > > > It's you against your straw man.
>
> > > > No, there's no straw man. I have accurately described the very
> > > > essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
> > > 'veganism'", as you called it.
>
> > No, I have *absolutely* described the essence of "veganism". The
> > empty, symbolic gesture of refusing to consume animal parts is all
> > there is to it. It has no moral substance to it at all. *ALL* of the
> > conclusions "vegans" wish to draw from this purely symbolic and
> > *passive* act are completely false. We've been through this already:
> > they're not causing zero deaths; they're not causing minimal deaths;
> > they're not "doing the best they can"; they're not doing *ANYTHING* of
> > any moral substance. The only thing they're doing is flattering their
> > egos.
>
> > > But like I keep telling you,
>
> > No, as you keep falsely claiming.
>
> > > it's not your job to tell me what my position is, anyway.
>
> > Yet, I know what it is all the same! I know *exactly* what your
> > position is. Your position is that you falsely believe being "vegan"
> > somehow is morally meaningful, and I have shown you that it is not.
> > It is nothing but posturing, and it's really disgusting, because you
> > continue to delude yourself into thinking there's moral substance to
> > it, and there isn't.
>
> > > Let's see how you
> > > like it:
> > > Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
> > > that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings,
>
> > No, I've never advanced any such argument; your conclusion is false.
>
> > > but only for food, clothing, health, etc.
>
> > > Is that about right?
>
> > No - not because it doesn't incorporate some of what I believe,but
> > because I have not advanced *any* argument about what I believe. I
> > have only pointed out that "veganism" isn't what its adherents believe
> > it to be; and that, in fact, it ("veganism") isn't *any* kind of
> > coherent moral belief.
>
> You only need to point out your own beliefs.

This isn't about my beliefs in any way, kid. It's about yours, and
the extravagant and false claims you make based on your beliefs. I
have shown complete incoherence in your beliefs and claims, and you're
trying to weasel out of addressing the problems by trying to shift the
discussion to me. The discussion is about "veganism", and that's what
the discussion will continue to be about.

On Feb 26, 4:42 pm, wrote:
> > Most people who consume animal parts do not accept your
> inflammatory
>
> > and inaccurate language about "subjugating" other animals. That's not
> > what it is. Instead, they recognize, correctly, that animals do not
> > have rights, and that no moral wrong is being done by consuming them.
> > They further recognize that it is morally incoherent to suggest
> > animals could hold "rights" against us, but not against other
> > predators that would also consume them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You claim that "animals do not have rights, and that no moral wrong is
> being done by consuming them."
> Does your moral code permit you to consume any non-human
> species?

Such as?

On Feb 27, 9:35 am, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
> > > > sure the
> > > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > > many
> > > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > > greater
> > > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > > refuse to eat
> > > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > > meat, or
> > > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > > ethics -
> > > > I kid you not!
>
> > > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > > have become
> > > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > > sight of the
> > > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
>
> > Very true.
>
> > > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > > support itself with religious rhetoric.
>
> > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > dream
> > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > do
> > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > for our benefit.
>
> Dictionary.com:
> subjugate--
> 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
>
> I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> word "subjugate".

It is inflammatory. It's a loaded word. Whatever its etymological
origins, today it always connotes an unfair and immoral control. The
word "exploit" is even worse. It once meant simply to use, but today,
unless it's obvious from the context that a purely technical meaning
is intended, "exploit" always incorporates some sense of unfairness in
the use.

Stop feigning surprise. You intended the inflammatory meaning.

> Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> Anyway...
> I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> not mere property, and that they have their own interests,

These are not incompatible. Domestic animals might well be mere
property, yet have interests that can be and possibly should be taken
into consideration. But interests aren't the same as rights.

> then in
> what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> worms in your compost pile? (joke)

How does their having interests preclude my use of them? That doesn't
follow.

On Feb 28, 9:34 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:34 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 5:35 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > > > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
> > > > > > sure the
> > > > > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > > > > greater
> > > > > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > > > > refuse to eat
> > > > > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > > > > meat, or
> > > > > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > > > > ethics -
> > > > > > I kid you not!
>
> > > > > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > > > > have become
> > > > > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > > > > sight of the
> > > > > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > > > > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
>
> > > > Very true.
>
> > > > > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > > > > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > > > > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > > > > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > > > > support itself with religious rhetoric.
>
> > > > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > > > dream
> > > > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > > > do
> > > > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > > > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > > > for our benefit.
>
> > > Dictionary.com:
> > > subjugate--
> > > 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> > > 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
>
> > > I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> > > word "subjugate".
>
> > I wasn't suprised that he objected. People
> > tend to object when those on the other side
> > of the debate use "loaded" terms. I don't have a
> > problem with it though. Nor do I consider it
> > inaccurate.
>
> > > Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> > > Anyway...
> > > I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> > > not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
> > > what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> > > worms in your compost pile? (joke)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well the least controversial example I can think of
> > would be working dogs, trained to follow orders. I
> > know it is a minority fringe within the vegan community
> > but I have seen objection, even to pets on the grounds
> > that is technically a master-slave relationship as
> > the owner owns the pet. A working dog would also
> > be made to work for the owner but would normally
> > be quite content with its lot and I don't see the
> > problem.
>
> > A more controversial would be a laying hen reared
> > in a compassionate free range style. You can take
> > keep the hen and take the unfertilized eggs without
> > infringing upon the hens freedom. The difference is that
> > the hen's status is likely to be more like
> > "economic resource" than companion and therefore
> > her needs will most likely be given less weight.
> > If nothing else she is likely to be killed when she
> > ceases to be "economically viable".
>
> > The most controversial situation I would accept
> > is the raising animals for meat or killing game animals.
> > I can see why this is very hard to justify in light of my
> > previous comments. Taking a life is the ultimate
> > "rights infringement" and example of placing the
> > animal's needs subservient to ones own.
>
> > However I prefer to look at it from another angle.
> > Predation, I have been led to believe is not merely
> > an undesirable reality but a way of keeping wild
> > animal populations in balance. Without a population
> > of natural predators and in the absense of human
> > intervention, the numbers of the species would
> > increase till they deplete their natural resources
> > and start dying off of starvation. If you can accept
> > that predation is for the greater good then why
> > does it matter if the predator is human or not?
>
> > The collateral deaths argument much touted on
> > here also seems quite strong to me. Granted there is
> > a difference between lives deliberately taken and
> > lives lost as an incidental, unintended consequence
> > but is this a difference of practical significance or
> > is it only relevant to "ivory towers" ethics?
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> have the right to limit another's freedom?

That depends. You're using more vague, imprecise, and - yes! -
deliberately inflammatory language.

Freedom to do what? Do I have the right to limit your "freedom" to
break into my house, take my stuff, inflict violence on me and my
family? Yes, I most certainly do have that right.

What "freedom" do you imagine domestic livestock have, or ought to
have?


> I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> intentional harm and unintentional harm.

Not much. If I behave with recklessness or wanton disregard for the
safety of other people, and someone experiences serious physical harm
as a result, I am liable for criminal prosecution, in addition to
potential civil damages, even though I didn't intend the harm.

The lack of intent to cause harm does not get "vegans" off the moral
hook for actual harm to animals that the fulfillment of their demands
for goods and services actually causes.

On Feb 29, 10:54*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 12:37 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > > * * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > > * * *I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > > * * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
> > > > > > > Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
> > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
> > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > kill animals. *It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong.
>
> > > > > No, it isn't. *It is completely accurate. *All "vegans" *do* start by
> > > > > believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> > > > > cause no animal suffering and death. *And that's false - they *do*
> > > > > cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. *Most
> > > > > "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. *Those who
> > > > > do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> > > > > equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> > > > > all:
>
> > > > > 1. *They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> > > > > 2. *They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> > > > > 3. *They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.
>
> > > > > *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.
>
> > > > > *> I am a vegan and I'd like
>
> > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.
>
> > > > > I have. *I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> > > > > morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. *All
> > > > > they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> > > > > thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> > > > > those who do consume animal parts.
>
> > > > > *>You only
>
> > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > argument.
>
> > > > > It is.
>
> > > > > *> It's you against your straw man.
>
> > > > > No, there's no straw man. *I have accurately described the very
> > > > > essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
> > > > 'veganism'", as you called it.
>
> > > No, I have *absolutely* described the essence of "veganism". *The
> > > empty, symbolic gesture of refusing to consume animal parts is all
> > > there is to it. *It has no moral substance to it at all. **ALL* of the
> > > conclusions "vegans" wish to draw from this purely symbolic and
> > > *passive* act are completely false. *We've been through this already:
> > > they're not causing zero deaths; they're not causing minimal deaths;
> > > they're not "doing the best they can"; they're not doing *ANYTHING* of
> > > any moral substance. *The only thing they're doing is flattering their
> > > egos.
>
> > > > *But like I keep telling you,
>
> > > No, as you keep falsely claiming.
>
> > > > it's not your job to tell me what my position is, anyway.
>
> > > Yet, I know what it is all the same! *I know *exactly* what your
> > > position is. *Your position is that you falsely believe being "vegan"
> > > somehow is morally meaningful, and I have shown you that it is not.
> > > It is nothing but posturing, and it's really disgusting, because you
> > > continue to delude yourself into thinking there's moral substance to
> > > it, and there isn't.
>
> > > > Let's see how you
> > > > like it:
> > > > Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
> > > > that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings,
>
> > > No, I've never advanced any such argument; your conclusion is false.
>
> > > > but only for food, clothing, health, etc.
>
> > > > Is that about right?
>
> > > No - not because it doesn't incorporate some of what I believe,but
> > > because I have not advanced *any* argument about what I believe. *I
> > > have only pointed out that "veganism" isn't what its adherents believe
> > > it to be; and that, in fact, it ("veganism") isn't *any* kind of
> > > coherent moral belief.
>
> > You only need to point out your own beliefs.
>
> This isn't about my beliefs in any way, kid. *It's about yours, and
> the extravagant and false claims you make based on your beliefs. *I
> have shown complete incoherence in your beliefs and claims, and you're
> trying to weasel out of addressing the problems by trying to shift the
> discussion to me. *The discussion is about "veganism", and that's what
> the discussion will continue to be about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What you're trying to do is show that there's no coherent, plausible
moral foundation for the view that a vegan lifestyle is morally
obligatory which wouldn't also have consequences that other behaviours
which most vegans engage in are morally wrong. I think it would be
fair to say that you've shown that; at least, no-one's given a
satisfactory answer to your argument for this claim. If you're happy
with leaving it there, then that's fine.

But there are a couple of possible responses you might want to think
about.

First of all, what about the ethical vegan who bites the bullet,
accepts your argument and says "All right, if I am to retain my
beliefs without changing my behaviour then I am a hypocrite, but you
still haven't refuted my beliefs. It's conceivable that we are morally
required to become self-sufficient in food, electricity, and timber,
avoid prescription medicines, and so forth. You haven't shown us why
we should reject this possibility." Are you content with just saying
"Well, you're not doing that"? I've no doubt you take great
satisfaction in demonstrating that other people are hypocrites, but
would it not be more intellectually satisfying to have a demonstration
that their views are mistaken?

Second, what about someone who responds like this. "I am at least open
to the possibility that we're not morally required to become self-
sufficient in food, electricity, and timber, avoid prescription
medicines, and so forth. I'm also at least open to the possibility
that some non-vegan lifestyles might be morally permissible, such as
those which involve the consumption of certain forms of grass-fed
beef. However, like just about the entire human race I do believe that
there are some moral constraints on what we may do to nonhuman
animals, and on which processes which harm nonhuman animals we may
financially support. And I also believe (and here I'm in the minority)
that those constraints are sufficiently extensive that almost all
animal agriculture as it is currently practiced is morally wrong and
that it is morally wrong to financially support most of the forms of
animal agriculture which exist today. I have the goal that I make some
effort to reduce the amount of harm required to support my own
lifestyle and that others make efforts in this direction too, and I
believe that one rational strategy for pursuing this goal is to follow
a vegan diet and to encourage others to take steps in that direction
as well."

Perhaps you might say, this position isn't properly characterized as
ethical veganism and so it's beyond the scope of my argument to
address it. Well, that's fine, but this is the position I've been
taking for some years now and you still appear to feel that you have
the upper hand in the debate and that you've made some incisive
criticisms of it. I'm afraid I'm still not clear on what those are.
This may be due to my own limitations. Myself, I'm more inclined to
the view that you're a silly person.

Or, you might say, this position isn't sufficiently well-defined to be
worth addressing. Not enough has been done by way of making it clear
which products it is morally permissible to buy and which ones it
isn't morally permissible to buy. Fair enough. But could not the same
criticism be made of every position which recognizes some constraints
on what we may do to nonhuman animals? You say you're in favour of
some level of protection of animal welfare. Do you think you can do a
better job than me of giving a foundation for where to draw the line
about how extensive that protection should be? Would you like to show
me? Or is it that I've got you wrong here and you really think there
are no moral constraints on what we may do to nonhuman animals; we may
not forcibly intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a cat? That
would certainly be a consistent position for a libertarian to take,
but I'm not sure that you've shown that it's the best position to
take.

Another response you sometimes make is that the claim that following a
vegan diet is one rational strategy for reducing the amount of harm
required to support your lifestyle, *compared with typical Western
diets*, hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated. I guess it's always
worth trying to be as rigorous as possible in demonstrating claims
like these. But I have to say that when you and Rick Etter say things
like this, my main thought is: surely you can't be serious? You
usually end up conflating the foregoing claim with the claim that
every vegan diet is better than every non-vegan diet. Surely you know
perfectly well that that's not the claim under discussion.

When you attack positions which ascribe strong moral rights to
nonhuman animals, you're on strong ground, at least as far as showing
that no-one actually does what would be required by these positions.
But if you've got an ambition to criticize a less strongly formulated
position which simply holds that some kind of significant reform in
our treatment of nonhuman animals is morally required, I'm not clear
that you've achieved very much in this department yet.

On Mar 1, 12:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 12:37 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 24, 11:03 am, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong.
>
> > > > > No, it isn't. It is completely accurate. All "vegans" *do* start by
> > > > > believing that because they don't eat meat or other animal parts, they
> > > > > cause no animal suffering and death. And that's false - they *do*
> > > > > cause animal suffering and death with their consumption choices. Most
> > > > > "vegans" never move off of their initial fallacious claim. Those who
> > > > > do move to progressively weaker positions, the first two of which are
> > > > > equally false, the last of which is not a legitimate moral claim at
> > > > > all:
>
> > > > > 1. They claim to be "minimizing" animal harm and death.
> > > > > 2. They claim to be "doing the best they can".
> > > > > 3. They claim to be doing better than meat eaters.
>
> > > > > *All* of these progressively weaker fall-back claims are false.
>
> > > > > > I am a vegan and I'd like
>
> > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim.
>
> > > > > I have. I have claimed, and shown, that "vegan" aren't doing anything
> > > > > morally meaningful by refraining from consuming animal parts. All
> > > > > they're doing is engaging in some self-exaltation, and falsely
> > > > > thinking they've done something that makes them morally superior to
> > > > > those who do consume animal parts.
>
> > > > > >You only
>
> > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > argument.
>
> > > > > It is.
>
> > > > > > It's you against your straw man.
>
> > > > > No, there's no straw man. I have accurately described the very
> > > > > essence of "veganism".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > You have miserably failed to accurately describe the "essence of
> > > > 'veganism'", as you called it.
>
> > > No, I have *absolutely* described the essence of "veganism". The
> > > empty, symbolic gesture of refusing to consume animal parts is all
> > > there is to it. It has no moral substance to it at all. *ALL* of the
> > > conclusions "vegans" wish to draw from this purely symbolic and
> > > *passive* act are completely false. We've been through this already:
> > > they're not causing zero deaths; they're not causing minimal deaths;
> > > they're not "doing the best they can"; they're not doing *ANYTHING* of
> > > any moral substance. The only thing they're doing is flattering their
> > > egos.
>
> > > > But like I keep telling you,
>
> > > No, as you keep falsely claiming.
>
> > > > it's not your job to tell me what my position is, anyway.
>
> > > Yet, I know what it is all the same! I know *exactly* what your
> > > position is. Your position is that you falsely believe being "vegan"
> > > somehow is morally meaningful, and I have shown you that it is not.
> > > It is nothing but posturing, and it's really disgusting, because you
> > > continue to delude yourself into thinking there's moral substance to
> > > it, and there isn't.
>
> > > > Let's see how you
> > > > like it:
> > > > Your argument is that you have a logically-consistent code of ethics
> > > > that permits and/or encourages you to kill other sentient beings,
>
> > > No, I've never advanced any such argument; your conclusion is false.
>
> > > > but only for food, clothing, health, etc.
>
> > > > Is that about right?
>
> > > No - not because it doesn't incorporate some of what I believe,but
> > > because I have not advanced *any* argument about what I believe. I
> > > have only pointed out that "veganism" isn't what its adherents believe
> > > it to be; and that, in fact, it ("veganism") isn't *any* kind of
> > > coherent moral belief.
>
> > You only need to point out your own beliefs.
>
> This isn't about my beliefs in any way, kid. It's about yours, and
> the extravagant and false claims you make based on your beliefs. I
> have shown complete incoherence in your beliefs and claims, and you're
> trying to weasel out of addressing the problems by trying to shift the
> discussion to me. The discussion is about "veganism", and that's what
> the discussion will continue to be about.

I don't have a problem with that at all; it's one of my favorite
topics. But you do not begin a debate by defining your opponent's
position.

On Mar 1, 1:41 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:34 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 3:34 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 5:35 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > > > > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
> > > > > > > sure the
> > > > > > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > > > > > greater
> > > > > > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > > > > > refuse to eat
> > > > > > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > > > > > meat, or
> > > > > > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > > > > > ethics -
> > > > > > > I kid you not!
>
> > > > > > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > > > > > have become
> > > > > > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > > > > > sight of the
> > > > > > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > > > > > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism..
>
> > > > > Very true.
>
> > > > > > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > > > > > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > > > > > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > > > > > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > > > > > support itself with religious rhetoric.
>
> > > > > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > > > > dream
> > > > > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > > > > do
> > > > > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > > > > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > > > > for our benefit.
>
> > > > Dictionary.com:
> > > > subjugate--
> > > > 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> > > > 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
>
> > > > I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> > > > word "subjugate".
>
> > > I wasn't suprised that he objected. People
> > > tend to object when those on the other side
> > > of the debate use "loaded" terms. I don't have a
> > > problem with it though. Nor do I consider it
> > > inaccurate.
>
> > > > Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> > > > Anyway...
> > > > I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> > > > not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
> > > > what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> > > > worms in your compost pile? (joke)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Well the least controversial example I can think of
> > > would be working dogs, trained to follow orders. I
> > > know it is a minority fringe within the vegan community
> > > but I have seen objection, even to pets on the grounds
> > > that is technically a master-slave relationship as
> > > the owner owns the pet. A working dog would also
> > > be made to work for the owner but would normally
> > > be quite content with its lot and I don't see the
> > > problem.
>
> > > A more controversial would be a laying hen reared
> > > in a compassionate free range style. You can take
> > > keep the hen and take the unfertilized eggs without
> > > infringing upon the hens freedom. The difference is that
> > > the hen's status is likely to be more like
> > > "economic resource" than companion and therefore
> > > her needs will most likely be given less weight.
> > > If nothing else she is likely to be killed when she
> > > ceases to be "economically viable".
>
> > > The most controversial situation I would accept
> > > is the raising animals for meat or killing game animals.
> > > I can see why this is very hard to justify in light of my
> > > previous comments. Taking a life is the ultimate
> > > "rights infringement" and example of placing the
> > > animal's needs subservient to ones own.
>
> > > However I prefer to look at it from another angle.
> > > Predation, I have been led to believe is not merely
> > > an undesirable reality but a way of keeping wild
> > > animal populations in balance. Without a population
> > > of natural predators and in the absense of human
> > > intervention, the numbers of the species would
> > > increase till they deplete their natural resources
> > > and start dying off of starvation. If you can accept
> > > that predation is for the greater good then why
> > > does it matter if the predator is human or not?
>
> > > The collateral deaths argument much touted on
> > > here also seems quite strong to me. Granted there is
> > > a difference between lives deliberately taken and
> > > lives lost as an incidental, unintended consequence
> > > but is this a difference of practical significance or
> > > is it only relevant to "ivory towers" ethics?
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> > have the right to limit another's freedom?
>
> That depends. You're using more vague, imprecise, and - yes! -
> deliberately inflammatory language.
>
> Freedom to do what? Do I have the right to limit your "freedom" to
> break into my house, take my stuff, inflict violence on me and my
> family? Yes, I most certainly do have that right.
>
> What "freedom" do you imagine domestic livestock have, or ought to
> have?
>
> > I also think there is a
>
> ...
>
> read more »
I agree there can be justification for limiting another's freedom. It
is very reasonable that you would object to someone harming you or
your family.

On Mar 1, 1:41 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:34 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 3:34 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 5:35 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > > > > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
> > > > > > > sure the
> > > > > > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > > > > > greater
> > > > > > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > > > > > refuse to eat
> > > > > > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > > > > > meat, or
> > > > > > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > > > > > ethics -
> > > > > > > I kid you not!
>
> > > > > > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > > > > > have become
> > > > > > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > > > > > sight of the
> > > > > > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > > > > > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
>
> > > > > Very true.
>
> > > > > > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > > > > > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > > > > > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > > > > > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > > > > > support itself with religious rhetoric.
>
> > > > > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > > > > dream
> > > > > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > > > > do
> > > > > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > > > > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > > > > for our benefit.
>
> > > > Dictionary.com:
> > > > subjugate--
> > > > 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> > > > 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
>
> > > > I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> > > > word "subjugate".
>
> > > I wasn't suprised that he objected. People
> > > tend to object when those on the other side
> > > of the debate use "loaded" terms. I don't have a
> > > problem with it though. Nor do I consider it
> > > inaccurate.
>
> > > > Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> > > > Anyway...
> > > > I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> > > > not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
> > > > what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> > > > worms in your compost pile? (joke)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Well the least controversial example I can think of
> > > would be working dogs, trained to follow orders. I
> > > know it is a minority fringe within the vegan community
> > > but I have seen objection, even to pets on the grounds
> > > that is technically a master-slave relationship as
> > > the owner owns the pet. A working dog would also
> > > be made to work for the owner but would normally
> > > be quite content with its lot and I don't see the
> > > problem.
>
> > > A more controversial would be a laying hen reared
> > > in a compassionate free range style. You can take
> > > keep the hen and take the unfertilized eggs without
> > > infringing upon the hens freedom. The difference is that
> > > the hen's status is likely to be more like
> > > "economic resource" than companion and therefore
> > > her needs will most likely be given less weight.
> > > If nothing else she is likely to be killed when she
> > > ceases to be "economically viable".
>
> > > The most controversial situation I would accept
> > > is the raising animals for meat or killing game animals.
> > > I can see why this is very hard to justify in light of my
> > > previous comments. Taking a life is the ultimate
> > > "rights infringement" and example of placing the
> > > animal's needs subservient to ones own.
>
> > > However I prefer to look at it from another angle.
> > > Predation, I have been led to believe is not merely
> > > an undesirable reality but a way of keeping wild
> > > animal populations in balance. Without a population
> > > of natural predators and in the absense of human
> > > intervention, the numbers of the species would
> > > increase till they deplete their natural resources
> > > and start dying off of starvation. If you can accept
> > > that predation is for the greater good then why
> > > does it matter if the predator is human or not?
>
> > > The collateral deaths argument much touted on
> > > here also seems quite strong to me. Granted there is
> > > a difference between lives deliberately taken and
> > > lives lost as an incidental, unintended consequence
> > > but is this a difference of practical significance or
> > > is it only relevant to "ivory towers" ethics?
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> > have the right to limit another's freedom?
>
> That depends. You're using more vague, imprecise, and - yes! -
> deliberately inflammatory language.
>
> Freedom to do what? Do I have the right to limit your "freedom" to
> break into my house, take my stuff, inflict violence on me and my
> family? Yes, I most certainly do have that right.
>
> What "freedom" do you imagine domestic livestock have, or ought to
> have?
On what moral or ethical grounds do you base your opinion that it is
justifiable to raise animals for food?
>
> > I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> >intentional harm and unintentional harm.

>Not much. If I behave with recklessness or wanton disregard for the
>safety of other people, and someone experiences serious physical harm
>as a result, I am liable for criminal prosecution, in addition to
>potential civil damages, even though I didn't intend the harm.
But if you had intended to cause harm you would have committed a
distinctly different crime and would likely suffer a more severe
penalty.
>
>The lack of intent to cause harm does not get "vegans" off the moral
>hook for actual harm to animals that the fulfillment of their demands
>for goods and services actually causes.

Please explain what you mean by "the fulfillment of their demands for
goods and services".

On Feb 29, 5:34*am, wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:34*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> have the right to limit another's freedom?

My approach to ethics never asks "why should I be
allowed to do X" unless a reason why I shouldn't has
been given. What freedoms are denied when a dog is
trained towards some useful to human's purpose or
when a hen's unfertilized eggs are eaten by us?
Why are such freedoms important?

> I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> intentional harm and unintentional harm

Sure. If we were talking between the difference between harm
caused out of ignorance or stupidity and harm caused out
of malice, I wouldn't even have raised the issue. However,
given that it is somewhat predictable that in the course of
commercial crop production, wildlife will be harmed it is
harder to show that the difference has practical significance.

Indeed some of the harm is quite deliberate. Spraying crops
to kill insect pests, introducing myxomatosis into the wild
rabbit population and the use of mousetraps are good
examples of that.

On Mar 1, 11:17 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:41 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:> On Feb 28, 9:34 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 3:34 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 5:35 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 10:18 am, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 25, 11:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 24, 8:10 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 7:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:51 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > > > > > > > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > > > > > > > > > I do not eat meat;
>
> > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > > > > > > > > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > > > > > > > > > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > > > > > > > > > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > > > > > > > > > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > > > > > > > > > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > > > > > > > > > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > > > > > > > > > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > > > > > > > > > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > > > > > > > > > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > > > > > > > > > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > > > > > > > > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > > > > > > > > > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > > > > > > > > > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > > > > > > > > > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > > > > > > > > > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > > > > > > > > > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > > > > > > > > > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > > > > > > > > > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > > > > > > > > > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > > > > > > > > > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > > > > > > > > > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > > > > > > > > > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > > > > > > > > > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > > > > > > > > > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > > > > > > > > > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > > > > > > > > > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > > > > > > > > > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > > > > > > > > > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > > > > > > > > > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > > > > > > > > > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > > > > > > > > > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > > > > > > > > > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > > > > > > > > > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > > > > > > > > > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > > > > > > > > > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > > > > > > > > > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > > > > > > > > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > > > > > > > > > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > > > > > > > > > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > > > > > > > > > *still* accept it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > > > > > > > > > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > > > > > > > > > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > > > > > > > > > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > > > > > > > > > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > > > > > > > > > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > > > > > > > > > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > > > > > > > > > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> > > > > > > > > Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
> > > > > > > > > to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
> > > > > > > > > contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
> > > > > > > > > argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
> > > > > > > > I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
> > > > > > > > sure the
> > > > > > > > majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
> > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
> > > > > > > > greater
> > > > > > > > priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
> > > > > > > > refuse to eat
> > > > > > > > off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
> > > > > > > > meat, or
> > > > > > > > arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
> > > > > > > > ethics -
> > > > > > > > I kid you not!
>
> > > > > > > > I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
> > > > > > > > have become
> > > > > > > > so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
> > > > > > > > sight of the
> > > > > > > > objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
> > > > > > > are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
>
> > > > > > Very true.
>
> > > > > > > Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
> > > > > > > vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
> > > > > > > promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
> > > > > > > subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
> > > > > > > support itself with religious rhetoric.
>
> > > > > > Depends what you mean by "subjugate" really. I certainly wouldn't
> > > > > > dream
> > > > > > of defending the claim that they are mere property that we are free to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > what we like with but as long as we recognize that they have needs and
> > > > > > wishes that deserve respect then I don't see a problem with using them
> > > > > > for our benefit.
>
> > > > > Dictionary.com:
> > > > > subjugate--
> > > > > 1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
> > > > > 2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
>
> > > > > I was surprised that someone thought it was inflammatory to use the
> > > > > word "subjugate".
>
> > > > I wasn't suprised that he objected. People
> > > > tend to object when those on the other side
> > > > of the debate use "loaded" terms. I don't have a
> > > > problem with it though. Nor do I consider it
> > > > inaccurate.
>
> > > > > Doesn't anybody appreciate diplomacy anymore?
> > > > > Anyway...
> > > > > I agree with you on some points-- but, if you agree that animals are
> > > > > not mere property, and that they have their own interests, then in
> > > > > what way could you justifiably use them for your benefit? Like having
> > > > > worms in your compost pile? (joke)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Well the least controversial example I can think of
> > > > would be working dogs, trained to follow orders. I
> > > > know it is a minority fringe within the vegan community
> > > > but I have seen objection, even to pets on the grounds
> > > > that is technically a master-slave relationship as
> > > > the owner owns the pet. A working dog would also
> > > > be made to work for the owner but would normally
> > > > be quite content with its lot and I don't see the
> > > > problem.
>
> > > > A more controversial would be a laying hen reared
> > > > in a compassionate free range style. You can take
> > > > keep the hen and take the unfertilized eggs without
> > > > infringing upon the hens freedom. The difference is that
> > > > the hen's status is likely to be more like
> > > > "economic resource" than companion and therefore
> > > > her needs will most likely be given less weight.
> > > > If nothing else she is likely to be killed when she
> > > > ceases to be "economically viable".
>
> > > > The most controversial situation I would accept
> > > > is the raising animals for meat or killing game animals.
> > > > I can see why this is very hard to justify in light of my
> > > > previous comments. Taking a life is the ultimate
> > > > "rights infringement" and example of placing the
> > > > animal's needs subservient to ones own.
>
> > > > However I prefer to look at it from another angle.
> > > > Predation, I have been led to believe is not merely
> > > > an undesirable reality but a way of keeping wild
> > > > animal populations in balance. Without a population
> > > > of natural predators and in the absense of human
> > > > intervention, the numbers of the species would
> > > > increase till they deplete their natural resources
> > > > and start dying off of starvation. If you can accept
> > > > that predation is for the greater good then why
> > > > does it matter if the predator is human or not?
>
> > > > The collateral deaths argument much touted on
> > > > here also seems quite strong to me. Granted there is
> > > > a difference between lives deliberately taken and
> > > > lives lost as an incidental, unintended consequence
> > > > but is this a difference of practical significance or
> > > > is it only relevant to "ivory towers" ethics?
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I would draw the line at the worms in the compost. Why should anyone
> > > have the right to limit another's freedom?
>
> > That depends. You're using more vague, imprecise, and - yes! -
> > deliberately inflammatory language.
>
> > Freedom to do what? Do I have the right to limit your "freedom" to
> > break into my house, take my stuff, inflict violence on me and my
> > family? Yes, I most certainly do have that right.
>
> > What "freedom" do you imagine domestic livestock have, or ought to
> > have?
>
> On what moral or ethical grounds do you base your opinion that it is
> justifiable to raise animals for food?

No, you're still trying to shift the argument to my beliefs, but it is
yours that are in question here. You need to elaborate a coherent
argument that it *isn't* justifiable to do so, because you're the one
trying to overturn the status quo.


> > > I also think there is a clearly significant difference between
> > >intentional harm and unintentional harm.
> >Not much. If I behave with recklessness or wanton disregard for the
> >safety of other people, and someone experiences serious physical harm
> >as a result, I am liable for criminal prosecution, in addition to
> >potential civil damages, even though I didn't intend the harm.
>
> But if you had intended to cause harm you would have committed a
> distinctly different crime and would likely suffer a more severe
> penalty.

It isn't a distinctly different crime; it's a matter of degree. First
degree murder is worse than second degree, which is worse than
voluntary manslaughter, which is worse than involuntary manslaughter.
They're all homicides, a crime, and the fact you didn't intend to kill
someone, and so perhaps are prosecuted for second degree murder or
voluntary manslaughter, won't get you off the criminal hook for an
unlawful homicide.


> >The lack of intent to cause harm does not get "vegans" off the moral
> >hook for actual harm to animals that the fulfillment of their demands
> >for goods and services actually causes.
>
> Please explain what you mean by "the fulfillment of their demands for
> goods and services".

You want food and other goods and services. The provision of those
things by farmers and other merchants does result in the death and
injury of animals. You may not intend those deaths and injuries to
occur, but they do occur, and they occur in the fulfillment of your
demand.