 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
The perfect foil creates the perfect setup again!
"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]." - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the argument. All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this: If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals. I do not consume animal parts; therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals. This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of animals by means other than consuming things made from animal parts. The most important way in which this occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation, harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in particular causes suffering and death to animals on a massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is "necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without any consideration whatever about how many animals were killed in the course of their production. When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free" life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not to cause animal death. Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is false, as one can easily show that a meat-including diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan" diet. However, there is no further room for retreat, so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and either stick with the "I'm doing better than you" position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can." This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to defend, even though she has already abandoned it to make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only locally produced foods and spices (the implication being that local production somehow necessarily causes fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics? It can't. In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very revealing: You can't accept that I find an improvement good enough. You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that only you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which is good enough for me to be content. There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best", as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm doing better than you, which is good enough for me." In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves: they don't really believe their absolute claim that killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > "If the spices I needed were available locally I would > [consume only locally grown produce]." > > - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > > > The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > argument. Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans live up to your expectations for perfection? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sophomore Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>[consume only locally grown produce]." >> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >> >> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>argument. > > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Because they don't believe in the supposedly fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place. Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Sophomore Ron wrote: > > > In article .net>, > > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >> > >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >> > >> > >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > >>argument. > > > > > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? > > Because they don't believe in the supposedly > fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place. > > Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron? I have. You seem to think that humans must perform in the same way the logical systems do. That you are claiming one must be 100% or absolute or be a "non-believer" then there is a separate issue. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sophomore Ron, twit sophist ordinaire, wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>Sophomore Ron, twit sophist ordinaire, wrote: >> >> >>>In article .net>, >>> Jay Santos > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." >>>> >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >>>> >>>> >>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>>>argument. >>> >>> >>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? >> >>Because they don't believe in the supposedly >>fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place. >> >>Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron? > > > I have. You haven't. > You seem to think that humans must perform in the same way the > logical systems do. False. Nothing I've said indicates such a thought or belief on my part. You have failed, again, to read and comprehend correctly. You, at least, are very consistent in this failure. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote: > In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > "If the spices I needed were available locally I would > > [consume only locally grown produce]." > > > > - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > > > > > > The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > > cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > > argument. > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans live > up to your expectations for perfection? It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get it, banbrains. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with who's who. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with > who's who. How do you like it? The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from alt.philosophy. He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his agenda seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he can pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never admit it. At least he has ambition :>) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > wrote: >> >> >>>Ron wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article .net>, >>>>Jay Santos > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." >>>>> >>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>>>>argument. >>>> >>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans >>> >>>live >>> >>> >>>>up to your expectations for perfection? >>> >>> >>>It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT >>>living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which >>>most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get >>>it, banbrains. >> >>K, this "Ron" isn't Banbrains. Mr. Dutch and I both >>initially thought it was, but it's not. Actually, he >>most resembles that ****wit JethroUK who was taking a >>shit all over the newsgroups last April-June. That was >>another sophomoric pseudo-philosopher that ****wit >>Harrison lured in from alt.philosophy; "Ron" is the >>latest. He's marginally better educated than JethroFW, >>but it is excruciatingly clear that he fancies himself >>a "philosopher" based on one or two lower division >>philosophy courses at a third tier college in Canada. > > > Well, when someone can find some academic references that humans must > conform to logical systems Strawman - I never said that, nor was it implied by anything I wrote. You just can't read for comprehension. You demonstrate your inability with every post. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message ups.com... 8< > It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT > living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which > most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get > it, banbrains. we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not 1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture" (organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds 2) We rarely live up to that standard because society imposes different conditions due to less concern for animal welfare - this is a further case for more veganism (not less). This is little different from slavery abolitionists who still benefitted from the products of slavery, but didn't keep slaves, and of course, opposed slavery. Like vegans, they were not hypocrits, and it seems society eventually agreed that they were morally right. 3) No reasonable case has been made that "pasture fed" (a very misleading title) beef is better than vegan food in terms of cds - pasturing is probably never any better than growing plants for direct consumption because of the 90% loss of energy input (you need far more land available for pasturing per calorie yielded). Worse "pasture fed" is very misleading as such cattle can be fed quite high amounts of "concentrates". This includes things like barley and corn, maybe up to 5 pounds daily, and on top of that protein (some from dead fish or chicken) and vitamin supplements (in the UK 75% of land is already used for farming, much of which to grow animal feeds, thus promoting more meat eating in the UK, or anywhere similar is a very bad environmental move). The Innu peoples and Tibetans (and similar) will probably need to keep eating animals for practical reasons, most people in the West do not. John |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Coleman wrote:
> > wrote in message > ups.com... > 8< > >>It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT >>living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which >>most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get >>it, banbrains. > > > we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not No, you do NOT "get it". You have formulated an ethical absolute - "it is wrong to kill animals" - and then you don't even ATTEMPT to abide by the dictates of that alleged belief. > > 1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture" > (organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds NO ONE, Coleman, avoids killing animals. > > 2) We rarely live up to that standard You NEVER live up to that standard, Coleman, you ****ing idiot. > because society imposes different > conditions due to less concern for animal welfare No. There you go again, blaming YOUR failure to abide by YOUR alleged beliefs on others. That simply is not tenable. > - this is a further case for more veganism (not less). NO, Coleman, you shitbag: it is PURELY a case for you to abandon your unthinking, blind obedience to stupid dogma. The failure is entire on the shoulders of "vegans", and no one else. > This is little different from slavery There is vast difference from slavery. You keep telling the same lies. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, you, in particular, do not get it. Also, you haven't pointed out anything to me, try to keep up. 1) "Some" vegans practicing "Veganic agriculture" (you made up that non-word, didn't you), is irrelevant in reference to the specific vegan whom this thread is about. YOU definitely DO NOT GET IT. 2) Blaming your own ethical failings on society is a cop-out and a very weak one at that. Once again we witness the sick, twisted mindset of an unethical vegan comparing animals killed in agriculture to slavery. How long will it be before you bring up the Nazi concentration camps, you pathetic slime? 3) What the hell does pasture-fed beef have to do with anything I said? In any event, your unsupported claims are not evidence of anything except your inability to support your claims. All you have is an unsubstantiated collection of "probably's", "maybe's", "some's" and "can be's". As far as intelligent debate is concerned, you are your own worst enemy. As for your last sentence: what does "need" have to do with anything? If your position was based on any true ethical principles, you would have no choice but to tell the Inuit and Tibetans they should either: a) move and adapt, or b) die You have no ethics; just a self-gratifying, smug compulsion to tell other people how to live their lives. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sophomore Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>[consume only locally grown produce]." >> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >> >> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>argument. > > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy equivocation. If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small children with a broom handle on a daily basis? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
> with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > equivocation. > > If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > children with a broom handle on a daily basis? Careful with this one Ron. He loves to talk about sodomizing children and comparing it to meat eating. Why he loves to talk about it I don't know. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy >>equivocation. >> >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > > Careful with this one Ron. Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not? Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it as acceptable? You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just something that makes us all worse off than we would be if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE better off for having attained the reduction. But ethical values are different; they're not utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely. Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe - as you claim to believe - that killing animals is absolutely wrong. You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical thinking. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
k.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children > >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > >>equivocation. > >> > >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > > > > > Careful with this one Ron. > > Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward > question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not? You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse to meat eating. Since you approve of meat eating, this makes me worry that you approve of child abuse since you find it comparable. > Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's > wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it > as acceptable? It's like pollution...  > You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like > pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just > something that makes us all worse off than we would be > if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not > absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a > reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE > better off for having attained the reduction. Who are you to say whether pollution is morally wrong or not? I would compare my views on meateating to your pollution example. > But ethical values are different; they're not > utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction > in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an > improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely. > Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the > killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe - > as you claim to believe - that killing animals is > absolutely wrong. First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child. I hope the same goes for you. As far as cds caused by the food industry, it's kinda like pollution... -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical > thinking. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Santos > wrote in news:2LYzd.4737$qf5.66
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net: Didn't really want to jump into this thread, but this is too ridiculous to ignore. > But ethical values are different; they're not > utilitarian. There are a good many utilitarian ethicists who would disagree with you. In fact, utilitarianism is the dominant, though not the only, approach to moral reasoning, especially in Anglo-American academia. Furthermore, not only utilitarians, but many ethicists favoring other approaches, such as deontologists, would adopt some form of the "least harm" rule. Sometimes doing no harm is not an available option. And sometimes causing less of one harm may cause more of another. Thus the rule, "do the least harm, all things considered, that the circumstances and available choices permit." > Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just > something that makes us all worse off than we would be > if there were no pollution. Anything that may make anyone worse off or better off is by definition a moral issue. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children > > with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > > Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > > equivocation. > > > > If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > > sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > > or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > > comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > > children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > Careful with this one Ron. He loves to talk about > sodomizing children and comparing it to meat > eating. Why he loves to talk about it I don't know. Meat eating is the sign of latent homosexuality. Shh. You'll scare them away and I'm on a membership drive. Didn't you get the memo. roflmao |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Meat eating is the sign of latent homosexuality.
> > Shh. You'll scare them away and I'm on a membership drive. Didn't you > get the memo. roflmao LOL Good luck. You get an extra chalk mark on the wall for bedding a phobic troll! That's a hard one to do (pun happened). -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Sophomore Ron wrote: > > > In article .net>, > > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >> > >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >> > >> > >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > >>argument. > > > > > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? > > Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children > with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > equivocation. > > If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > children with a broom handle on a daily basis? That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence together is somewhat concerning. In fact, all of your analogies seem to place her choice to avoid meat where possible with such actions. If the choice to avoid meat where possible is on par with sexual violence, I guess that the choice to eat meat is on the same level. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>Sophomore Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article .net>, >>> Jay Santos > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." >>>> >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >>>> >>>> >>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>>>argument. >>> >>> >>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? >> >>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy >>equivocation. >> >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > > That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy equivocation." Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > In article .net>, > > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > > > >>Sophomore Ron wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article .net>, > >>> Jay Santos > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >>>> > >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > >>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > >>>>argument. > >>> > >>> > >>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? > >> > >>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children > >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > >>equivocation. > >> > >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > > > > > That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence > > I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric > shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with > your usual blowhard windy equivocation." > > Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with > a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small > children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes > or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry. Do you? Do you do everything possible in furtherance of this belief? NO? You're having a discussion with me. Obviously, you are spending time here rather than following through on your *belief* (ahem) that this behaviour is wrong. I am only left to one conclusion: you don't believe that this wrong, otherwise you COULD and WOULD do more. Shame. She lets some animals die. You let children get sodomized. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> "If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> [consume only locally grown produce]." > > - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 Waa waa, poor Jay. You needed to start a whole new crossposted thread for this old stuff again? And you're back to insults rather than arguments. 'Skanky Carpetmuncher'. What's that? An unbathed *******? LOL ))))> When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced > to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free" > life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not > consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is > to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am > doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is > quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable > crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production > of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to > animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the > extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less > lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not > to cause animal death. Despite variances in individual foods, you know full well that eating vegan causes way, way less cds as a whole than the animal product industry as a whole, due to livestock's extensive need for far more cropland (thus more cds). > There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best", > as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the > SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the > best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm > doing better than you, which is good enough for me." I never made a claim of doing better than you. Is this one of those 'implied' things you see so often in people's writings? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>[consume only locally grown produce]." >> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >>When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced >>to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free" >>life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not >>consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is >>to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am >>doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is >>quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable >>crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production >>of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to >>animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the >>extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less >>lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not >>to cause animal death. > > > Despite variances in individual foods, you know > full well that eating vegan causes way, way less > cds as a whole than the animal product industry > as a whole, due to livestock's extensive need > for far more cropland (thus more cds). This is the second retreat, AGAIN: you are trying to defend yourself by saying "vegans cause fewer deaths than omnivores". You are implicitly admitting that you aren't "doing the best you can", and you're comforting yourself with the false and ethically bankrupt belief "I'm doing better than you". You can't say why you think it "good" to reduce animal deaths in the first place. > > >>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best", >>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the >>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the >>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm >>doing better than you, which is good enough for me." > > > I never made a claim of doing better than you. Yes, you did; you make it every time you talk about "average" "vegans" versus "average" omnivores. You still can't say why you think it is "good" to reduce animal deaths in the first place. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>[consume only locally grown produce]." >> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > > And you're back to insults rather than arguments. The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to rebut it. The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that it is wrong to kill animals. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> rebut it. > > The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that > it is wrong to kill animals. <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill animals then why do I feel good about lessening their deaths? Huh? </rebut> -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to >>rebut it. >> >>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that >>it is wrong to kill animals. > > > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill > animals then why do I feel good about lessening > their deaths? Huh? </rebut> Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening" your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong to kill animals? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening > > their deaths? Huh? </rebut> > > Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening" > your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong > to kill animals? You're not very bright. I obviously think it's wrong to kill animals. The less the better. Don't you get it yet? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to >> rebut it. >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that >> it is wrong to kill animals. > > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill > animals then why do I feel good about lessening > their deaths? Huh? </rebut> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more than you are doing. The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it, because of the TASTE! Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning false moral significance to it is a mistake. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to > >> rebut it. > >> > >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that > >> it is wrong to kill animals. > > > > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill > > animals then why do I feel good about lessening > > their deaths? Huh? </rebut> > > If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more > than you are doing. Thank you for repeating yourself... If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more about sexually broomed children. If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much more about the death of humans If you really thought it was wrong.... Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next. > The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if > consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it, because > of the TASTE! > > Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning > false moral significance to it is a mistake. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening > > their deaths? Huh? </rebut> > > If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more > than you are doing. There's that absolute or nothing demand. > The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if > consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it, because > of the TASTE! What about my health and nutrition beliefs? I don't think eating dead body parts is a good thing. By the way, if all meateaters were to turn to your low cd wild game, they'd be extinct in no time. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Scented Nectar wrote: > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >> > >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > > > > And you're back to insults rather than arguments. > > The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to > rebut it. > > The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that > it is wrong to kill animals. Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis. If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then, they don't really believe in their X. If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life then, obviously they don't believe in honesty. If someone states that they believe in truth but ignores a truth once in an entire lifetime then they obviously don't believe in truth. If someone says they are well read but hasn't read anything then, obviously they don't believe in being well read otherwise they would read everything. I'm finding some difficulty with your perception of what is necessary to demonstrate that someone believes in X. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." >>>> >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >>> >>>And you're back to insults rather than arguments. >> >>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to >>rebut it. >> >>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that >>it is wrong to kill animals. > > > Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis. > > If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then, > they don't really believe in their X. False - being religious doesn't require attending service. You're off to a bad start, shitbag. > > If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life > then, obviously they don't believe in honesty. If they state their belief in honesty as a moral absolute, then yes, they don't believe in honesty. You're sinking faster, shitbag. You just reached the bottom. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article .net>, > > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >>>> > >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >>> > >>>And you're back to insults rather than arguments. > >> > >>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to > >>rebut it. > >> > >>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that > >>it is wrong to kill animals. > > > > > > Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis. > > > > If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then, > > they don't really believe in their X. > > False - being religious doesn't require attending > service. > > You're off to a bad start, shitbag. > > > > > If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life > > then, obviously they don't believe in honesty. > > If they state their belief in honesty as a moral > absolute, then yes, they don't believe in honesty. > > You're sinking faster, shitbag. > > > You just reached the bottom. Yes, you have. You stated your position that one MUST act towards there belief and do what is necessary, or all they can or be labeled as not believing in the moral or ethic under discussion. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Santos wrote:
> "If the spices I needed were available locally I would > [consume only locally grown produce]." > > - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > > > The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > argument. > > All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in > order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the > rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this: > > If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering > and death of animals. > > I do not consume animal parts; > > therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death > of animals. > > This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the > Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of > animals by means other than consuming things made from > animal parts. The most important way in which this > occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral > animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation, > harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in > particular causes suffering and death to animals on a > massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is > "necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods > of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without > any consideration whatever about how many animals were > killed in the course of their production. > > When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced > to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free" > life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not > consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is > to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am > doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is > quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable > crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production > of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to > animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the > extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less > lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not > to cause animal death. > > Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is > untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest > position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be > utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm > doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is > false, as one can easily show that a meat-including > diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan" > diet. However, there is no further room for retreat, > so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and > either stick with the "I'm doing better than you" > position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy > of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to > their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can." > > This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one > Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to > defend, even though she has already abandoned it to > make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her > reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only > locally produced foods and spices (the implication > being that local production somehow necessarily causes > fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer > implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer > deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she > makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her > aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't > NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a > supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to > kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish > for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics? > > It can't. > > In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed > out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it > is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety > in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that > she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal > death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT > believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very > revealing: > > You can't accept that I find an improvement good > enough. > You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that > only > you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which > is good > enough for me to be content. > > There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best", > as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the > SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the > best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm > doing better than you, which is good enough for me." > > In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in > "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves: > they don't really believe their absolute claim that > killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is > effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we > see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all. You are putting forth a very contrived logical position. It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet. That does not make me a killer. Even if more of these life-forms die than an axe-wielding murderer kills, still the axe-wielding murderer is a killer, and I am not. If you don't see the logic of that, you have no fundamental concept of justice. I doubt that, though -- I think you do have the necessary fundamental concepts, you simply choose to hide them from yourself. There is no "logic" in your position, it's merely an extremely convoluted self-justification. Moreover, it's clear that your position is deriving from your desire to eat meat and reconcile yourself with the guilt you feel about it. Your position is not deriving from pure unbiased thought/logic. Pretending strenuously is not going to make it so. Sorry. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Deere wrote:
> Jay Santos wrote: > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>[consume only locally grown produce]." >> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >> >> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>argument. >> >>All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in >>order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the >>rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this: >> >> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering >>and death of animals. >> >> I do not consume animal parts; >> >> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death >>of animals. >> >>This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the >>Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of >>animals by means other than consuming things made from >>animal parts. The most important way in which this >>occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral >>animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation, >>harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in >>particular causes suffering and death to animals on a >>massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is >>"necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods >>of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without >>any consideration whatever about how many animals were >>killed in the course of their production. >> >>When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced >>to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free" >>life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not >>consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is >>to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am >>doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is >>quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable >>crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production >>of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to >>animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the >>extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less >>lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not >>to cause animal death. >> >>Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is >>untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest >>position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be >>utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm >>doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is >>false, as one can easily show that a meat-including >>diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan" >>diet. However, there is no further room for retreat, >>so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and >>either stick with the "I'm doing better than you" >>position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy >>of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to >>their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can." >> >>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one >>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to >>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to >>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her >>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only >>locally produced foods and spices (the implication >>being that local production somehow necessarily causes >>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer >>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer >>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she >>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her >>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't >>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a >>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to >>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish >>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics? >> >>It can't. >> >>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed >>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it >>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety >>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that >>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal >>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT >>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very >>revealing: >> >> You can't accept that I find an improvement good >>enough. >> You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that >>only >> you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which >>is good >> enough for me to be content. >> >>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best", >>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the >>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the >>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm >>doing better than you, which is good enough for me." >> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves: >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all. > > > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position. No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans". |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
> >>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to > >>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to > >>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her > >>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only > >>locally produced foods and spices (the implication > >>being that local production somehow necessarily causes > >>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer > >>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer > >>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she > >>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her > >>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't > >>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a > >>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to > >>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish > >>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics? I have no way of knowing what farmers do what. I'm not responsible for any deaths personally. You are trying to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing, when in fact you know full well that I am content with the death reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently impossible to do better). You say I'm not allowed to feel content, something you have no say in. I am doing the best I can and I'm happy with that. I have seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause more deaths than local ones, by the way. > >>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed > >>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it > >>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety > >>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that > >>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal > >>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT > >>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very > >>revealing: You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong and I find some farmers like Lundbergs commendable for reducing accidental deaths. As for other commercial foods, I'm content know there's less deaths from vegan foods than in the meat and dairy industry as a whole due to cds in crop/feed growing. > >>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best", > >>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the > >>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the > >>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm > >>doing better than you, which is good enough for me." You're putting words in my mouth. Maybe this is the root of why you're so antivegan. You think they all hate you personally. I never said "I think I'm better than you", admit it. This is again one of your implied things, isn't it. > >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in > >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves: > >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that > >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is > >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we > >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all. Stop forcing the word absolute into the above and into your expectations of vegans. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The perfect G&T.... | General Cooking | |||
| The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
| Perfect BBQ was had | Barbecue | |||
| The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
| The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) | Vegan | |||
Hybrid Mode
