The Slippery Slope of Anti-AR

I think it is instructive to look at the results of what the Anti-AR
posters here are trying to do, and where it leads. Dutch is the best
(and, apparently, only ) example of someone who came on TPA as a pro-AR
vegetarian, and was "talked out" of this position by the standard
anti-AR arguments presented here. We can see that the actual results of
the Antis' arguments are not at all what they pretend they will, or
should, be, and this is instructive for people who might possibly be
confused by the pseudo-moral approach and tactic of personal attack
which are the stand-bys of the main posters here.

Dutch came on with a fuzzy emotional feeling that vegetarianism
automatically made him a more ethical person, and that this was
the entire content of being "pro-AR," and that this position could
be supported by a purely utilitarian morality. None of these things
is true, of course. He had no solid theory behind his position, and
never was able to articulate any philosophical position on the nature
of rights or how animals differ from humans in ways that deny them
rights. This left him vulnerable to a strictly utilitarian attack
and enter the infamous "CD argument."

As soon as it became clear to Dutch that he could not claim some
absolute superiority as a *person* by eating a vegetarian diet,
he decided, not that vegetarians might be wrong about the ethics
of their diet, but that anyone who continued in a vegetarian/vegan
lifestyle had to be a sanctimonious hypocrite who was inferior as
a *person* to anyone who did not accept the philosophy of
vegetarianism for any reason. He bought into the silly Anti argument
that the only way to be an ethical *person* was not to accept AR
as a *philosophy.* This ridiculous argument by character-assassination
proved so successful with Dutch that the Antis have leaned heavily,
and almost exclusively, on it ever since.

The Antis then produced the welter of ( badly supported) utilitarian
arguments in support of grass-fed beef and hunting as being lower in
CDs than agribusiness veggies. They get little argument that, in
SOME cases, such foods might result in lower CD totals than SOME
vegetarian foods, but this argument does not address the basic
philosophical reasons for not treating animals as slaves and products
which are the real basis of AR as a philosophy. Dutch, adrift
without any solid philosophical reasons for being either AR or anti-AR,
accepted this argument as a reason to begin eating meat again. Note,
he did not go to a lower-CD vegetarian diet, which would have been
the logical answer to the Anti attack on his fuzzy utilitarian position.
Instead, he abandoned vegetarianism entirely.

NOW, the FINAL result -- the triumph for the Anti side, the goal of
the Anti attacks -- becomes visible in Dutch's present position.
After spending years telling us that an omnivorous diet can be more
ethical on a purely utilitarian basis than a vegetarian diet based
only on agribusiness veggies IF THE SOURCES OF MEAT ARE CHOSEN ON THE
BASIS OF THEIR UTILITARIAN DEATH TOLL IN CDS, he now tells us not only
that he is now an omnivore, BUT THAT THE SOURCES OF HIS FOOD DO NOT
MATTER. He is NOT choosing only grass-fed beef, the slaughter of which
he has personally investigated, or hunted game. He has abandoned all
the arguments he presented to vegetarians for years to try to convince
them they were unethical and/or crazy, and has reverted to a standard,
uncaring consumer of meat.

It doesn't matter, he now claims, because everybody's diet causes deaths.

This makes it so very, glaringly obvious that the whole CD argument
is indeed no more than a dishonest tactic. Anyone who accepts the
anti argument as presented here is most likely to become, not a more
caring, conscientious, exquisitely scrupulous consumer with an eye
fixed firmly on a real "least-harm" lifestyle, but simply another
consumer who doesn't care.

Let Dutch be a warning to us all.

Rat

"Rat & Swan" <labrat RemoveThis @cybermesa.com> wrote
>
>
>
> I think it is instructive to look at the results of what the Anti-AR
> posters here are trying to do, and where it leads.

Yes, too bad more people can't shake the mind-virus of veganism.

Dutch is the best
> (and, apparently, only ) example of someone who came on TPA as a pro-AR
> vegetarian, and was "talked out" of this position by the standard
> anti-AR arguments presented here.

I wasn't "talked out of" my position, I listened to all sides and gravitated
towards the most rational point of view. I'm also not the only one.

> We can see that the actual results of
> the Antis' arguments are not at all what they pretend they will, or
> should, be, and this is instructive for people who might possibly be
> confused by the pseudo-moral approach and tactic of personal attack
> which are the stand-bys of the main posters here.

We can't see anything of the kind, unless we're as confused as you.

> Dutch came on with a fuzzy emotional feeling that vegetarianism
> automatically made him a more ethical person,

Not quite, although I'd be interested to know if you disagree with that, if,
all else being equal, why would I NOT have been a more ethical person?

and that this was
> the entire content of being "pro-AR," and that this position could
> be supported by a purely utilitarian morality.

Strawman alert, I thought neither of those things.

> None of these things
> is true, of course. He had no solid theory behind his position, and
> never was able to articulate any philosophical position on the nature
> of rights or how animals differ from humans in ways that deny them
> rights.

In other words I had not been indoctrinated with ways of resisting
reasonable dialogue with dogma.

> This left him vulnerable to a strictly utilitarian attack
> and enter the infamous "CD argument."

Yes, I was open to listening to reason, and yes my primary concern was
animal deaths, not foggy "principles" discussed by academics in college
lounges.

> As soon as it became clear to Dutch that he could not claim some
> absolute superiority as a *person* by eating a vegetarian diet,

Wrong, and you may wish to check the archives, I realized that I could not
successfully argue that my vegetarian diet caused less animal death and
suffering than any diet which contained some meat or fish.

> he decided, not that vegetarians might be wrong about the ethics
> of their diet,

Not completely wrong, just having the wrong focus. The focus is on some
alleged principle rather than the welfare of animals.

> but that anyone who continued in a vegetarian/vegan
> lifestyle had to be a sanctimonious hypocrite who was inferior as
> a *person* to anyone who did not accept the philosophy of
> vegetarianism for any reason.

Not true, there are obviously many people, who, for many reasons, are
inferior "persons" to vegans. In fact I have said more than once that vegans
are fundamentally some the best, most compassionate people, otherwise they
would not be attracted to a way of thinking that presents itself as being
compassionate to animals.

> He bought into the silly Anti argument
> that the only way to be an ethical *person* was not to accept AR
> as a *philosophy.*

You're drifting further from my real position. The problem with ARAs is not
they are necessarily unethical in my view, it's that they are confused,
wrapped up in a self-serving, self-sustaining set of positions, denial,
half-truths, and lies.

> This ridiculous argument by character-assassination
> proved so successful with Dutch that the Antis have leaned heavily,
> and almost exclusively, on it ever since.

I wouldn't know, I wasn't here before I got here ;>)

> The Antis then produced the welter of ( badly supported) utilitarian
> arguments in support of grass-fed beef and hunting as being lower in
> CDs than agribusiness veggies.

The principle is self-evident.

They get little argument that, in
> SOME cases, such foods might result in lower CD totals than SOME
> vegetarian foods,

Very generous of you, but in fact the point's not debatable.

> but this argument does not address the basic
> philosophical reasons for not treating animals as slaves and products
> which are the real basis of AR as a philosophy.

AR politics is NOT defacto the reason why vegans are vegans, it's largely
because of harm to animals. If you don't believe me go to any vegan website.

> Dutch, adrift
> without any solid philosophical reasons for being either AR or anti-AR,

Being solidly utilitarian wrt animals is NOT being adrift.

> accepted this argument as a reason to begin eating meat again.

You're venturing further into territory you have no clue about. Our return
to eating meat was done for health reasons, the same reason I became a
vegetarian 20 years ago.

Note,
> he did not go to a lower-CD vegetarian diet, which would have been
> the logical answer to the Anti attack on his fuzzy utilitarian position.
> Instead, he abandoned vegetarianism entirely.

No I never was actually a vegetarian, I was lacto-ovo, and the change has
NOTHING to do with what goes on here.

> NOW, the FINAL result -- the triumph for the Anti side, the goal of
> the Anti attacks -- becomes visible in Dutch's present position.
> After spending years telling us that an omnivorous diet can be more
> ethical on a purely utilitarian basis than a vegetarian diet based
> only on agribusiness veggies IF THE SOURCES OF MEAT ARE CHOSEN ON THE
> BASIS OF THEIR UTILITARIAN DEATH TOLL IN CDS,

Which you cannot deny.

> he now tells us not only
> that he is now an omnivore, BUT THAT THE SOURCES OF HIS FOOD DO NOT
> MATTER.

I never said that either. I purchase some free range food, some not.

> He is NOT choosing only grass-fed beef, the slaughter of which
> he has personally investigated, or hunted game. He has abandoned all
> the arguments he presented to vegetarians for years to try to convince
> them they were unethical and/or crazy, and has reverted to a standard,
> uncaring consumer of meat.
>
> It doesn't matter, he now claims, because everybody's diet causes deaths.

I'm not the one claiming to have the most ethical diet, YOU are.

> This makes it so very, glaringly obvious that the whole CD argument
> is indeed no more than a dishonest tactic. Anyone who accepts the
> anti argument as presented here is most likely to become, not a more
> caring, conscientious, exquisitely scrupulous consumer with an eye
> fixed firmly on a real "least-harm" lifestyle, but simply another
> consumer who doesn't care.

That's up to the indivdual, I'm merely telling anyone who'll listen that
choosing a vegan diet doesn't automatically mean less death and suffering to
animals as vegans would wish everyone to believe. The fact that I can and
sometimes do substitute a fresh caught salmon into my diet and likely
decrease the amount of animal suffering is all you need to know to adjust
your twisted thinking.

> Let Dutch be a warning to us all.

I hope so. Your vegan diet and lifestyle does not make you a saint, don't
give up the lifestyle, just give up the baggage, you'll be the freer person
for it.