Why Vegan?

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:43:18 -0600, Rat & Swan <labrat.RemoveThis@cybermesa.com> wrote:

> For me, to strive toward living as a vegan is to make a statement
>about my view of the basic moral standing of non-human animals: that
>they are not things to be bought and sold as commodities, or to be
>deliberately
>killed to be used as food or other products. As with humans, that is
>not to say that others do not suffer as a result of our actions in the
>world, or that any of us cannot reduce our negative impact and increase
>our positive impact. But that is not the point. Veganism says one thing
>and one thing only, and it says it clearly and unambiguously: animals
>have a certain basic moral status which does not permit us justly to buy
>and sell their bodies, alive or dead, whole or in part, any more than we
>can justly buy and sell human bodies in the same circumstances. We
>should refuse to allow Antis to bury this one basic truth under an
>obfuscating avalanche of irrelevant material.
>
>Rat

Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:

1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
killed so we can eat them.
2. Some of the animals raised for food have decent lives.
3. Veg*nism does nothing to provide decent lives for farm animals.
4. Veg*nism does nothing to help or provide more life for any animals.
5. People can contribute to decent lives for farm animals, but they
can't do it by being veg*n.
6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.
8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
veggies.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:43:18 -0600, Rat & Swan <labrat.DeleteThis@cybermesa.com> wrote:
>
>
>> For me, to strive toward living as a vegan is to make a statement
>>about my view of the basic moral standing of non-human animals: that
>>they are not things to be bought and sold as commodities, or to be
>>deliberately
>>killed to be used as food or other products. As with humans, that is
>>not to say that others do not suffer as a result of our actions in the
>>world, or that any of us cannot reduce our negative impact and increase
>>our positive impact. But that is not the point. Veganism says one thing
>>and one thing only, and it says it clearly and unambiguously: animals
>>have a certain basic moral status which does not permit us justly to buy
>>and sell their bodies, alive or dead, whole or in part, any more than we
>>can justly buy and sell human bodies in the same circumstances. We
>>should refuse to allow Antis to bury this one basic truth under an
>>obfuscating avalanche of irrelevant material.
>>
>>Rat
>
>
> Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
>
> 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> killed so we can eat them.

Not only "vegans" ignore that trivial fact, Fuckwit.
Everyone but you ignores it, because it is utterly
unimportant. There is no virtue in "providing life" to
farm animals. None.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

Rat & Swan <labrat RemoveThis @cybermesa.com> wrote in message news:<bnfr2b$prs$1@reader2.nmix.net>...
> For me, to strive toward living as a vegan is to make a statement
> about my view of the basic moral standing of non-human animals: that
> they are not things to be bought and sold as commodities, or to be
> deliberately
> killed to be used as food or other products. As with humans, that is
> not to say that others do not suffer as a result of our actions in the
> world, or that any of us cannot reduce our negative impact and increase
> our positive impact. But that is not the point. Veganism says one thing
> and one thing only, and it says it clearly and unambiguously: animals
> have a certain basic moral status which does not permit us justly to buy
> and sell their bodies, alive or dead, whole or in part, any more than we
> can justly buy and sell human bodies in the same circumstances. We
> should refuse to allow Antis to bury this one basic truth under an
> obfuscating avalanche of irrelevant material.
>
> Rat

Nicely written. Really.

Refreshing after a protracted duel with frothing Ray.

But you should also acknowlegde that you and other vegans *do*
knowingly cotribute to animal deaths and suffering by simply living in
a modern society and partaking of its conveniences. Certainly, I
wouldn't begrudge you using a medical system that is based upon animal
testing. Survival is different from convenience. On the other hand,
however, is a long litany of goods and services which you use daily
which also contribute to animal suffering and could be easily avoided
were you to simply accept a bit of discomfort. This is something you
missed.

No, using electricity is certainly not paramount to eating a steak.
Nor is using a gasoline-powered vehicle whose fuel was obtained at the
expense of thousands of animals. These things aren't the same as
killing an animal for your pleasure.

Just your convenience.

Doc
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

drdoody wrote:
> Rat & Swan <labrat RemoveThis @cybermesa.com> wrote in message news:<bnfr2b$prs$1@reader2.nmix.net>...

>>For me, to strive toward living as a vegan is to make a statement
>>about my view of the basic moral standing of non-human animals: that
>>they are not things to be bought and sold as commodities, or to be
>>deliberately
>>killed to be used as food or other products. As with humans, that is
>>not to say that others do not suffer as a result of our actions in the
>>world, or that any of us cannot reduce our negative impact and increase
>>our positive impact. But that is not the point. Veganism says one thing
>>and one thing only, and it says it clearly and unambiguously: animals
>>have a certain basic moral status which does not permit us justly to buy
>>and sell their bodies, alive or dead, whole or in part, any more than we
>>can justly buy and sell human bodies in the same circumstances. We
>>should refuse to allow Antis to bury this one basic truth under an
>>obfuscating avalanche of irrelevant material.


> Nicely written. Really.

> Refreshing after a protracted duel with frothing Ray.

> But you should also acknowlegde that you and other vegans *do*
> knowingly cotribute to animal deaths and suffering by simply living in
> a modern society and partaking of its conveniences.

Absolutely. There is no way to live in modern society without
knowingly contributing both to animal death and suffering and to human
death and suffering. Actually, there never was any way to live as part
of any human society at any time without doing so. It is an inherent
part of the human condition -- and the animal condition, and even the
vegetable condition. The world we live in is inherently imperfect.
However, I think we should also acknowledge that we can, and most of
us do, contribute to life and betterment of humans and non-humans also.
Our actions are not _only_ negative.

Certainly, I
> wouldn't begrudge you using a medical system that is based upon animal
> testing. Survival is different from convenience. On the other hand,
> however, is a long litany of goods and services which you use daily
> which also contribute to animal suffering and could be easily avoided
> were you to simply accept a bit of discomfort. This is something you
> missed.

> No, using electricity is certainly not paramount to eating a steak.
> Nor is using a gasoline-powered vehicle whose fuel was obtained at the
> expense of thousands of animals. These things aren't the same as
> killing an animal for your pleasure.

> Just your convenience.

The same can, of course, be said of the impact on humans of actions we
all take. Since so many of our products are now produced in
third-world countries, Americans and Europeans have a much more
limited ability to influence the conditions of those who create them
than we did even quite recently.


Rat
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

Bill wrote:

<snip>
>>> There IS no moral view of "veganism". It's a rule, period.

> The silence is, as usual, deafening.

I answered you below.

>> <snip>

>>>>>>> There is no morality behind the stupid rule.

>>>>>> I disagree, obviously.

>>>>> Yes, and obviously without support, as ever.

>>>> I think there is wide support in the writings of a variety of
>>>> authors who have advocated veganism/vegetarianism for moral,ethical
>>>> and/or religious reasons,

>>> There are gaping holes in all of them. Every one of them is a
>>> lightweight in the academic world of philosophy.

>> You may believe so, but that does not support your claim that "there
>> is no morality behind the stupid rule."

> That claim is self evidently true. "veganism" is not a philosophy, it's
> a rule-based "lifestyle", and that's ALL.

You contradict yourself below also.


>> Clearly, they present a moral
>> reason for the rule, whether it be utilitarian, deontological, or
>> theological.

> Someone might, but it isn't intrinsic to "veganism" per se.

If "someone might" -- and every major spokesman for veganism does --
then veganism cannot be "a rule-based 'lifestyle' and that's ALL."
A moral/ethical rule does not appear from nothing. There is always
a reason for it, especially in the case of something which has such
a major effect on all aspects of a person's life. You may argue that
the reason is invalid, incomplete, or inadequate. You may argue that
not all vegans understand the reason. But you cannot be correct that
it is a rule-based lifestyle and that's ALL. That is empirically
false.

Shall we move on?

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> There IS no moral view of "veganism". It's a rule, period.
>
>
>> The silence is, as usual, deafening.
>
>
> I answered you below.

Weakly, as usual.


>>>>> I think there is wide support in the writings of a variety of
>>>>> authors who have advocated veganism/vegetarianism for moral,ethical
>>>>> and/or religious reasons,
>
>
>>>> There are gaping holes in all of them. Every one of them is a
>>>> lightweight in the academic world of philosophy.
>
>
>>> You may believe so, but that does not support your claim that "there
>>> is no morality behind the stupid rule."
>
>
>> That claim is self evidently true. "veganism" is not a philosophy,
>> it's a rule-based "lifestyle", and that's ALL.
>
>
> You contradict yourself below also.

No, I don't.

>
>
>>> Clearly, they present a moral
>>> reason for the rule, whether it be utilitarian, deontological, or
>>> theological.
>
>
>> Someone might, but it isn't intrinsic to "veganism" per se.
>
>
> If "someone might" -- and every major spokesman for veganism does --
> then veganism cannot be "a rule-based 'lifestyle' and that's ALL."

Yes. I don't care what kind of weak, shoddy
pseudo-philosophy some twit at an academic backwater
has lurking behind his rule; "veganism" is a rule, a
totally inadequate, principle-free rule, and that's all.

> A moral/ethical rule does not appear from nothing.

"veganism" is not a moral/ethical rule. It is a
"lifestyle" rule, a rule about consumption, and that's all.

> There is always a reason for it,

In this case, it is an extremely poorly thought out,
thoroughly inconsistent reason. It makes a mockery of
the very idea of "reason".

> especially in the case of something which has such
> a major effect on all aspects of a person's life.

It's picking fly-specks out of the pepper, that's all.

> You may argue that
> the reason is invalid, incomplete, or inadequate. You may argue that
> not all vegans understand the reason. But you cannot be correct that
> it is a rule-based lifestyle and that's ALL.

Yes, I can, because it is. One might adopt the
unprincipled, inadequate rule for any number of bogus
reasons. It remains simply a rule, and that's all.

> That is empirically false.

No, you are wrong. There is nothing "empirical" about
your self-serving assertions.

>
> Shall we move on?

No. You are completely stuck here, and this is where
you may stay.

It makes no sense, no sense at all, for you to have
returned here. You aren't saying anything new, and
what you have said in the past was weak. In fact, you
never should have returned after your February 2001
meltdown. The only reason you *did* return was your
hatred was overflowing, and you wanted to lash out in
the most vengeful, hate-filled way you could at John
Mercer.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

You are Jon Ball, aren't you?

Bill wrote:

> Yes. I don't care what kind of weak, shoddy pseudo-philosophy some twit
> at an academic backwater has lurking behind his rule;

Obviously.

> "veganism" is a
> rule, a totally inadequate, principle-free rule, and that's all.

Obviously not -- or you wouldn't be so defensive about
refusing to engage the issue.

>> A moral/ethical rule does not appear from nothing.

> "veganism" is not a moral/ethical rule. It is a "lifestyle" rule, a
> rule about consumption, and that's all.

As I said: veganism is a practical action taken to support a
specific belief about the moral status of animals.


>> There is always a reason for it,


> In this case,

Which case?

> it is an extremely poorly thought out, thoroughly
> inconsistent reason. It makes a mockery of the very idea of "reason".

Please elaborate....

>> especially in the case of something which has such
>> a major effect on all aspects of a person's life.

> It's picking fly-specks out of the pepper, that's all.
>
>> You may argue that
>> the reason is invalid, incomplete, or inadequate. You may argue that
>> not all vegans understand the reason. But you cannot be correct that
>> it is a rule-based lifestyle and that's ALL.

> Yes, I can, because it is. One might adopt the unprincipled, inadequate
> rule for any number of bogus reasons.

Ah...so it is not simply a rule, but is adopted for any of several
reasons, which you do not accept. Please elaborate....


> It remains simply a rule, and
> that's all.

>> That is empirically false.

> No, you are wrong. There is nothing "empirical" about your self-serving
> assertions.

It is empirically untrue that veganism is simply a rule, not adoptd
on the basis of moral principle -- every major AR writer disproves it.

>> Shall we move on?

> No. You are completely stuck here, and this is where you may stay.

> It makes no sense, no sense at all, for you to have returned here. You
> aren't saying anything new, and what you have said in the past was
> weak.

Since you seem unable or unwilling to engage what I am saying, perhaps
it is necessary to go over old ground with you.

<snip>

> In fact, you never should have returned after your February 2001
> meltdown.

Call me an eternal optimist....

<snip>

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

I'm in a somewhat grumpy mood tonight, so I'll say that until you
stop basing all your responses on personal attacks, I see little point
in continuing this exchange.

For those who participate in a money economy, not buying products
produced from animal bodies, on the basis of a belief that animals
are not property and should not be bought and sold, is certainly
an ethically-based action. That animals are also abused in other
ways in our society is certainly true, and is something of which,
in my experience, all vegans are aware, to one degree or another.
To claim that this one ethically-based action is invalid because
it does not include all other possible responses to abuse of
animals in our society is ridiculous.

If one does not believe that animals should be treated as
property, any more than people should, -- how else, other than
by not buying products containing animal parts, would you act so
as to demonstrate such a belief?

Rat
<snip>
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

Nice to have it confirmed that all you have is personal attack.
This time, you snipped even the small amount of substantive
material I replied to in your last post. You are obviously
terrified of me, and terrified that I have come back, because
I understand your tactics, your lack of solid argument, and
your completely emptiness of substance.

You're right -- there's no point in talking to you, because
you refuse to debate ideas, you flee from any real ideas,
you ignore anything which challenges your prejudices about
vegans. Certainly YOU aren't saying anything new. You haven't
had a new thought in years, or a new line of attack. You are
a waste of pixels.

You are too stupid, too stuck in your ignorant rut -- and rant --
to be worth the effort of typing.

Since personal attack is all you have -- enjoy, Jonnie.

Rat

> > Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
> > ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
> > such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle,

> No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
> always, to care about them, but their behavior
> indicates they do not care.

Personal attack.


> > and until their
> > point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
> > who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.

> No. Emphatically, no. This is why I genuinely don't
> understand why you are back here. You advanced this
> smarmy, self-serving line of nonsense when you were
> here before, and you were skewered for it. You aren't
> saying anything new.

I advanced this line or argument, it is true, and you were
never able to refute it.


> Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
> CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
> gestures. What distinguishes them? Cost.

No. What distinguishes them is that buying meat and other
animal products supports a system which represents a view
of animals which is philosophically opposed to AR: that
animals are property, that they have a moral standing which
allows us to use them in unjust ways, raise and delibrately kill
them without consideration of their intrinsic worth. It is a
form of slavery, more extreme than human slavery ever was,
because, at least, human slaves were never raised for food and
hides. This attitude toward animals -- their lack of moral
status -- is what makes farmers see killing pests as morally
meaningless. Change the attitude, CDs will change. But
buying vegetables does not say that one supports an anti-AR
view of animals. The slavery/property view of animals is
not a necessary part of raising vegetables, any more than
sweatshop labor is a necessary part of producing clothes.
Pest control, like war or legal action, can recognize the
moral status of those killed, although it often does not,
and certainly does not in the case of our current government.
Therefore, what must be changed is pest control methods --
like labor conditions or an unjust legal system -- not an
entire philosophy of plant-raising.

<snip more personal attack>

> > I am
> > convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
> > such animal deaths in principle,

> No, it most definitely does NOT reject deaths in
> principle.

Yes, it does.

<snip personal attack>

> > and if the vegan position is
> > accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> > of farmers.

> As the "vegan" position is seen to be a lie, from start
> to finish,

Dream on, moral midget and intellectual slacker.
--- see, I can do it, too -- :)

Claiming something and doing it are different things,
as you have never learned.

<snip personal attack>

> > Then society can
> > and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.

> Yes, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb.

Yes, so we are promised, and so I believe will happen
one day, although not until God brings about the New
Heaven and New Earth after Christ's second coming.

> Why
> don't you sing a little bit of "Aquarius", too, and
> tell us about peace guiding the planets and love
> steering the stars.

Which also happens as God wills, and not by human
doing.

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
> Nice to have it confirmed that all you have is personal attack.

No. I refuted that it was personal attack *at all*.
You, of course, didn't address my refutation.

>
> You're right -- there's no point in talking to you, because
> you refuse to debate ideas, you flee from any real ideas,
> you ignore anything which challenges your prejudices about
> vegans.

No, that's patently false, and you know it. The debate
is over. You lost.


>> > Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
>> > ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
>> > such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle,
>
>
>> No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
>> always, to care about them, but their behavior
>> indicates they do not care.
>
>
> Personal attack.

No. Not personal attack at all. It is a fact that the
behavior of "vegans" regarding collateral deaths -
actually, the utter *lack* of behavior - proves they do
not care about the deaths.

>
>
>> > and until their
>> > point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
>> > who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.
>
>
>> No. Emphatically, no. This is why I genuinely don't
>> understand why you are back here. You advanced this
>> smarmy, self-serving line of nonsense when you were
>> here before, and you were skewered for it. You aren't
>> saying anything new.
>
>
> I advanced this line or argument, it is true, and you were
> never able to refute it.

I did indeed refute it. Your willful inactivity can
not in any way be blamed on the failure of others to
agree with an agenda that you have not adequately
supported.

This is the crux of the matter. You are FAILING to
live by a principle, and you are blaming your failure
on others. That is morally despicable.

>
>
>> Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
>> CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
>> gestures. What distinguishes them? Cost.
>
>
> No.

Yes. It's cost, both financial and effort.

> What distinguishes them is that buying meat and other
> animal products supports a system which represents a view
> of animals which is philosophically opposed to AR: that
> animals are property, that they have a moral standing which
> allows us to use them in unjust ways, raise and delibrately kill
> them without consideration of their intrinsic worth.

No, that is not the distinction. You are being
willfully dishonest. The negligent slaughter of
non-meat animals in the course of raising vegetables
ALSO ignores this alleged "intrinsic worth".

You see? You are failing to identify a meaningful
distinction. In both cases, meat and non-meat dead
animals, the alleged "intrinsic worth" of the animals
isn't given the consideration you think is due. But
you make a big, splashy, self exalting show of
pretending to be concerned about the one, while you
utterly ignore the other.

You cannot get around this, except to lie and dance and
try to peddle more bad sophistry. You are not saying
or doing anything new. What you are doing is
compounding the lying.

> It is a form of slavery,

Crap.

> more extreme than human slavery ever was,
> because, at least, human slaves were never raised for food and
> hides.

You allege, out of a weird sentimentality, that human
use of animals for products is "a form" of slavery.

Try this on for size: your casual disregard for the
non-meat animals whose deaths YOU cause is identical to
the extermination of Native Americans. You are
engaging in genocide.

> This attitude toward animals -- their lack of moral
> status -- is what makes farmers see killing pests as morally
> meaningless.

This attitude YOU exhibit towards non-meat animals
killed for you puts you right there with the farmers.

> Change the attitude, CDs will change.

There is nothing stopping you from withdrawing your
custom from animal-killing farmers.

> But buying vegetables does not say that one supports an anti-AR
> view of animals.

Yes, it certainly does. That is PRECISELY what it says.

> The slavery/property view of animals is
> not a necessary part of raising vegetables,

No. The exterminate-the-vermin-redskins view is a
necessary part of the *current* method of raising
vegetables, a method you support.

....

>
> <snip more personal attack>

There was no personal attack.

>
>>> I am
>>> convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
>>> such animal deaths in principle,
>
>
>> No, it most definitely does NOT reject deaths in
>> principle.
>
>
> Yes, it does.

No, it does not reject them in principle. That's why
you cavalierly CAUSE the deaths of the non-meat
animals. They are not covered by your missing principle.

>
> <snip personal attack>

There was no personal attack.

>
>>> and if the vegan position is
>>> accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the
>>> awareness of farmers.
>
>
>> As the "vegan" position is seen to be a lie, from start
>> to finish,
>
>
> Dream on, moral midget and intellectual slacker.
> --- see, I can do it, too -- :)

But you are wrong. I am not making false claims about
my exalted moral status. You are are. Your claims are
easily shown to be false.

>
> Claiming something and doing it are different things,
> as you have never learned.

That is what YOU haven't learned. You are claiming to
be abiding by a principle, and it is easily
demonstrated that you are not. You are abiding by a
silly and obviously inadequate rule: don't consume
animal parts. That's all.

>
> <snip personal attack>

There was no personal attack.

>
>>> Then society can and will
>>> advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.
>
>
>> Yes, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb.
>
>
> Yes, so we are promised, and so I believe will happen
> one day, although not until God brings about the New
> Heaven and New Earth after Christ's second coming.

You are a superstitious fool.

In the meantime, if you really were abiding by
principle, you would be making some real and meaningful
effort to stop causing animal CDs. You don't. You are
not abiding by any principle, only by a silly rule.

>> Why don't you sing a little bit of "Aquarius", too, and
>> tell us about peace guiding the planets and love
>> steering the stars.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

Jonnie, let me ask you this -- and please try to avoid responding
only in personal attack mode:

What ethical/philosophical concepts in our human society, particularly
Western society, do you feel would have to change before society
generally would regard raising and selling of animals as food and
other products, and unconsidered CDs in vegetable production, as
unacceptable? What is it which makes such things so common in our
society? What would make people in general regard them as morally
wrong?

Give it a try.

<snip>

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

"Rat & Swan" <labrat RemoveThis @cybermesa.com> wrote in message
news:bns1s6$86s$1@reader2.nmix.net...
>
> Jonnie, let me ask you this -- and please try to avoid responding
> only in personal attack mode:
>
> What ethical/philosophical concepts in our human society, particularly
> Western society, do you feel would have to change before society
> generally would regard raising and selling of animals as food and
> other products, and unconsidered CDs in vegetable production, as
> unacceptable? What is it which makes such things so common in our
> society? What would make people in general regard them as morally
> wrong?
>
> Give it a try.
==================
nothing. Animals, all animals including us, are part of somethings diet.

Grow up. Life is life, and *always* ends in death.


>
> <snip>
>
> Rat
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan? 

Reposting, because the unethical terrorist/polemicist
Karen Winter snipped it all out before without
addressing important points.


Rat & Swan wrote:

>
> Nice to have it confirmed that all you have is personal attack.

No. I refuted that it was personal attack *at all*.
You, of course, didn't address my refutation.

>
> You're right -- there's no point in talking to you, because
> you refuse to debate ideas, you flee from any real ideas,
> you ignore anything which challenges your prejudices about
> vegans.

No, that's patently false, and you know it. The debate
is over. You lost.


>> > Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
>> > ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
>> > such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle,
>
>
>> No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
>> always, to care about them, but their behavior
>> indicates they do not care.
>
>
> Personal attack.

No. Not personal attack at all. It is a fact that the
behavior of "vegans" regarding collateral deaths -
actually, the utter *lack* of behavior - proves they do
not care about the deaths.

>
>
>> > and until their
>> > point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
>> > who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.
>
>
>> No. Emphatically, no. This is why I genuinely don't
>> understand why you are back here. You advanced this
>> smarmy, self-serving line of nonsense when you were
>> here before, and you were skewered for it. You aren't
>> saying anything new.
>
>
> I advanced this line or argument, it is true, and you were
> never able to refute it.

I did indeed refute it. Your willful inactivity can
not in any way be blamed on the failure of others to
agree with an agenda that you have not adequately
supported.

This is the crux of the matter. You are FAILING to
live by a principle, and you are blaming your failure
on others. That is morally despicable.

>
>
>> Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
>> CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
>> gestures. What distinguishes them? Cost.
>
>
> No.

Yes. It's cost, both financial and effort.

> What distinguishes them is that buying meat and other
> animal products supports a system which represents a view
> of animals which is philosophically opposed to AR: that
> animals are property, that they have a moral standing which
> allows us to use them in unjust ways, raise and delibrately kill
> them without consideration of their intrinsic worth.

No, that is not the distinction. You are being
willfully dishonest. The negligent slaughter of
non-meat animals in the course of raising vegetables
ALSO ignores this alleged "intrinsic worth".

You see? You are failing to identify a meaningful
distinction. In both cases, meat and non-meat dead
animals, the alleged "intrinsic worth" of the animals
isn't given the consideration you think is due. But
you make a big, splashy, self exalting show of
pretending to be concerned about the one, while you
utterly ignore the other.

You cannot get around this, except to lie and dance and
try to peddle more bad sophistry. You are not saying
or doing anything new. What you are doing is
compounding the lying.

> It is a form of slavery,

Crap.

> more extreme than human slavery ever was,
> because, at least, human slaves were never raised for food and
> hides.

You allege, out of a weird sentimentality, that human
use of animals for products is "a form" of slavery.

Try this on for size: your casual disregard for the
non-meat animals whose deaths YOU cause is identical to
the extermination of Native Americans. You are
engaging in genocide.

> This attitude toward animals -- their lack of moral
> status -- is what makes farmers see killing pests as morally
> meaningless.

This attitude YOU exhibit towards non-meat animals
killed for you puts you right there with the farmers.

> Change the attitude, CDs will change.

There is nothing stopping you from withdrawing your
custom from animal-killing farmers.

> But buying vegetables does not say that one supports an anti-AR
> view of animals.

Yes, it certainly does. That is PRECISELY what it says.

> The slavery/property view of animals is
> not a necessary part of raising vegetables,

No. The exterminate-the-vermin-redskins view is a
necessary part of the *current* method of raising
vegetables, a method you support.

....

>
> <snip more personal attack>

There was no personal attack.

>
>>> I am
>>> convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
>>> such animal deaths in principle,
>
>
>> No, it most definitely does NOT reject deaths in
>> principle.
>
>
> Yes, it does.

No, it does not reject them in principle. That's why
you cavalierly CAUSE the deaths of the non-meat
animals. They are not covered by your missing principle.

>
> <snip personal attack>

There was no personal attack.

>
>>> and if the vegan position is
>>> accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the
>>> awareness of farmers.
>
>
>> As the "vegan" position is seen to be a lie, from start
>> to finish,
>
>
> Dream on, moral midget and intellectual slacker.
> --- see, I can do it, too -- :)

But you are wrong. I am not making false claims about
my exalted moral status. You are are. Your claims are
easily shown to be false.

>
> Claiming something and doing it are different things,
> as you have never learned.

That is what YOU haven't learned. You are claiming to
be abiding by a principle, and it is easily
demonstrated that you are not. You are abiding by a
silly and obviously inadequate rule: don't consume
animal parts. That's all.

>
> <snip personal attack>

There was no personal attack.

>
>>> Then society can and will
>>> advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.
>
>
>> Yes, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb.
>
>
> Yes, so we are promised, and so I believe will happen
> one day, although not until God brings about the New
> Heaven and New Earth after Christ's second coming.

You are a superstitious fool.

In the meantime, if you really were abiding by
principle, you would be making some real and meaningful
effort to stop causing animal CDs. You don't. You are
not abiding by any principle, only by a silly rule.

>> Why don't you sing a little bit of "Aquarius", too, and
>> tell us about peace guiding the planets and love
>> steering the stars.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Vegan?