From time to time, when the issue of animal collateral
deaths in agriculture is brought up, "vegans" try to
excuse themselves for consuming CD-bearing produce by
saying that meat eaters buy goods that have human CDs
or injury behind them. This argument is invalid for
(at least) five good reasons.

1. It is a _tu quoque_, or "you do it, too".

One cannot excuse one's own bad behavior by pointing
to (allegedly) bad behavior of one's accuser.
To do so utterly ignores the fact that you ARE
behaving badly - in the issue at hand, by not
following the dictates of what you claim to
believe. The accuser may well be doing the same
thing, but that doesn't excuse your own failure
to abide by what you claim to believe.

2. Lack of moral comparability

Animal CDs in agriculture are not morally comparable
with human CDs and injury in industry (or with
human rights abuses in other countries, or human
CDs in war). There are at least four solid
reaons for the lack of moral comparability:

a. Scope: animal CDs occur *throughout* agriculture,
as well as storage and distribution. By contrast,
many areas of human industry have virtually no
deaths,
and only very minimal amounts of injury: no
insurance claims processing clerk has ever been
killed in the course of his work duties by a
co-worker negligently operating a piece of heavy
machinery without regard to employees' safety.
b. Scope: animal CDs in agriculture are massive, due
to the lack of efforts at:
c. Prevention: we actively try to prevent human
collateral deaths in war and industry; and if
there
are any, there a
d. Consequences: when birds and rodents and reptiles
are slaughtered in fields in the course of
farming,
there are no consequences for anyone; but when
civilians are killed in war, and when humans are
killed or injured in industry, there are always
investigations, and there is the possibility of
punishment if the negligence is found to have been
present.

Taken together, these reasons establish that the animal
CDs simply are not morally comparable to human death
and injury in industry.

In fact, radical self-styled "workers' rights
activists" DO organize boycotts of companies that, in
their opinion, do not do enough to protect their
employees from death and injury, or that don't
"respect" what the activists feel ought to be the
employees' "rights", and many people participate in the
boycotts; the boycott of Nike over their alleged
mistreatment of workers in Southeast Asia comes to
mind. If you REALLY believe that workers have rights
that are being abridged by a particular firm, then you
are morally obligated not to buy that company's products.

What we see, when "vegans" engage in the (cheap and
easy) symbolic gesture of refraining from meat, but do
not engage in the (difficult and costly) symbolic
gesture of refraining from consuming CD-contaminated
produce, is that they don't REALLY believe that animals
have rights; in particular, they don't REALLY believe
that it is wrong to kill animals.

On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:42:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

From time to time, when the issue of animal collateral
deaths in agriculture is brought up, "vegans" try to
excuse themselves for consuming CD-bearing produce by
saying that meat eaters buy goods that have human CDs
or injury behind them. This argument is invalid for
(at least) five good reasons.

1. It is a _tu quoque_, or "you do it, too".

Including human collateral deaths into the discussion
isn't to make the claim that vegans are spared their
alleged responsibility for animal collateral deaths, on
the basis that their critics cause human collateral
deaths. You're thwacking a straw man.

Human collateral deaths and slavery are included to
demonstrate that you have no grounds to conclude
vegans don't respect the rights of animals, simply
on the basis that their rights are systematically
violated during crop production. According to your
logic, while vegans continue to buy such foods they
show a contempt for the rights of those animals. This
is a false assumption, as revealed in a statement you
once made regarding child slavery and the rights of
those children held in slavery.

"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
it proves YOU don't believe they do."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

This is exactly the point I make to you; even though
animals are systematically killed during crop production
it doesn't mean to say they hold no rights against us to
begin with. Vegans, then, when buying goods tainted
with collateral deaths, be they human or animal, don't
conclude that either hadn't the right to be killed or
harmed during the production of those goods.

In another post today while trying to lay the blame
for animal collateral deaths at the vegan's feet, you
wrote;

"You incentivize the farmer to keep on farming the
way he has always farmed: you keep paying him.
You KNOW how he farms, you AREN'T OBLIGED
to buy from him, yet you keep right on. The result:
complicity in animal deaths, leading to moral
responsibility for them.
Established."

Likewise, you incentivize the [slaver] to keep on farming
the way he has always farmed: you keep paying him.
You KNOW how he farms, you AREN'T OBLIGED to
buy from him, yet you keep right on. The result: complicity
in [human] deaths, leading to moral responsibility for them.
Established.

I've used exactly the same qualifiers you used to establish
your rule and your own voluntary complicity in human deaths,
yet when that rule is used against you you reject it on the
grounds that human collateral deaths aren't morally comparable
to animal collateral deaths. Though they may not be morally
comparable in your view, on the basis that they hold no rights
against us, when that argument is put to the vegan you in fact
knowingly put it to an animal rights advocate who does believe
they are comparable on the grounds that both humans and
animals hold rights. Your argument is lop-sided.

Derek wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:42:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


From time to time, when the issue of animal collateral
deaths in agriculture is brought up, "vegans" try to
excuse themselves for consuming CD-bearing produce by
saying that meat eaters buy goods that have human CDs
or injury behind them. This argument is invalid for
(at least) five good reasons.

1. It is a _tu quoque_, or "you do it, too".


Including human collateral deaths into the discussion
isn't to make the claim that vegans are spared their
alleged responsibility for animal collateral deaths, on
the basis that their critics cause human collateral
deaths.

Of course it is! Whom are you attempting to fool?

You're thwacking a straw man.

No.


Human collateral deaths and slavery are included to
demonstrate that you have no grounds to conclude
vegans don't respect the rights of animals, simply
on the basis that their rights are systematically
violated during crop production. According to your
logic, while vegans continue to buy such foods they
show a contempt for the rights of those animals. This
is a false assumption, as revealed in a statement you
once made regarding child slavery and the rights of
those children held in slavery.

"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
it proves YOU don't believe they do."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

This is exactly the point I make to you; even though
animals are systematically killed during crop production
it doesn't mean to say they hold no rights against us to
begin with.

It means that if "vegans" continue to buy the foods
made from such crops, they are not acting in accord
with their stated beliefs. They are behaving AS IF
they don't believe the animals hold rights.
Introducing the red herring of human collateral deaths
does nothing to resolve their hypocrisy.

Vegans, then, when buying goods tainted
with collateral deaths, be they human or animal, don't
conclude that either hadn't the right to be killed or
harmed during the production of those goods.

OF COURSE they do! They are failing to act on their
alleged beliefs, and that is functionally the same as
not holding the beliefs to begin with.


In another post today while trying to lay the blame
for animal collateral deaths at the vegan's feet, you
wrote;

"You incentivize the farmer to keep on farming the
way he has always farmed: you keep paying him.
You KNOW how he farms, you AREN'T OBLIGED
to buy from him, yet you keep right on. The result:
complicity in animal deaths, leading to moral
responsibility for them.
Established."

Likewise, you incentivize the [slaver] to keep on farming
the way he has always farmed: you keep paying him.

It is not established that there is any slavery in
cocoa production. It IS established that CDs occur in
agriculture.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
From time to time, when the issue of animal collateral
deaths in agriculture is brought up, "vegans" try to
excuse themselves for consuming CD-bearing produce by
saying that meat eaters buy goods that have human CDs
or injury behind them. This argument is invalid for
(at least) five good reasons.

1. It is a _tu quoque_, or "you do it, too".

One cannot excuse one's own bad behavior by pointing
to (allegedly) bad behavior of one's accuser.
To do so utterly ignores the fact that you ARE
behaving badly - in the issue at hand, by not
following the dictates of what you claim to
believe. The accuser may well be doing the same
thing, but that doesn't excuse your own failure
to abide by what you claim to believe.

2. Lack of moral comparability

Animal CDs in agriculture are not morally comparable
with human CDs and injury in industry (or with
human rights abuses in other countries, or human
CDs in war). There are at least four solid
reaons for the lack of moral comparability:

a. Scope: animal CDs occur *throughout* agriculture,
as well as storage and distribution. By contrast,
many areas of human industry have virtually no
deaths,
and only very minimal amounts of injury: no
insurance claims processing clerk has ever been
killed in the course of his work duties by a
co-worker negligently operating a piece of heavy
machinery without regard to employees' safety.
b. Scope: animal CDs in agriculture are massive, due
to the lack of efforts at:
c. Prevention: we actively try to prevent human
collateral deaths in war and industry; and if
there
are any, there a
d. Consequences: when birds and rodents and reptiles
are slaughtered in fields in the course of
farming,
there are no consequences for anyone; but when
civilians are killed in war, and when humans are
killed or injured in industry, there are always
investigations, and there is the possibility of
punishment if the negligence is found to have been
present.

Taken together, these reasons establish that the animal
CDs simply are not morally comparable to human death
and injury in industry.

In fact, radical self-styled "workers' rights
activists" DO organize boycotts of companies that, in
their opinion, do not do enough to protect their
employees from death and injury, or that don't
"respect" what the activists feel ought to be the
employees' "rights", and many people participate in the
boycotts; the boycott of Nike over their alleged
mistreatment of workers in Southeast Asia comes to
mind. If you REALLY believe that workers have rights
that are being abridged by a particular firm, then you
are morally obligated not to buy that company's products.

What we see, when "vegans" engage in the (cheap and
easy) symbolic gesture of refraining from meat, but do
not engage in the (difficult and costly) symbolic
gesture of refraining from consuming CD-contaminated
produce, is that they don't REALLY believe that animals
have rights; in particular, they don't REALLY believe
that it is wrong to kill animals.




Why are you *always* so full of crap ~jonnie~?