You thought you'd try and catch me out by writing
directly to me instead of making your points to the
whole group, and then repeated my reply here in
a effort to trip me up somehow. Tough luck, but
thanks all the same for saving me the time and
effort in showing your devious nature for all to see.
On 19 Dec 2004 15:39:58 GMT, shakingspear666@aol.com (Shakingspear666) wrote:
> A main pillar of "ethical" Vegan belief holds eating meat causes death and
>suffering. Protein should therefore better come from plant sources, thus
>reducing or even eliminating death and suffering.
... of farmed animals and their associated collateral
deaths.
> When the issue of cds (collateral deaths) is introduced, vegan ethic
>depends on the meat coming from grain-fed "farmed" sources for
>favorable comparison.
No, it doesn't just depend on grain-fed livestock.
"for every pound of shrimp caught there were 20
pounds of sharks, rays, crabs, and starfish killed"
"Of course I recognize in some trawls it could be
only one pound - in others 100 pounds for every
pound of shrimp."
[About 2.3 billion pounds of sea life were discarded in
the U.S. in 2000 alone, and thousands of the ocean's
most charismatic species - including sea turtles, marine
mammals, sharks and seabirds - are killed each year
by fishing nets, lines and hooks. These deaths have
implications for both marine populations and marine
food webs.
"Considering the documented decline in global fisheries,
this kind of waste is unacceptable. But because this
travesty is unseen by most people, it continues," said
Dr. Crowder.
Experts agree that bottom trawls are one of the worst
offenders, entrapping
**vast numbers of non-targeted animals.**
"The first time I was on a trawler, I was appalled to see
that for every pound of shrimp caught there were 20
pounds of sharks, rays, crabs, and starfish killed. The
shrimpers called this bycatch 'trawl trash' - I call it
'biodiversity'," noted Elliott Norse of the Marine
Conservation Biology Institute. "Of course I recognize
in some trawls it could be only one pound - in others
100 pounds for every pound of shrimp."
**This bycatch is not the only collateral damage**
associated with fishing. Many experts agreed that habitat
destruction that some fishing gears cause is even more
ecologically damaging than the harm caused by bycatch.]
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/innews/destfish2003.htm
[Greenpeace has joined forces with the UK- based
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action
against fisheries found to be responsible for these
cetacean bycatches.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm
The principle behind veganism relies on reducing harm
to animals where possible and abstaining from animals
products. That there is evidence of more collateral
deaths associated with farmed meat and commercial
fishing means that the vegan always accomplishes both
by abstaining from them.
>The "wild" meats, ie. roadkill and hunted, are most conveniently left
>aside or dismissed on basis of availabilty.
They aren't dismissed or conveniently left aside. Road
kill, for the most part is unintentional while hunted meat
is very intentional. You can't conflate the two and then
insist vegans dismiss them both.
> As Reynard has said (and forgive the context/time jump):
>
> "There are hypothetical instances where hunted meat will
> accrue less deaths than grown rice due to the collateral
> deaths associated with it, for example, and all vegans
> acknowledge that fact, so your pathetic argument
> against the vegan on that basis all these years has been
> scruffy little straw man, dolt."
> ipse dixit http://tinyurl.com/35ako
I made that statement TO THE GROUP back in March,
and I still stand by it. There are hypothetical examples
where hunted meat will accrue less collateral harm than
crops foods grown by farmers using pesticides, so your
efforts to make use of what I included in our private email
exchange has just backfired on you and revealed your
total lack of honour.
> Note that Reynard posts from the UK and like many in paved, ordered
>burghals, probably has little or no competence to remark from personal
>experience where wild meat is concerned.
Irrelevant.
>Emotion not contributing to competence...
Meaning?
> I, OTOH, am posting from the US and live/have lived in some of its more
>"undeveloped" places. Here it is common to supplement protein from wild
>sources. The idea that hunting/gathering here is "hypothetical" is
>demonstrably laughable.
Then, are you going to claim that the animals you hunt for
food causes no collateral deaths at all? If we all took up a
rifle and hunted our food, would there be no collateral deaths
associated with that food source?
> Simply put, a reduction of deaths per unit of protein is not only possible
>through hunting but is, in fact, a commonality foreign to many urbanites.
Rather, it's an unsupported assertion you won't and can't
support.
> "Extinction" of hunted species were we all to practice it speaks to human
>overpopulation.
Not at all. Even a small human population can cause the
extinction of a hunted species.
>It does not speak directly to the "ethic".
Wrong.
> "Cruelty" to the hunted species is no more or less "cruelty" to the cds
>entailed in vegan plant proteins.
False. Cruelty to the hunted species is intentionally
performed by the hunter who eats his quarry, where
collateral deaths caused by farmers are not caused
by vegans eating veg.
>A death is a death and if fewer accrue by
>killing a deer, objections then belong not to "ethics" but instead fall into
>the pervue of aesthetics.
False. If one's moral code insists that one ought not
to kill animals, then the deaths caused by intentionally
hunting them remain in the purview of ethics.
If you should ever write to me in private only to publish
my replies to you on a public forum again, then your
emails will not be answered in the first place. Shame
on you.
|
|