Re: Some Hard Truths for Ethical Vegetarians

Derek wrote:
> > > Do these animals die to feed them, or is the real hard
> > > truth something different to that? The real hard truth is
> > > that animals killed in agriculture aren't killed to ensure
> > > people can continue eating veg, because other methods
> > > can be and are used which doesn't kill any at all. The
> > > hard truth is that they are intentionally killed to maximize
> > > profits, so to claim they are killed for any other reason
> > > is false.
> >
> > Your justification
>
> 'Justification'? For what?

For your personal choices and their consequences for animals.

> > is valid *only* if you buy produce which is grown and
> > harvested in a more humane manner.
>
> Non sequitur. 

No, it does follow.

> The hard truth is that animals are intentionally
> killed for financial gain, not to feed the farmer's consumers
> as Michael claims.

No, and this is precisely why the above point follows. You have several 
other options. You can grow your own food and practice humane techniques 
so no animals are killed for your benefit. You can co-op with others to 
grow and harvest using humane techniques. You can get all your produce 
from PYOs. You can purchase only from farmers who practice humane 
agriculture techniques and avoid CDs.

Since you choose to pay as little as possible at Sainsbury's or ASDA, 
you accept the cost of CDs in what you purchase. It's laughable that 
you'd blame farmers when you have so many other options.

> > > The truth is that no animals die to feed me, as you
> > > claim. They die to increase the farmer's profits.
> >
> > No, they die because you're (a) too lazy to grow your own food, and/or
> > (b) too cheap to pay the full price of what humanely-grown food costs to
> > produce.
>
> I pay farmers in the same way I pay any other
> employee, and if my employees cause damage
> while going about their business, then they are
> fully responsible for any blame.

Regarding employer/employee liability issues, if you'd mis-wired a car 
and it caught fire, whom would the car's owner sue? You hire the farmer 
to grow cheap food rather than humane food. You have plenty other 
options, yet you've selected the method with the highest amount of CDs. 
You're not willing to put your own money where your own mouth is. You're 
the culpable person in the CD chain.

> > > > Anyone who eats food that is grown
> > > > using mechanical plows and harvesting machines must
> > > > accept partial responsibility for the large numbers (no
> > > > hard figures are available) of animals who die beneath or
> > > > within these machines, or who die from pesticide and
> > > > chemical fertilizer poisoning.
> > >
> > > While accepting responsibility for the deaths of these
> > > animals caused by farmers, would you also accept
> > > responsibility in the same casual manner and continue
> > > to buy from producers if it were other rights bearers,
> > > namely children, being killed to produce your food, or
> > > would your indignation at such mass rights violations
> > > morally compel you to find other another source for
> > > your food?
> >
> > It hasn't stopped you, killer.
>
> I don't believe I'm responsible for them, 

Irrelevant. Responsibility/culpability isn't a function of personal belief.

> but if I did
> hold such a belief, how would I be able to continue
> buying from such a source while still claiming they
> have a right not to be intentionally killed for my
> personal gain?

You have other options. Put your money where your big mouth is.

> If children were being killed for our food in the same
> way, and in the same numbers as vermin around
> farmsteads, would those who accept responsibility
> for animal collateral deaths be as willing to accept the
> responsibility for the deaths of these children too,
> or would they blame the slavers who drive them?
>
> Also would these same people insist others "must"
> accept responsibility for animal collateral death be
> insisting we must accept the responsibility for what
> slavers do?

I'll say that consistency counts, even though such hypothetical 
questions are irrelevant.