Posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2005, at 9:19:49
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 23:45:39
> > "We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. I say "taste" deliberately - this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defence of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products."
>
> > I do not believe that it is "established beyond doubt". And all that flows from that assumption is as flawed as that fallacious predicate and foundational argument.
>
> Ah. Perhaps I should point out that that passage occurs partway through Singer's article. I just picked it out because I liked it :-)It doesn't matter where it falls in his essay. He argues that necessity does not exist as a refutation of all that he goes on to examine. But necessity does not equal zero. Thus, we have moved decidedly away from an issue of black and white, of absolutes.
The manner in which he expressed himself, above, makes clear than he knew that to be the case.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/466404.html