> Regarding producing oil from livestock, you'll want to look into
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
>
> I believe that ConAgra has a plant for doing this to left over bits
> of turkey.
>
> More to the point as far as we know oil deposits are created by
> thermal depolymerization of plants and animals on geologic
> timescales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation
> Therefor anything produced from petroleum very likely contains dead
> animals.
>
> 1. There are definitely shades of grey, but I tend to think that
> putting animals in your tank and on your plate are largely the same.
> If you think that eating dead animals is wrong, then why would
> consuming any product of which a component was dead animals be any
> different? Would it be ok to just kill an animal for no reason and
> not consume it?
You're equating the killing of animals with the death of animals. The
animals that died eons ago to make oil were not killed by beings that
had an active choice to make (i.e. "Do I kill this animal, or do I not
kill this animal?"). An animal that died of natural causes was not
killed, and a T-Rex (or a lion for that matter) does not have a moral
dilemma when it comes to mealtime.
The only possible exception here is if you wish to postulate that some
or all of the animals that crude oil comes from were killed by
intelligent (and sentient) extra-terrestrial or terrestrial beings that
left no trace behind for us to find.
I'm also clueless as to why you question if it's ok to kill an animal
for no reason and not consume it. Most of the animal-based products that
we have on the market today come from animals that humans have raised,
and killed for the expressed purpose of creating that product. Do you
not realize that these animals would not be killed if there were no
demand for these products (or at least only a demand for similar
products that were not animal-based -- e.g. faux leather).
> 2. I'm primarily attempting to point out that your actions and your
> moral code are hypocritical and thus you should be ignored as
> someone who advocates a standard for which they are unable or
> unwilling to meet themselves.
Please point to where I was advocating a standard.
> 3. I don't really care how it comes across, if it effectively
> communicates to anyone else that the lifestyle choice and moral code
> of people who practice veganism or vegetarianism for moral reasons
> are hypocritical, then it has served it's purpose. If people who are
> not vegans or vegetarians for moral reasons laugh at the hypocrisy
> then it's also effective. Sometimes you have to make Modest
> Proposals in order to communicate effectively.
So you advocate ad hominem attacks on people based on some sort of
stereotype that you have in your own mind, but which really doesn't
match reality? As others have stated, you're trying to take the
adjective 'vegan' and create your own definition of it based on the
negative view you have of what
some of the people it describes
believe.
To use a religion analogy, you're trying to condemn all Christians based
on the actions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church in no way
represents all Christian religions, but they are seen as the 'canonical'
Christian religion in most people's minds. But in this case it's even
worse, because the view points that you are attacking aren't even
associated with some proper group or institution. It's just a view point
that some people who are vegetarian/vegan hold.
> 4. I think that voting is largely ineffective and that the electoral
> system produces results that are far more influenced by lobbying and
> money than by casting votes.
You're sort of missing the point that I was making with that comment. I
was just using a common defeatist view point in pop-culture as an
example.
> 5. The entire point of the post was to convince you and others that
> don't eat meat for moral reasons that you are NOT living your life
> according to your own moral code. Or that your moral code contains
> arbitrary exceptions for the consumption of animals for whenever you
> find it convenient.
Where did I define my moral code for your review? Yet you assume that
you know what it is, and attempt to viciously attack it to (presumably)
gain some sort of personal satisfaction that you have 'proved' that you
are right and someone else is wrong on the internet?
I also question why you are attempting to tell others that their moral
code should be black-and-white. Is you own personal moral code this
black-and-white? Is murder is always murder, and self-defense is no
excuse? Or do you allow an exception in that case? A picture of a naked
child is always child pornography, even if it's just the 'classic'
bathtime photo of a baby? Are these not 'arbitrary exceptions?'