quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I've read it. It's got angles, all right. And they're most definitely connected to the issue - albeit only one side of it. [wink] The case for vegans is one that can only convince individuals; you're never going to be able to sway a multitude. I for one was disappointed by a slight lack of objectivity - once again, someone on the outside decides they know better than folks who have been doing something for a long time - and in this case, a very long time. I'm not saying your argument isn't valid, Matt, I'm just saying its implications are not universally applicable and the core elements of the argument are not set forth in an objective way that takes the opposition into account. It's very easy to knock something you've distanced yourself from. It becomes a little harder sometimes once you start to see where folks are coming from.
There is no such thing as genuine objectivity, Cap'n. Not sure how long it's been since you read it, but Singer's book was written as an argument FOR veganism. That's exactly where the book was coming from. Included in this argument was a massive amount of research--- the guy covered all the bases. Singer also debated all the popular arguments AGAINST veganism/animal rights that had been bandied about up to that point and included that in his book as well. Objectivity wasn't a problem with this book at all, really. Maybe you should go back and have another read-through, because it sounds to me like you only have a very vague recollection of it.