....which will henceforth be shortened to either the
Irrational Search, or the Search for Micrograms.

Daniel Miller wrote:

> 8th Continent is the brand of soy-milk that comes in those plastic
> roundish curve-contoured bottles. I formerly discovered that it had
> the sheep product of lanolin. But lately I reviewed the ingredients on
> a bottle and lanolin is not listed, only "natural flavors."
>
> My suspicion is that there has been no change in the composition of
> the product, they have merely realized they can tuck the lanolin
> content neatly away behind the innocuous designation of "natural
> flavors." Anyone agree with this suspicion? Anyone got the lowdown on
> the rules, if any, for the "natural flavors" catch-all?

I can't imagine a better example of "vegan"
irrationality and obsession over ****-ALL. It is
perfectly clear that actually refraining from harming
animals is NOT the motivation in this. Rather, it is
the public demonstration of devotion to The Cause that
is the sine qua non.

We begin with ALL "vegans" committing a fundamental
logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent. Basic "vegan" thinking provides as clear
an example of the fallacy as any textbook or webpage:

If I consume products containing animal parts, I
cause animals to suffer.

I do not consume products containing animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer.


The conclusion is plainly false, because there are ways
to cause animals to suffer OTHER than by consuming
products containing animal parts.

When one points out the fallacy to the idiot "vegans"
who believe it, they huffily deny believing it; they
claim already to know that vegetable crop production
causes MASSIVE collateral deaths of animals (CDs). But
if they already know of CDs, then why the Search for
Micrograms? If they really already know about CDs,
then rather than ****ING AWAY time and effort trying to
extirpate a couple of micrograms of lanolin from their
soy milk, a much better use of time would be trying to
get rid of high-CD foods like rice from their diets.

The Irrational Search illustrates something extremely
negative about "vegans", and thus "veganism". The
question then becomes, just what IS the negativity? I
think it's twofold. First is cognitive dissonance.
"vegans" *claim* to be aware of CDs, but they really
aren't, and the Search for Micrograms is the expression
of cognitive dissonance. The second is the undeniable
fact of "veganism" being a *religious* practice, rather
than a genuine ethics. Ethics simply CANNOT be based
on blind obedience to rules that are not based on
principle, but that's ALL "veganism" is: blind
obedience to the rule "don't consume animal parts."