*

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> ...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."

Uhhh could it be that we don't want to consume growth hormones or
antibiotics?
Could it be that we what you think means jack shit?
How do become so pretentious?
What's with all the terms? Are we supposed to be impressed?
If you like to eat meat go buy a steak and chow down. What the **** are you
doing here?