On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
> >>>> again to share here.
>
> >>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo....
>
> >>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
> >>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
> >>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
> >>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
> >>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
> >>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
> >>>> either one.
>
> >>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?
>
> >> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
> >> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.
>
> > Why not?
>
> How would it?
Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering. Also, most animal products require more collateral
deaths from plant-based agriculture in order to produce the same
amount of protein than would be required by simply growing plant-based
food and feeding it directly to humans.
Therefore, it would seem to be a pretty good rule of thumb that
someone who only buys the products of plant-based agriculture is
likely to be requiring significantly less suffering and premature
death in order to produce the food they eat than someone who eats
animal products.