On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > 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.
Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat. You know nothing about it.
Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.