On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.

>*You know nothing about it.
>

That's not true.

> 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.

Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.