On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > 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.

We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


>> You know nothing about it.
>>
>
> That's not true.

It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


>> 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.

Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. It's all about your
self-image rather than about any real consideration for reducing animal
harm.