On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.

> >> * 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.
>

I know something. Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.
Also, almost all animal products involve additional suffering on
factory farms. So I have good reason to think that cutting out animal
products is a good rule of thumb if I want to reduce the amount of
suffering required in order to produce my diet.

It's difficult to get more detailed information than that. I have
already invested some time and energy into trying to acquire more
detailed information and found it unproductive. I have no reason to
think that investing further time and energy into trying to get more
detailed information would enable me to achieve a substantial further
reduction in the amount of suffering required to produce my diet. So,
from the point of view of minimising the amount of suffering required
to produce my diet (short of extreme measures such as committing
suicide or dropping out of technological civilisation and joining and
commune) it is rational for me to stick with the rule of thumb "be
vegan".

> >> 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.

I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. If I had
good reason to think that I could find out easily enough and that it
would have a significant bearing on the amount of suffering required
in order to produce my food, then I would be motivated to find out.
But that is not the case, so I have no especially good reason to worry
about the issue.

> *It's all about your
> self-image rather than about any real consideration for reducing animal
> harm.

Nonsense.