On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > 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.

I have done, numerous times.


>>>> 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.

You don't know anything. You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.

No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


>>>> 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.

You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.