View Single Post
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>>

>
> Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


>>>>>> 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.

>
> Wrong.


No, right.


>> You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
>> example.
>>

>
> Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


>>> 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.
>>

>
> Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.


> Because almost all animal products require *more*
> plant food to be grown


No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.

>>>>>> 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.

>
> I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.