The 'vegan' shuffle
On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.
Eating meat causes the death of animals.
Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
the deaths of animals, too.
That isn't true.
It *is* true.
It /may/ cause some deaths
but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
It is a fact. *Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
As many? *You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
There's no getting away
from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
"Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? *How could
There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
killed, in order to produce your food.
No. I don't believe you.
You just don't *want* to believe it. *Pretty interesting - Woopert has
been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
I never made that claim about all vegans.
You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
animal deaths. *"glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
Correct him, please.
No, I did correct him, full stop.
You're only saying that because you
want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
and death on your plate.
No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. *What I want is
for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
free 'lifestyle'." *"veganism is all about sanctimonious
self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.
You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals..
It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
is already dead.
and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."
I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. *What I'm doing is
showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.
The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
not a fact at all.
No, the deaths you cause are a fact. *When I have written of
plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
even *every*, "vegan" diet.
If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
right on driving. *Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
to humans in the future.
More likely than not, yes.
It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim..
I never made such a claim.
It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.
Nope. *Not in the least. *"vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
particular kind, even though they are causing it. *I never made any
claim not to be causing harm anywhere. *I never claimed to be causing no
harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. *Recognizing that some harm
to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
desirable, I am always open to suggestions. *I recycle as much waste as
I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. *I always
turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. *I set my
thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. *I suggest
these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.
Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
I'm doing what is right. *That comparison, more than anything else, is
what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
invidious comparison, and that's immoral.
Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.
You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can". You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.