The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.
>>
>>>> Of course it is.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> No, it's right. It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.
>>
>
> You're a fool.
Gotcha!
>>>>> 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".
>>
>>>> Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
>>>> didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
>>>> their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
>>>> to benefit from their similar consideration.
>>
>>> If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
>>> human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
>>> bears' rights?
>>
>> When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? I
>> didn't. I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.
>>
>
> By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
> kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
> human rights?
Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
rights.
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> 1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
>>>> established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
>>>> absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
>>>> whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
>>>> universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
>>>> it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
>>>> harm than many "vegan" diets.
>>
>>> There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
>>> significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
>>> vegetable crops are least-harm,
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> partly because there is no reliable
>>> information available about that anyway, the research has not been
>>> done.
>>
>> There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
>> can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
>> PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?
>>
>> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
>> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
>> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
>> which vegetables are least-harm?
>>
>
> I don't know; you'll have to ask them.
You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. "vegans" ****
away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
internally coherent? The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
their claims for it: not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.
The entire thing is shit.
>> The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
>> This has been established thoroughly: they do NOT care. The easy, lazy
>> and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
>> sufficient is just too convenient.
>>
>
> You're a fool.
Gotcha!
>
>>> You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
>>> meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
> So where have you given the suggestion, then?
See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.
>
>> What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
>> salvage their bankrupt belief system.
>>
>>>> "vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.
>>
>>> You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.
>>
>> I have proved it beyond all doubt.
>>
>
> Wrong.
No, I'm right.
>
>>
>>
>>>> 2. "vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
>>>> omnivores. Their conclusion about their virtue is false.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> No, right. "glen" is a perfect example.
Gotcha again!
|