On 3/10/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:12 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 11:59 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Veganism *is* bullshit. Here s why. It claims to be an ethical
>>>>>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>>>>>>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
>>>>>>>> response is ethically empty.
>>
>>>>>>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
>>>>>>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
>>>>>>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>>
>>>>>> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
>>>>>> per se.
>>
>>>>> So you claim.
>>
>>>> It's so.
>>
>>>> Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.
>>
>>>>>>>> All vegans start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
>>>>>>>> denying the antecedent:
>>
>>>>>>>> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>>>>>> I do not consume any animal parts;
>>
>>>>>>>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>>>>> That's not true.
>>
>>>>>> It is true.
>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>> I've seen it from every "vegan".
>>
>>> Not from me you haven't.
>>
>> I sure have. It's like traces of the Big Bang: still detectable even
>> though it occurred long in the past.
>>
>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant. If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
>>>>>> validly be made.
>>
>>>>> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
>>>>> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
>>>>> further information,
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> Why would you be able to? I've already shown that you're not, that you
>> don't even wish to do so.
>>
>
> You haven't shown any such thing.

I have.


>>>>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>>
>>>>> Some do, some don't.
>>
>>>> None do.
>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>> They tell me.
>>
>> Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
>> be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you ****wits?
>>
>
> I know that I have made some effort to obtain the information

No, you haven't. You've asked Dutch and me, and even ****wit, to get it
for you.


>>>>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
>>>>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>>>>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>>>>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>>>>>>>> an improvement.
>>
>>>>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
>>>>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
>>>>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
>>>>>>> the problem.
>>
>>>>>> That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
>>>>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
>>>>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>>
>>>>> I do do something.
>>
>>>> You do nothing.
>>
>>> How could you possibly know,
>>
>> You tell me. You've already explained that any effort whatever would
>> take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, it's right.


>>>>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>>>>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
>>>>>>>> a comparison with others,
>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>>
>>>>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>>
>>>> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
>>>> eaters", you ****ing retard. From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
>>>> are looking to declare their virtue. They're declaring it when they
>>>> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." They're
>>>> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." They're declaring it
>>>> when they say they're "doing the best they can." And they're declaring
>>>> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>>
>>>> The *entire* ****ing charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
>>>> stupid ****.
>>
>>> Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
>>> reduce animal suffering
>>
>> They aren't. It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
>> pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.
>>
>
> So you apparently want to believe

Because it is true.


>>>>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
>>>>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>>
>>>>>> Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
>>>>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
>>>>>> others is itself immoral.
>>
>>>>> But that is not what was in question here.
>>
>>>> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you ****ing ****.
>>
>>> You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.
>>
>> Of course I have. I have identified people by name who come here and do
>> that. This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.
>>
>
> Where did Glen declare himself to be virtuous?

In one of his later posts, when he said he lived a "cruelty free
'lifestyle'."

>>>>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
>>>>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
>>>>> than others is immoral,
>>
>>>> It is.
>>
>>> I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
>>> completely unargued assertions from you.
>>
>> But you will, rupie - you will! You always do.
>>
>>>>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
>>>>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
>>>>>> mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
>>>>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>>
>>>>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
>>>>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>>
>>>> That stupid **** Skanky did.
>>
>>> Fascinating.
>>
>> Not really. Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
>> that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
>> sodomize the child more often. Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
>> believe that.
>>
>
> There are degrees of wrongness,

There are not. There are degrees of badness, but not wrongness.
Wrongness is binary: something is wrong, or it isn't - full stop.


> and it is more wrong to sodomise the
> child more often,

Nope. It is wrong to sodomize the child, full stop. It is *worse* to
do it more often, but it isn't "more wrong." Don't be an even bigger
dope than you already are.


>>>>>>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>>
>>>>>>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>>
>>>>>> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>>
>>>>>>>> It also isn t
>>>>>>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
>>>>>>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
>>>>>>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>>
>>>>>>> That is true.
>>
>>>>>> But "vegans" violate it. They declare themselves virtuous because they
>>>>>> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
>>>>>> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>>
>>>>> Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
>>>>> to be virtuous?
>>
>>>> HA HA HA HA HA! Good one, Woopert. I needed that laugh.
>>
>>>>>>>> It isn t true
>>>>>>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
>>>>>>>> is lower harm than the typical vegan diet.
>>
>>>>>>> This is possible
>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>> The perversion comes from
>>>>>>>> observing that even if the vegan is causing less harm than an
>>>>>>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
>>>>>>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
>>>>>>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
>>>>>>>> virtuous.
>>
>>>>>>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>>
>>>>>> I do. It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>>
>>>>> What vegan claim of virtue
>>
>>>> The one that underlies the whole ****ing agenda, you ****. The one that
>>>> **** "glen/mark" just made this week.
>>
>>> I must have missed it.
>>
>> You miss all the important stuff.
>>
>>>>>> Given that she
>>>>>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
>>>>>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
>>>>>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
>>>>>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
>>>>> themselves to be virtuous.
>>
>>>> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>>
>>>>>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. And it *is*, of course, a given
>>>>>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
>>>>>> animal death and suffering.
>>
>>>>> And why would that be?
>>
>>>> Because that's what drew these ****s to "veganism" in the first place.
>>
>>> The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
>>> about animal suffering.
>>
>> It's not. It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.
>>
>
> As I have said before,

It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.


>>>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>>>> whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>>>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>>
>> Oh, but he is!
>>
>
> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
> idea,

Not when it's right.


>>>>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>>>>>>>> virtuous?
>>
>>>>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
>>>>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
>>>>>>> suffering, myself included.
>>
>>>>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>>
>>>>> I think I do.
>>
>>>> You don't.
>>
>>> Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
>>
>> Given already.
>
> Where?

a.a.e.v.