"veganism" is bullshit
On 3/10/2012 6:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 10 Mrz., 14:58, George wrote:
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
So you claim.
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
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.
What were the reasons you offered for that conclusion?
"vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
Some do, some don't.
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.
Why do you think that you are in a position to know?
You've asked Dutch and me, and even ****wit, to get it
When you seem to be making the suggestion that there is something more
that I could do, it seems reasonable to ask you to be specific about
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
So he didn't declare himself to be virtuous, but he did declare,
incorrectly, that 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,
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.
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
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.
I don't agree.
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.
I don't see any significant distinction between "worse" and "more
wrong", and it looks like you've already indicated that you'd be happy
with "more bad". Seems to me you're just mucking around with words to
no particularly good purpose.
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
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
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.
Oh, yes, for certain.
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
Not when it's right.
And also not when it's wrong
It isn't wrong.
How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
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.
Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
Actually, you've acknowledged in a.a.e.v., in posts that Derek
frequently quotes, that for most omnivores going vegan does reduce
their expected contribution to suffering.