"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
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> What were the reasons you offered for that conclusion?
>
>>
>>>>>>>> "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.
>
> Why do you think that you are in a position to know?
>
>> You've asked Dutch and me, and even ****wit, to get it
>> for you.
>>
>
> 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
> what.
>
>>>>>>>>>> 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'."
>>
>
> 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,
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> You reckon?
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
>>> idea,
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
|