On Mar 15, 4:06*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >> Rupert" > wrote
> >> On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>> One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
> >>> detail in the vegan shuffle argument.
>
> >> Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.
>
> > The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
> > longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
> > belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
> > forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
> > the "injustice" position.
>
> The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. *They don't have a valid
> reason for not consuming animal parts. *If it's because they think doing
> so violates animals' "rights", they lose: *their consumption causes the
> violation of animals' rights. *Point this out, and they switch to
> reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
> that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. *Suggest
> that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
> by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.
>

I will gladly switch to consuming meat that involves less suffering
when I am convinced that there is a practical means of doing so. You
have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I am not
convinced that they really would involve less suffering.

> Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
> reason of not consuming animal parts. *They still violate animal rights
> in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
> not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
> of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
> aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
> not even doing better than all meat consumers.
>

There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
given the limited information that is available. You also haven't
pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
better than a vegan. For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
they are doing better than a vegan.

You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering. You claim you
have, but as usual you can't deliver the goods.

> "veganism" is bullshit. *It is philosophically bankrupt.

Wrong.