On 3/14/2012 11:21 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> "Rupert" > wrote
>> On Mar 15, 2:51 am, "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.
>>
>> How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
>> help animals?
>
> If the motivation were to help animals then there would be no shifting
> of arguments, no angry denials, the response would be one of simply
> acknowledging the receipt of new, helpful, constructive information.
> You've done that to some extent, but you're not typical either.

I don't think he has done that at all. He has done nothing but quibble,
and complain that the evidence isn't ironclad. There has been complete
opposition to the idea that he is not "doing all he can", instead
invoking vague and utterly solipsistic notions of what's "reasonable" -
that is, whatever he *feels* like doing, not what an objective person
might feel is reasonable.