On Mar 15, 7:56*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

What do you, as an objective person, feel that it would be reasonable
for me to do if I wanted to make every reasonable effort to reduce the
amount of harm required to produce my food?