On Mar 15, 6:07*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 8:28 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 2:51 am, > *wrote:
> >>> > *wrote
> >>> On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, > *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?
>
> Nice try, woopert. *We're not talking about your alleged initial motive..
> * What I said is that your supposed concern is fake. *The proof of that
> is that when it is conclusively demonstrated that the *sole* step you
> take - refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth - does not
> lead to the conclusion you assumed, you nonetheless stick with it, and
> do nothing more.
>
> You began by believing one or both of two things:
>
> 1. *Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
> * * *that you weren't violating the "rights" of any animals.
>
> 2. *Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
> * * *that you were causing less harm to animals than *all* meat consumers.
>
> It cannot be doubted or disputed that you believed one or both of these
> things. *If you didn't, then there could not possibly be any rational
> basis for concluding that you ought not put animal parts in your mouth.
>
> It has been shown beyond all dispute that neither is true:
>

What I began by believing is that following a vegan diet would be
doing about as much as I could, short of taking extreme measures, by
way of reducing the amount of harm required to produce my food. It has
not been shown that this is not true.

> 1. *The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
> * * *producing the things you consume.
>
> 2. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
> * * *that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.

I think the meat consumers who are causing less harm than me would be
rare indeed, but that's beside the point.