On 3/15/2012 12:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 15, 5:36 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/14/2012 8:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 4:06 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch 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.
>>
>>>> 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 aren't honestly open to being convinced of it. You rule it out by
>> axiomatically.
>>
>
> You have no rational grounds for thinking that.

I do. You've told us.


>>> You have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I
>>> am not convinced that they really would involve less suffering.
>>
>> And because of the way you play the game, you will never find out,
>> because you won't even make an effort to determine how much suffering
>> you cause. You don't care. You're happy and smugly satisfied that
>> you're "better" than omnivores.
>>
>
> This is false. I have made an effort to determine how much suffering I
> cause,

No, you haven't. You've categorically said the data aren't available.

Stop lying.


>>>> 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.
>>
>> They aren't "doing" anything. Their entire conclusion is based on what
>> they're *not* doing: consuming animal parts. They assume that what
>> they're not doing is all they need to know. That has been proved not to
>> be a sound basis for the conclusion.
>>
>
> Going vegan on the basis of information about what happens on modern
> animal farms

If you eat meat, you aren't required to eat meat from animal farms.
That has *ZERO* bearing on the harm you *cause*, rather than the harm
you don't cause by putting any particular type of meat in your mouth.

You have no idea what amount of harm you cause - zero idea.


>> *Some* improvement could be had for very little effort,
>
> What's your evidence for that?

**** you, cocksucker. We've been through this. Stop trying to waste my
time, prick.


>> but they won't
>> undertake *any* effort to learn how they might improve. The decision
>> not to consume animal parts is not the starting point in a quest to
>> cause less harm - it's the ending point.
>>
>>> You also haven't
>>> pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
>>> better than a vegan.
>>
>> Meat consumers don't make any of the fatuous claims of "vegans". They
>> don't accept the fake moral issues that "vegans" want to inject into diet.
>>
>
> You just *did* make a claim that some meat consumers are doing better
> than vegans.

*Individual* meat consumers, unlike *all* individual "vegans", make no
claim about causing harm.


>>> For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
>>> they are doing better than a vegan.
>>
>> Why are you comparing yourself with meat consumers to show that you're
>> virtuous?
>
> I'm not.

You are. What you really wrote above, substituting where necessary, is
"For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that they are doing better
than a *me*." You were making a statement about yourself.


>> Don't you know that's invalid?
>>
>> 1. Your diet causes the "rights" of animals to be violated.
>
> That depends what rights they have.

The *same* rights would be violated whether they are killed by combines
or killed in slaughterhouses. **** off, ****.


>> 2. You almost certainly are not consuming the least-harm "vegan"
>> diet that you could, let alone the least-harm overall diet.
>>
>
> Yes, I have done everything I can to reduce the amount of harm caused
> by my diet,

You have done *NOTHING*. You don't "do" anything. You *don't* put
animal parts in your mouth - that's all.


>> What does the level of harm caused by "most meat consumers" have to do
>> with what *you* are doing?
>>
>> Nothing, that's what.
>>
>
> You were the one who brought the subject up.

*You* are doing nothing. You obsess solely on what you're *not* doing:
consuming animal bits. That's *meaningless* in terms of quantifying
the harm you cause. You don't want to quantify it - you don't care.


>>> You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
>>> are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering.
>>
>> I most certainly have. I have shown beyond all dispute that their
>> decision not to consume animal parts absolutely does *NOT* lead to the
>> conclusion they wish to believe,
>
> What conclusion?

The conclusion that they're not violating animal rights, and that
they're "minimizing"/"doing the best they can"/"doing better than
omnivores". That conclusion, you ****.


>> yet they do nothing more than that. It
>> *can't* be about animal suffering, because they don't do anything after
>> their assumption has been falsified, which of course it has.
>
> You're a fool.

I've killed you.