On Mar 15, 8:58*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/15/2012 12:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 7:56 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/14/2012 11:21 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>> > *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?
>
> >>> 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
>
> Something other than sit back and throw up your hands and moan that
> there's no data.
>

That's not an answer to the question.

> You do nothing. *This is established beyond dispute.

Actually, no rational person would dispute that I have done something.