"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.

It's true he has done all that, but he has also acknowledged that some
diets/lifestyles containing meat and other animal products may cause less
animal suffering than a given vegan diet/lifestyle. I find that quite
unusual, in fact I can't recall another vegan who has admitted that.