On Apr 4, 10:17*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
> > that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
> > possibly even increase suffering.
>
> > [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>
> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths. *Most claim
> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles. *Those few who are aware of
> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither. *In the end, as we
> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
> *necessarily* true. *So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>
> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do. *If they really
> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
> care to do it. *Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)." *They'll expend an
> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
> * The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
> more than a pose.
>
> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights". *All
> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.

You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
in the "irrational search for micrograms".

You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
genuinely interested in harm reduction. Some vegans do make an effort
to try and find out which plant-based products cause more harm and
accordingly avoid them. For those that don't it is probably because
the thought has not occurred to them or that they think it would be
unlikely that a significant reduction in harm could thereby be
effected. Which is probably true, it is unlikely that one could effect
much harm reduction that way, even if more research was done about the
matter. Also, investing resources in doing such research is not
necessarily the most effective way to bring about a reduction in
suffering.

I have taken an interest in trying to do something to reduce suffering
and have approached the question of how to do this in a rational way.
Lots of other vegans could say the same. You have no rational grounds
for saying otherwise.

Furthermore, it's very hard to make sense of your account of what
really motivates vegans. You seem to be claiming that somehow or other
they are interested in taking a moral stance without genuinely being
interested in harm reduction. But no sense can be made of such a moral
stance. Your views of vegans' motivations is based on an unrealistic
view of human psychology.