On Apr 5, 8:06*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George > *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.
>
> I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
> they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
> their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
> doing nothing.

What is it that you think they conclude about the meaning of
refraining from eating animal products?