suffering reduction
On 4/5/2012 12:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:06 pm, George > 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?
I've been over all that with you before.
|