View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default suffering reduction

On 4/5/2012 12:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.

>
> Suppose they conclude that they've made some efforts to reduce the
> amount of suffering that takes place in order to produce their food,
> and furthermore that they've done about all they can do in that regard
> short of extreme measures. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion?


No, because it's not supported by the evidence.