suffering reduction
On Apr 5, 9:55*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
Why not?
|