On Apr 5, 11:15*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 9:55 pm, George > *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?
>
> Already explained.

You have never given a satisfactory explanation of why my suggested
conclusion is not supported by the evidence. You can't. My suggested
conclusion is a reasonable one.