suffering reduction
On 4/5/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:15 pm, George > 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.
I sure have.
|