On Apr 6, 5:03*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
> satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
> reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
> bits in their mouths. *I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
> any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
> eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
> nothing further.
>
> But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
> for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
> "contamination" from their diet. *In my time in these groups since 1999,
> I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":
>
> * ** brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
> * * *black by the addition of squid ink
>
> * ** Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea & Perrins recipe, and
> * * *probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy
>
> * ** refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
> * * *white crystalline sugar uses bone char
>
> * ** lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
> * * *wool production
>
> "vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
> and eliminating them. *When they find one of them and report on it here
> or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
> announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! *That's
> the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea & Perrins!!!"
>
> I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
> Animal Parts). *If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
> vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
> from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
> reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
> micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
> sense of unwarranted moral superiority.
>
> This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
> completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
> reduce harm to animals. *No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
> an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
> superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. *The fact
> they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
> *no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
> their diets, is the proof.

What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?