suffering reduction
On Apr 6, 5:16*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 7:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/5/2012 10:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> 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.
>
> >>> You will not substantiate this claim.
>
> >> I already have done. *You're just trying to waste my time.
>
> > You have not,
>
> I have, and you know quite well how. *You're just trying to waste my
> time; you can **** off instead.
As usual you are talking nonsense.
|