Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism
On Apr 6, 9:46*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 5:03 pm, George > *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?
>
> The belief is plainly false. *Getting black olives out of their diet
> could not *possibly* have as great an effect at reducing harm to animals
> as identifying the most harm-causing vegetable or fruit they currently
> eat and finding a lower-harm substitute for it.
>
> It is clear that not consuming animal bits - and the false sense of
> moral superiority that produces - is what motivates them, rather than a
> sincere wish to reduce the harm they cause to animals.
Goobiedoodle, you're an idiot.
|