On Apr 6, 9:51*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:46*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/6/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > *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
>
> > As usual, I'm right.
>
> You certainly appear to be strongly convinced of that.

He's also strongly convinced that some cows are raised fo 12 years for
no othe purpose than to become pet food.