On 4/6/2012 8:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > 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.
>
> Yes, obviously.
>
>> 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.
>
> How would they get a sense of moral superiority out of it if they
> didn't believe that they were doing the best thing by way of reducing
> the harm they cause to animals?

1. Their wish to feel morally superior is loathsome and inherently immoral.

2. They should relinquish their false belief.