suffering reduction
On 4/6/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > 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
Yes.
|