On Apr 6, 6:10*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

I don't believe you have any good reason for thinking that they wish
to feel morally superior.

> 2. *They should relinquish their false belief.

Agreed.