suffering reduction
On Apr 6, 6:10*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
So, did you do anything worthwhile today?
|