On 4/6/2012 9:20 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:10 pm, George > 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.

It's obvious that they do: they *stop* their efforts at eliminating
animal bits from their diet, when that clearly has been shown not to be
enough.


>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>
> Agreed.

But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
*most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
are "cruelty free".