On Apr 6, 7:04*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

What's that got to do with it?

> >> 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".

That may well be, but I do not have the belief under discussion, and
there are many vegans who do not.