On 4/6/2012 10:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 7:04 pm, George > 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?

Everything. They *know* that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation, so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
pedestal. All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to 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

It is; not in doubt.