View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 6, 8:06*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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,


No. They don't know that. You've never demonstrated that.

> so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
> * That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
> pedestal.


How would it be possible for them to maintain such a self-conception,
if as you claim they know that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation?

> 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.


On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
question was incorrect.