On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 8:06 pm, George > 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.

They do know it, because I have.


>
>> 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?

Easily, for people who are fooled by the false premise of "veganism" in
the first place.

See "the vegan shuffle".


>> 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.

Nope.