On Apr 6, 11:53*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

You haven't, and in any case we're talking about vegans in general,
not all vegans have read your babblings.

>
>
> >> 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".
>

What's the false premise?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.

You're a fool.