On 4/7/2012 1:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 11:53 pm, George > 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?

Already been shown to you. Your efforts to waste my time fail.


>>
>>>> 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.

You lose, again.