suffering reduction
On Apr 7, 10:04*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/7/2012 1:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 11:47 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/6/2012 12:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 6, 8:07 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/6/2012 10:19 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 6, 7:05 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 9:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 6:10 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 7:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 10:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:15 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:55 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:06 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly even increase suffering.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths. *Most claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles. *Those few who are aware of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither. *In the end, as we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *necessarily* true. *So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do. *If they really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done....nor does any "vegan"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care to do it. *Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)." *They'll expend an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * * *The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a pose.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights". *All
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the "irrational search for micrograms".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genuinely interested in harm reduction.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is it that you think they conclude about the meaning of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refraining from eating animal products?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been over all that with you before.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose they conclude that they've made some efforts to reduce the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of suffering that takes place in order to produce their food,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and furthermore that they've done about all they can do in that regard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short of extreme measures. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because it's not supported by the evidence.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Already explained.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have never given a satisfactory explanation of why my suggested
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is not supported by the evidence.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I sure have.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will not substantiate this claim.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already have done. *You're just trying to waste my time.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have, and you know quite well how. *You're just trying to waste my
> >>>>>>>>>>>> time; you can **** off instead.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> As usual
>
> >>>>>>>>>> As usual, I'm right.
>
> >>>>>>>>> You certainly appear to be
>
> >>>>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>>>> So, did you do anything worthwhile today?
>
> >>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>> What did you do?
>
> >>>> Spent time with my son, focusing on his education (moral growth.)
>
> >>>> You're too self-absorbed ever to become a successful parent.
>
> >>> So you think I shouldn't have children then?
>
> >> Probably not.
>
> > So, what moral lessons were you trying to teach your son?
>
> You really shouldn't have children, woopert. *Because of your
> self-absorption, you'd most likely be a horrible parent.
Were you teaching him not to lie on newsgroups?
|