View Single Post
  #24 (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 7, 5:54*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>


You seem to think that presenting your argument is a waste of time.
You ought to do something about your self-esteem.

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


It seems to me that what took place was that you said something very
stupid and I called you a fool. Apparently you think that means I
lose. Much joy may this belief bring you.