On 4/8/2012 1:47 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 7, 5:54 pm, George > 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.

I've presented it. You have read it. Trying to get me to elaborate it
again is an attempt to waste my time. **** off.



>>>>>> 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

You lost.