suffering reduction
On 4/8/2012 1:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 7, 6:04 pm, George > 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.
>
> That's an interesting view you've got. What led you to the conclusion
> that I was self-absorbed?
Your statements here.
|