View Single Post
  #33 (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 suffering reduction

On Apr 8, 5:22*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.


Which ones?