DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL
On Oct 16, 4:58*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 4:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/16/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 16, 4:09 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> > >> On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > >>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> > >>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> > >>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>
> > >>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> > >>>>>> :
> > >>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>
> > >>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> > >>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> > >>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>
> > >>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> > >>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> > >>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>
> > >>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> > >>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>
> > >>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> > >>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> > >>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> > >>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.
>
> > >> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> > >> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.
>
> > > I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.
>
> > That's exactly what it is.
>
> > > In my case, it's a
> > > pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> > > to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> > > thread.
>
> > You ****wit: *presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
> > animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.
>
> Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
> skeptical that there are any moral truths?
>
> > *It has been very
> > well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
> > likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
> > suffering. *You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
> > greater reduction.
>
> Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.
>
> > The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
> > even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;
>
> It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.
>
> > nor,
> > if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
> > to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
> > should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
> > telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
> > efforts. *You are not doing all you can. *Saying that you're doing all
> > you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
> > mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.
>
> Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
> to reduce suffering, by making charitable donations for example, more
> so than would be the case if I were spending my time producing all my
> own food.
>
> I never made any claim.
This should have been: I never made any claim to be doing all I can.
> I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
> some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering, but also sometimes
> considerations about my own well-being come into it too. I never
> claimed to be articulating any principle. I simply was explaining what
> motivates me to do it.
|