"Mr. N.A.Cho" > wrote

> > > >>>>>> : > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
<
<if you were a vegan-zombie and ate only other vegan-zombies, you would
<be reducing the suffering in the world because you'd be putting
<zombies out of thier misery.

Do zombies suffer? According to The Walking Dead, only the reptilian
part of the brain re-awakens.

--Tedward