Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism
On 4/6/2012 8:03 AM, George Plimpton 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.
|