Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-02-2008, 07:51 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 173
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.

Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. It simply is not credible.

How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.

I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2008, 01:31 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Feb 18, 11:51*am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

* * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

* * *I do not eat meat;

* * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.

Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. *It simply is not credible.

How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.

I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.


I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2008, 04:29 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...



I'll go ahead and do it:
100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2008, 05:05 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Feb 20, 5:31 pm, wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:51 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:



All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:


If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals


I do not eat meat;


Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.


However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.


Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.


Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. It simply is not credible.


How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.


I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.


I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...


No, you didn't. You just don't have an answer for it.

You commit all the logical fallacies and other slovenly low quality
thinking of "veganism". You do it because you choose to be stupid.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2008, 05:06 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 173
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

Justin E. Miller wrote:
I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...



I'll go ahead and do it:
100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.


All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an
irrational belief system.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2008, 08:49 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal. I
do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick to
the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out on
that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Justin E. Miller wrote:
I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...



I'll go ahead and do it:
100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.


All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational belief
system.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2008, 03:07 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 173
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

Justin E. Miller wrote:
Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal. I
do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick to
the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out on
that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.


Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means
not consuming any animal products at all, not just in
your diet: no leather or wool garments, no lotions
that contain lanolin, no products tested on animals,
and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly
ethics, not health.



Rudy Canoza wrote:
Justin E. Miller wrote:
I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...


I'll go ahead and do it:
100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.


All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
belief system.

  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2008, 03:38 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Justin E. Miller wrote:
Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal.
I do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick
to the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out
on that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.


Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means not consuming
any animal products at all, not just in your diet: no leather or wool
garments, no lotions that contain lanolin, no products tested on
animals, and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly ethics, not
health.



Rudy Canoza wrote:
Justin E. Miller wrote:
I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...


I'll go ahead and do it:
100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.

All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
belief system.

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2008, 03:48 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 173
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

Justin E. Miller wrote:
I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.


You seem as if you *do* care - that faced with your own
choice of what to wear on your feet, you would
consciously avoid leather.



Rudy Canoza wrote:
Justin E. Miller wrote:
Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal.
I do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick
to the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out
on that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.


Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means not consuming
any animal products at all, not just in your diet: no leather or wool
garments, no lotions that contain lanolin, no products tested on
animals, and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly ethics,
not health.



Rudy Canoza wrote:
Justin E. Miller wrote:
I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...


I'll go ahead and do it:
100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.

All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
belief system.

  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-02-2008, 04:46 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Feb 21, 8:48*am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Justin E. Miller wrote:
I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.


You seem as if you *do* care - that faced with your own
choice of what to wear on your feet, you would
consciously avoid leather.


He already said he would if he could.

How stupid *are* you really?


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2008, 07:03 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

* * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

* * *I do not eat meat;

* * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.

Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. *It simply is not credible.

How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.

I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.


Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
argument. It's you against your straw man.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-02-2008, 02:10 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 60
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:
On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:





All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:


* * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals


* * *I do not eat meat;


* * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.


However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.


Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.


Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. *It simply is not credible.


How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.


I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.


Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. I'm
sure the
majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
many
of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
greater
priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
refuse to eat
off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
meat, or
arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
ethics -
I kid you not!

I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
have become
so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
sight of the
objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-02-2008, 07:09 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Feb 25, 10:10*am, Buxqi wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:





On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:


* * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals


* * *I do not eat meat;


* * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.


However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.


Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.


Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. *It simply is not credible.


How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.


I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.


Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
sure the
majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
many
of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
greater
priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
refuse to eat
off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
meat, or
arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
ethics -
I kid you not!


Are you sure it was an actual vegan who brought up this question and
not just someone trying to satirize the vegan position?

I know plenty of vegans and not one of them would view that as a
serious question. I've had someone bring up the question with me for
the purposes of making fun of veganism.

We may be loopy, but we're not *that* loopy.

I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
have become
so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
sight of the
objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.


There's clearly some truth to this in the sense that there a quite a
few vegans who don't really appreciate the point that you can't really
give a good reason for worrying about which beer and wine to drink if
you're going to allow yourself to eat rice and use electricity.

If Ball is content with saying "Look how silly the vegans are,
worrying about which beer and wine to drink" then that's fine, I
guess. I find him quite silly myself quite frequently and I enjoy
making fun of him. No reason why I should have all the fun.

But to my mind this is not really an interesting issue. Ball agrees
that we have some moral obligations towards nonhuman animals. He
criticizes the animal rights position for failing to find a coherent
foundation for where to "draw the line". Well, fine. But who has found
a coherent foundation for where to draw the line? As far as I can see,
we're all in the same boat. Some of us are actually interested in
making a good faith effort to think about the problem, rather than
getting gratification from insulting people on usenet.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-02-2008, 12:08 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 60
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Feb 25, 7:09*am, Rupert wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:10*am, Buxqi wrote:





On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:


On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:


* * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals


* * *I do not eat meat;


* * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.


However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.


Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.


Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. *It simply is not credible.


How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.


I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.


Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
sure the
majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
many
of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
greater
priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
refuse to eat
off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
meat, or
arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
ethics -
I kid you not!


Are you sure it was an actual vegan who brought up this question and
not just someone trying to satirize the vegan position?

I know plenty of vegans and not one of them would view that as a
serious question. I've had someone bring up the question with me for
the purposes of making fun of veganism.

We may be loopy, but we're not *that* loopy.


He was an active member of the animal rights movement. I do have a
confession to
make though. I did not actually hear the conversation. I just heard
about it so I guess
he could have been using irony but it didn't sound that way from the
account I heard.

I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
have become
so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
sight of the
objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.


There's clearly some truth to this in the sense that there a quite a
few vegans who don't really appreciate the point that you can't really
give a good reason for worrying about which beer and wine to drink if
you're going to allow yourself to eat rice and use electricity.


Well I can't speak for him but I wouldn't even go that far. Just cos
you don't
do everything shouldn't mean you can't do anything without having
'hypocrite'
shoved down your throat. I guess you could say the time spent figuring
which
wines and beers are OK could be used more productively....

If Ball is content with saying "Look how silly the vegans are,
worrying about which beer and wine to drink" then that's fine, I
guess. I find him quite silly myself quite frequently and I enjoy
making fun of him. No reason why I should have all the fun.

But to my mind this is not really an interesting issue. Ball agrees
that we have some moral obligations towards nonhuman animals. He
criticizes the animal rights position for failing to find a coherent
foundation for where to "draw the line". Well, fine. But who has found
a coherent foundation for where to draw the line? As far as I can see,
we're all in the same boat. Some of us are actually interested in
making a good faith effort to think about the problem, rather than
getting gratification from insulting people on usenet.


Oh, I totally agree with you on this point!

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-02-2008, 11:15 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Feb 24, 8:10*pm, Buxqi wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:03*pm, wrote:





On Feb 18, 1:51*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:


* * *If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals


* * *I do not eat meat;


* * *Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: *Denying the
Antecedent. *It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. *The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. *Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.


However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. *I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. *The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.


Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. *She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. *Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.


Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. *What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. *One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. *It simply is not credible.


How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? *It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.


I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. *Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. *In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.


Your entire premise is basically just wrong. I am a vegan and I'd like
to debate you. But so far you have not made any claim. You only
contend that "veganism", as defined by you, is based on a fallacious
argument. It's you against your straw man.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


As someone who is sympathetic to but not convinced by veganism I wish
I could be as convinced that he is simply attacking straw man. *I'm
sure the
majority of vegans do care where there vegetables come from but so
many
of them seem to consider avoiding traces of animal products a far
greater
priority than such considerations. I've even heard of vegans who
refuse to eat
off other people's plates lest they have previously been used for
meat, or
arguments about whether giving blow jobs is compatible with vegan
ethics -
I kid you not!

I guess the point is that some (Rudy would probably claim all) vegans
have become
so obsessed with worrying about what is vegan that they have lost
sight of the
objective of avoiding unnecessary harm/cruelty/enviornmental damage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I am sure that negative stereotypes exist for every group-- and vegans
are no exception-- but that is not a valid criticism of veganism.
Personally, there is nothing religious about my reasons for being
vegan. I call myself a "vegan" because I recognize the fallacy that is
promoted by those who argue that humans have some inherent right to
subjugate other animals-- an indefensible claim that often tries to
support itself with religious rhetoric.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism George Plimpton Vegan 42 02-10-2013 09:23 PM
Drive against animal slaughter by animal welfare groups [email protected] Vegan 0 18-11-2011 12:27 AM
repost: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' usual suspect Vegan 153 14-01-2005 06:49 AM
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Jonathan Ball Vegan 60 27-06-2004 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017