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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 01:28 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 14, 9:37*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/14/2012 1:28 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 14, 9:26 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/14/2012 12:55 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 14, 4:04 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/14/2012 4:26 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 13, 6:42 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/13/2012 9:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 13 Mrz., 17:21, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/13/2012 8:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 13 Mrz., 15:58, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/13/2012 1:30 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/10/2012 6:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 10 Mrz., 15:46, George * * * * * * *wrote:
The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
about animal suffering.


It's not. *It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.


As I have said before,


It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.


You reckon?


Oh, yes, for certain.


So you think that it doesn't strike me as irrational to deny that for
most vegans the initial interest in veganism is motivated by concern
about animal suffering?


It's motivated by a childlike misunderstanding of it. **All* they see is
that the meat came from a "cute" animal, and they feel "sad" about it.
"Awww...I'meatingamoo-cow, mommy. *Waaaahhhhh!"


And presumably you would claim that these utterances of yours don't
strike me as irrational.


Of course - they are. *I denigrate your fake concern for animals for the
childlike emotional reaction they are.


What evidence do you have that the concern is fake?


It's a concern for yourself, not for animals.


Why do you think that?


I've shown that often enough over the time you've been participating here.


And how do [timewasting]


I've shown it.


Really?


Yep.


And have you convinced me that you've shown it?


I don't really care. *You've seen what I have said. *Whether or not
you're convinced is immaterial.


I'm obviously not aware of what arguments you have in mind. Maybe you
could actually answer the question.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 02:51 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default "veganism" is bullshit

Rupert" wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" wrote:


One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the "injustice"
position.

  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 04:06 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:
Rupert" wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" wrote:


One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
the "injustice" position.


The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. They don't have a valid
reason for not consuming animal parts. If it's because they think doing
so violates animals' "rights", they lose: their consumption causes the
violation of animals' rights. Point this out, and they switch to
reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. Suggest
that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.

Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
reason of not consuming animal parts. They still violate animal rights
in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
not even doing better than all meat consumers.

"veganism" is bullshit. It is philosophically bankrupt.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 04:28 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 15, 2:51*am, "Dutch" wrote:
Rupert" wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the "injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 04:32 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 15, 4:06*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:

Rupert" wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" wrote:


One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
the "injustice" position.


The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. *They don't have a valid
reason for not consuming animal parts. *If it's because they think doing
so violates animals' "rights", they lose: *their consumption causes the
violation of animals' rights. *Point this out, and they switch to
reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. *Suggest
that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.


I will gladly switch to consuming meat that involves less suffering
when I am convinced that there is a practical means of doing so. You
have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I am not
convinced that they really would involve less suffering.

Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
reason of not consuming animal parts. *They still violate animal rights
in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
not even doing better than all meat consumers.


There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
given the limited information that is available. You also haven't
pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
better than a vegan. For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
they are doing better than a vegan.

You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering. You claim you
have, but as usual you can't deliver the goods.

"veganism" is bullshit. *It is philosophically bankrupt.


Wrong.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 05:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On 3/14/2012 8:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 15, 4:06 am, George wrote:
On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:

wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, wrote:


One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
the "injustice" position.


The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. They don't have a valid
reason for not consuming animal parts. If it's because they think doing
so violates animals' "rights", they lose: their consumption causes the
violation of animals' rights. Point this out, and they switch to
reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. Suggest
that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.


I will gladly switch to consuming meat that involves less suffering
when I am convinced that there is a practical means of doing so.


You aren't honestly open to being convinced of it. You rule it out by
axiomatically.


You have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I
am not convinced that they really would involve less suffering.


And because of the way you play the game, you will never find out,
because you won't even make an effort to determine how much suffering
you cause. You don't care. You're happy and smugly satisfied that
you're "better" than omnivores.


Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
reason of not consuming animal parts. They still violate animal rights
in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
not even doing better than all meat consumers.


There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
given the limited information that is available.


They aren't "doing" anything. Their entire conclusion is based on what
they're *not* doing: consuming animal parts. They assume that what
they're not doing is all they need to know. That has been proved not to
be a sound basis for the conclusion.

*Some* improvement could be had for very little effort, but they won't
undertake *any* effort to learn how they might improve. The decision
not to consume animal parts is not the starting point in a quest to
cause less harm - it's the ending point.


You also haven't
pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
better than a vegan.


Meat consumers don't make any of the fatuous claims of "vegans". They
don't accept the fake moral issues that "vegans" want to inject into diet.


For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
they are doing better than a vegan.


Why are you comparing yourself with meat consumers to show that you're
virtuous? Don't you know that's invalid?

1. Your diet causes the "rights" of animals to be violated.
2. You almost certainly are not consuming the least-harm "vegan"
diet that you could, let alone the least-harm overall diet.

What does the level of harm caused by "most meat consumers" have to do
with what *you* are doing?

Nothing, that's what.


You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering.


I most certainly have. I have shown beyond all dispute that their
decision not to consume animal parts absolutely does *NOT* lead to the
conclusion they wish to believe, yet they do nothing more than that. It
*can't* be about animal suffering, because they don't do anything after
their assumption has been falsified, which of course it has.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 06:07 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On 3/14/2012 8:28 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 15, 2:51 am, wrote:
wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the "injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


Nice try, woopert. We're not talking about your alleged initial motive.
What I said is that your supposed concern is fake. The proof of that
is that when it is conclusively demonstrated that the *sole* step you
take - refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth - does not
lead to the conclusion you assumed, you nonetheless stick with it, and
do nothing more.

You began by believing one or both of two things:

1. Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
that you weren't violating the "rights" of any animals.

2. Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
that you were causing less harm to animals than *all* meat consumers.

It cannot be doubted or disputed that you believed one or both of these
things. If you didn't, then there could not possibly be any rational
basis for concluding that you ought not put animal parts in your mouth.


It has been shown beyond all dispute that neither is true:

1. The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
producing the things you consume.

2. Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 07:21 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default "veganism" is bullshit


"Rupert" wrote
On Mar 15, 2:51 am, "Dutch" wrote:
Rupert" wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in
great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various forms,
such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the
"injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


If the motivation were to help animals then there would be no shifting of
arguments, no angry denials, the response would be one of simply
acknowledging the receipt of new, helpful, constructive information.
You've done that to some extent, but you're not typical either.



  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 07:56 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On 3/14/2012 11:21 PM, Dutch wrote:

"Rupert" wrote
On Mar 15, 2:51 am, "Dutch" wrote:
Rupert" wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in
great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.

Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.

The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the
"injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


If the motivation were to help animals then there would be no shifting
of arguments, no angry denials, the response would be one of simply
acknowledging the receipt of new, helpful, constructive information.
You've done that to some extent, but you're not typical either.


I don't think he has done that at all. He has done nothing but quibble,
and complain that the evidence isn't ironclad. There has been complete
opposition to the idea that he is not "doing all he can", instead
invoking vague and utterly solipsistic notions of what's "reasonable" -
that is, whatever he *feels* like doing, not what an objective person
might feel is reasonable.

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 08:32 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 15, 5:36*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:32 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 15, 4:06 am, George *wrote:
On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:


*wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, *wrote:


One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
the "injustice" position.


The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. *They don't have a valid
reason for not consuming animal parts. *If it's because they think doing
so violates animals' "rights", they lose: *their consumption causes the
violation of animals' rights. *Point this out, and they switch to
reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. *Suggest
that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.



  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 08:35 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 15, 6:07*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:28 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 15, 2:51 am, *wrote:
*wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, *wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the "injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


Nice try, woopert. *We're not talking about your alleged initial motive..
* What I said is that your supposed concern is fake. *The proof of that
is that when it is conclusively demonstrated that the *sole* step you
take - refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth - does not
lead to the conclusion you assumed, you nonetheless stick with it, and
do nothing more.

You began by believing one or both of two things:

1. *Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
* * *that you weren't violating the "rights" of any animals.

2. *Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
* * *that you were causing less harm to animals than *all* meat consumers.

It cannot be doubted or disputed that you believed one or both of these
things. *If you didn't, then there could not possibly be any rational
basis for concluding that you ought not put animal parts in your mouth.

It has been shown beyond all dispute that neither is true:


What I began by believing is that following a vegan diet would be
doing about as much as I could, short of taking extreme measures, by
way of reducing the amount of harm required to produce my food. It has
not been shown that this is not true.

1. *The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
* * *producing the things you consume.

2. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
* * *that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.


I think the meat consumers who are causing less harm than me would be
rare indeed, but that's beside the point.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 08:37 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 15, 7:56*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/14/2012 11:21 PM, Dutch wrote:











"Rupert" wrote
On Mar 15, 2:51 am, "Dutch" wrote:
Rupert" wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in
great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the
"injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


If the motivation were to help animals then there would be no shifting
of arguments, no angry denials, the response would be one of simply
acknowledging the receipt of new, helpful, constructive information.
You've done that to some extent, but you're not typical either.


I don't think he has done that at all. *He has done nothing but quibble,
and complain that the evidence isn't ironclad. *There has been complete
opposition to the idea that he is not "doing all he can", instead
invoking vague and utterly solipsistic notions of what's "reasonable" -
that is, whatever he *feels* like doing, not what an objective person
might feel is reasonable.


What do you, as an objective person, feel that it would be reasonable
for me to do if I wanted to make every reasonable effort to reduce the
amount of harm required to produce my food?
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 08:56 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On 3/15/2012 12:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 15, 5:36 am, George wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:32 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 15, 4:06 am, George wrote:
On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:


wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, wrote:


One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
the "injustice" position.


The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. They don't have a valid
reason for not consuming animal parts. If it's because they think doing
so violates animals' "rights", they lose: their consumption causes the
violation of animals' rights. Point this out, and they switch to
reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. Suggest
that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.


I will gladly switch to consuming meat that involves less suffering
when I am convinced that there is a practical means of doing so.


You aren't honestly open to being convinced of it. You rule it out by
axiomatically.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that.


I do. You've told us.


You have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I
am not convinced that they really would involve less suffering.


And because of the way you play the game, you will never find out,
because you won't even make an effort to determine how much suffering
you cause. You don't care. You're happy and smugly satisfied that
you're "better" than omnivores.


This is false. I have made an effort to determine how much suffering I
cause,


No, you haven't. You've categorically said the data aren't available.

Stop lying.


Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
reason of not consuming animal parts. They still violate animal rights
in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
not even doing better than all meat consumers.


There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
given the limited information that is available.


They aren't "doing" anything. Their entire conclusion is based on what
they're *not* doing: consuming animal parts. They assume that what
they're not doing is all they need to know. That has been proved not to
be a sound basis for the conclusion.


Going vegan on the basis of information about what happens on modern
animal farms


If you eat meat, you aren't required to eat meat from animal farms.
That has *ZERO* bearing on the harm you *cause*, rather than the harm
you don't cause by putting any particular type of meat in your mouth.

You have no idea what amount of harm you cause - zero idea.


*Some* improvement could be had for very little effort,


What's your evidence for that?


**** you, cocksucker. We've been through this. Stop trying to waste my
time, prick.


but they won't
undertake *any* effort to learn how they might improve. The decision
not to consume animal parts is not the starting point in a quest to
cause less harm - it's the ending point.

You also haven't
pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
better than a vegan.


Meat consumers don't make any of the fatuous claims of "vegans". They
don't accept the fake moral issues that "vegans" want to inject into diet.


You just *did* make a claim that some meat consumers are doing better
than vegans.


*Individual* meat consumers, unlike *all* individual "vegans", make no
claim about causing harm.


For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
they are doing better than a vegan.


Why are you comparing yourself with meat consumers to show that you're
virtuous?


I'm not.


You are. What you really wrote above, substituting where necessary, is
"For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that they are doing better
than a *me*." You were making a statement about yourself.


Don't you know that's invalid?

1. Your diet causes the "rights" of animals to be violated.


That depends what rights they have.


The *same* rights would be violated whether they are killed by combines
or killed in slaughterhouses. **** off, ****.


2. You almost certainly are not consuming the least-harm "vegan"
diet that you could, let alone the least-harm overall diet.


Yes, I have done everything I can to reduce the amount of harm caused
by my diet,


You have done *NOTHING*. You don't "do" anything. You *don't* put
animal parts in your mouth - that's all.


What does the level of harm caused by "most meat consumers" have to do
with what *you* are doing?

Nothing, that's what.


You were the one who brought the subject up.


*You* are doing nothing. You obsess solely on what you're *not* doing:
consuming animal bits. That's *meaningless* in terms of quantifying
the harm you cause. You don't want to quantify it - you don't care.


You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering.


I most certainly have. I have shown beyond all dispute that their
decision not to consume animal parts absolutely does *NOT* lead to the
conclusion they wish to believe,


What conclusion?


The conclusion that they're not violating animal rights, and that
they're "minimizing"/"doing the best they can"/"doing better than
omnivores". That conclusion, you ****.


yet they do nothing more than that. It
*can't* be about animal suffering, because they don't do anything after
their assumption has been falsified, which of course it has.


You're a fool.


I've killed you.
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 08:57 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On 3/15/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 15, 6:07 am, George wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:28 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 15, 2:51 am, wrote:
wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the "injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


Nice try, woopert. We're not talking about your alleged initial motive.
What I said is that your supposed concern is fake. The proof of that
is that when it is conclusively demonstrated that the *sole* step you
take - refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth - does not
lead to the conclusion you assumed, you nonetheless stick with it, and
do nothing more.

You began by believing one or both of two things:

1. Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
that you weren't violating the "rights" of any animals.

2. Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
that you were causing less harm to animals than *all* meat consumers.

It cannot be doubted or disputed that you believed one or both of these
things. If you didn't, then there could not possibly be any rational
basis for concluding that you ought not put animal parts in your mouth.

It has been shown beyond all dispute that neither is true:


What I began by believing is


....that you were living a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'." You were and are
wrong.


1. The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
producing the things you consume.

2. Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.


I think the meat consumers who are causing less harm than me would be
rare indeed,


You have no way of knowing.

It's entirely the point, shithead.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 08:58 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On 3/15/2012 12:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:56 am, George wrote:
On 3/14/2012 11:21 PM, Dutch wrote:











wrote
On Mar 15, 2:51 am, wrote:
wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in
great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the
"injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


If the motivation were to help animals then there would be no shifting
of arguments, no angry denials, the response would be one of simply
acknowledging the receipt of new, helpful, constructive information.
You've done that to some extent, but you're not typical either.


I don't think he has done that at all. He has done nothing but quibble,
and complain that the evidence isn't ironclad. There has been complete
opposition to the idea that he is not "doing all he can", instead
invoking vague and utterly solipsistic notions of what's "reasonable" -
that is, whatever he *feels* like doing, not what an objective person
might feel is reasonable.


What do you, as an objective person, feel that it would be reasonable
for me to do


Something other than sit back and throw up your hands and moan that
there's no data.

You do nothing. This is established beyond dispute.


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
"It has not been established that veganism is any better than the Standard Western Diet" [email protected] Vegan 25 12-10-2010 07:21 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 21 29-07-2008 10:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 1 09-07-2008 04:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" [email protected] Vegan 1 01-07-2008 05:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017