On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> “Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
>>>> response is ethically empty.
>>
>>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
>>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
>>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>>
>> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
>> per se.
>>
>
> So you claim.

It's so.

Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.


>>>> All “vegans” start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
>>>> denying the antecedent:
>>
>>>> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>> I do not consume any animal parts;
>>
>>>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>> That's not true.
>>
>> It is true.
>>
>
> How do you know?

I've seen it from every "vegan".


>>
>>>> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
>>>> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
>>>> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field –
>>>> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
>>>> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
>>>> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>>
>>>> All “vegans” also begin by saying they live a “cruelty free
>>>> ‘lifestyle’”, but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
>>>> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most “vegans” retreat from that
>>>> position to the weaker claim that they at least “minimize” animal
>>>> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
>>>> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
>>>> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the
>>>> typical “vegan” diet, but even if one looks only at “vegan” diets, it is
>>>> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a
>>>> “vegan” excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,
>>>> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>>
>>> But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
>>> the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops,
>>
>> Irrelevant. If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
>> validly be made.
>>
>
> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
> further information,

No.


>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>>
>
> Some do, some don't.

None do.


>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of “doing the best I can,” but again
>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>>>> an improvement.
>>
>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
>>> the problem.
>>
>> That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>>
>
> I do do something.

You do nothing.


>>>> In the end, the “vegan” has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>>>> of all: “I’m doing better than you meat eaters.” That makes virtue into
>>>> a comparison with others,
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>>
>
> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.

It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
eaters", you ****ing retard. From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
are looking to declare their virtue. They're declaring it when they
dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." They're
declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." They're declaring it
when they say they're "doing the best they can." And they're declaring
it when they say "I'm doing better than you."

The *entire* ****ing charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
stupid ****.


>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
>>> of view of reducing harm.
>>
>> Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
>> others is itself immoral.
>>
>
> But that is not what was in question here.

It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you ****ing ****.


> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
> than others is immoral,

It is.


>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
>> mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>>
>
> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.

That stupid **** Skanky did.


>>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>>
>>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>>
>> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>>
>>
>>>> It also isn’t
>>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
>>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
>>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>>
>>> That is true.
>>
>> But "vegans" violate it. They declare themselves virtuous because they
>> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
>> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>>
>
> Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
> to be virtuous?

HA HA HA HA HA! Good one, Woopert. I needed that laugh.


>>>> It isn’t true
>>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
>>>> is lower harm than the typical “vegan” diet.
>>
>>> This is possible
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> The perversion comes from
>>>> observing that even if the “vegan” is causing less harm than an
>>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
>>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
>>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
>>>> virtuous.
>>
>>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>>
>> I do. It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>
> What vegan claim of virtue

The one that underlies the whole ****ing agenda, you ****. The one that
**** "glen/mark" just made this week.


>> Given that she
>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>>
>
> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
> themselves to be virtuous.

It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.


>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. And it *is*, of course, a given
>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
>> animal death and suffering.
>
> And why would that be?

Because that's what drew these ****s to "veganism" in the first place.


>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>> whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy

Stop with the denial.


>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>>>> virtuous?
>>
>>>> “Veganism” is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>>
>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
>>> suffering, myself included.
>>
>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>
> I think I do.

You don't.

On Mar 9, 8:48*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> Veganism *is* bullshit. Here s why. It claims to be an ethical
> >>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
> >>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
> >>>> response is ethically empty.
>
> >>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
> >>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
> >>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>
> >> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
> >> per se.
>
> > So you claim.
>
> It's so.
>
> Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.
>
> >>>> All vegans start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
> >>>> denying the antecedent:
>
> >>>> * * * * If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>>> * * * * I do not consume any animal parts;
>
> >>>> * * * * therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>> That's not true.
>
> >> It is true.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> I've seen it from every "vegan".
>

Not from me you haven't.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
> >>>> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
> >>>> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field
> >>>> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
> >>>> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
> >>>> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>
> >>>> All vegans also begin by saying they live a cruelty free
> >>>> lifestyle , but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
> >>>> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most vegans retreat from that
> >>>> position to the weaker claim that they at least minimize animal
> >>>> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
> >>>> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
> >>>> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the
> >>>> typical vegan diet, but even if one looks only at vegan diets, it is
> >>>> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a
> >>>> vegan excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,
> >>>> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>
> >>> But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
> >>> the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops,
>
> >> Irrelevant. *If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
> >> validly be made.
>
> > You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
> > limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
> > further information,
>
> No.
>

Why not?

> >> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>
> > Some do, some don't.
>
> None do.
>

How do you know?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
> >>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
> >>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
> >>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
> >>>> an improvement.
>
> >>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
> >>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
> >>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
> >>> the problem.
>
> >> That's a lie. *You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
> >> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
> >> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>
> > I do do something.
>
> You do nothing.
>

How could you possibly know, and why do you suppose anyone would be
interested in your pronouncements about the matter which are obviously
not made on the basis of adequate information?

> >>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
> >>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
> >>>> a comparison with others,
>
> >>> Why?
>
> >> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>
> > Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>
> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
> eaters", you ****ing retard. *From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
> are looking to declare their virtue. *They're declaring it when they
> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." *They're
> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." *They're declaring it
> when they say they're "doing the best they can." *And they're declaring
> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>
> The *entire* ****ing charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
> stupid ****.
>

Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
reduce animal suffering, and that they're not really all that
interested in the question of whether they're more virtuous than you
or not, although you certainly seem to be?

> >>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
> >>> of view of reducing harm.
>
> >> Not proved, but that's not the point. *Declaring oneself virtuous
> >> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
> >> others is itself immoral.
>
> > But that is not what was in question here.
>
> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you ****ing ****.
>

You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.
Obviously this idea you have that vegans want to declare themselves
more virtuous than you is what bugs you about the whole thing, but
there is no good reason to think that any vegan is interested in that
issue. Vegans are interested in trying to make efforts to reduce
animal suffering and persuade others to do likewise.

> > I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
> > virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
> > than others is immoral,
>
> It is.
>

I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
completely unargued assertions from you.

> >> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
> >> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
> >> mean you're virtuous. *The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
> >> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>
> > Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
> > believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>
> That stupid **** Skanky did.
>

Fascinating.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>
> >>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>
> >> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>
> >>>> It also isn t
> >>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
> >>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
> >>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>
> >>> That is true.
>
> >> But "vegans" violate it. *They declare themselves virtuous because they
> >> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
> >> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>
> > Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
> > to be virtuous?
>
> HA HA HA HA HA! * Good one, Woopert. *I needed that laugh.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> It isn t true
> >>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
> >>>> is lower harm than the typical vegan diet.
>
> >>> This is possible
>
> >> Yes.
>
> >>>> The perversion comes from
> >>>> observing that even if the vegan is causing less harm than an
> >>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
> >>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
> >>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
> >>>> virtuous.
>
> >>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>
> >> I do. *It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>
> > What vegan claim of virtue
>
> The one that underlies the whole ****ing agenda, you ****. *The one that
> **** "glen/mark" just made this week.
>

I must have missed it.

I really am not aware of any evidence that vegans have any interest in
proving themselves to be virtuous. I think they are interested in
trying to do something about animal suffering. Your constant
declarations otherwise strike me as without rational foundation.

> >> Given that she
> >> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
> >> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
> >> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
> >> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>
> > I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
> > themselves to be virtuous.
>
> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>
> >> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. *And it *is*, of course, a given
> >> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
> >> animal death and suffering.
>
> > And why would that be?
>
> Because that's what drew these ****s to "veganism" in the first place.
>

The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
about animal suffering. It's utterly absurd to suppose otherwise.

> >> * Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> >> whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.
>
> > I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>
> Stop with the denial.
>

He's obviously not my good buddy, you stupid fool. He's someone I met
about a week ago, who happens to be a vegan like me, with whom I have
some significant points of disagreement, and about whom I have no
strong feelings one way or the other. Do you suppose that Derek is my
good buddy just because he is a vegan?

> >>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
> >>>> virtuous?
>
> >>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
> >>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>
> >>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
> >>> suffering, myself included.
>
> >> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>
> > I think I do.
>
> You don't.

Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?

On 3/8/2012 11:59 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> Veganism *is* bullshit. Here s why. It claims to be an ethical
>>>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>>>>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
>>>>>> response is ethically empty.
>>
>>>>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
>>>>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
>>>>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>>
>>>> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
>>>> per se.
>>
>>> So you claim.
>>
>> It's so.
>>
>> Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.
>>
>>>>>> All vegans start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
>>>>>> denying the antecedent:
>>
>>>>>> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>>>> I do not consume any animal parts;
>>
>>>>>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>>> That's not true.
>>
>>>> It is true.
>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>> I've seen it from every "vegan".
>>
>
> Not from me you haven't.

I sure have. It's like traces of the Big Bang: still detectable even
though it occurred long in the past.


>>
>>>>>> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
>>>>>> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
>>>>>> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field
>>>>>> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
>>>>>> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
>>>>>> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>>
>>>>>> All vegans also begin by saying they live a cruelty free
>>>>>> lifestyle , but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
>>>>>> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most vegans retreat from that
>>>>>> position to the weaker claim that they at least minimize animal
>>>>>> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
>>>>>> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
>>>>>> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the
>>>>>> typical vegan diet, but even if one looks only at vegan diets, it is
>>>>>> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a
>>>>>> vegan excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,
>>>>>> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>>
>>>>> But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
>>>>> the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops,
>>
>>>> Irrelevant. If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
>>>> validly be made.
>>
>>> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
>>> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
>>> further information,
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> Why not?

Why would you be able to? I've already shown that you're not, that you
don't even wish to do so.


>>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>>
>>> Some do, some don't.
>>
>> None do.
>>
>
> How do you know?

They tell me.

Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you ****wits?


>>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
>>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>>>>>> an improvement.
>>
>>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
>>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
>>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
>>>>> the problem.
>>
>>>> That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
>>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
>>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>>
>>> I do do something.
>>
>> You do nothing.
>>
>
> How could you possibly know,

You tell me. You've already explained that any effort whatever would
take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.


>>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
>>>>>> a comparison with others,
>>
>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>>
>>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>>
>> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
>> eaters", you ****ing retard. From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
>> are looking to declare their virtue. They're declaring it when they
>> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." They're
>> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." They're declaring it
>> when they say they're "doing the best they can." And they're declaring
>> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>>
>> The *entire* ****ing charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
>> stupid ****.
>>
>
> Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
> reduce animal suffering

They aren't. It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.


>>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
>>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>>
>>>> Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
>>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
>>>> others is itself immoral.
>>
>>> But that is not what was in question here.
>>
>> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you ****ing ****.
>>
>
> You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.

Of course I have. I have identified people by name who come here and do
that. This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.


>>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
>>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
>>> than others is immoral,
>>
>> It is.
>>
>
> I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
> completely unargued assertions from you.

But you will, rupie - you will! You always do.


>>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
>>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
>>>> mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
>>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>>
>>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
>>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>>
>> That stupid **** Skanky did.
>>
>
> Fascinating.

Not really. Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
sodomize the child more often. Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
believe that.


>>>>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>>
>>>>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>>
>>>> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>>
>>>>>> It also isn t
>>>>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
>>>>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
>>>>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>>
>>>>> That is true.
>>
>>>> But "vegans" violate it. They declare themselves virtuous because they
>>>> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
>>>> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>>
>>> Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
>>> to be virtuous?
>>
>> HA HA HA HA HA! Good one, Woopert. I needed that laugh.
>>

>>>>>> It isn t true
>>>>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
>>>>>> is lower harm than the typical vegan diet.
>>
>>>>> This is possible
>>
>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>> The perversion comes from
>>>>>> observing that even if the vegan is causing less harm than an
>>>>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
>>>>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
>>>>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
>>>>>> virtuous.
>>
>>>>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>>
>>>> I do. It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>>
>>> What vegan claim of virtue
>>
>> The one that underlies the whole ****ing agenda, you ****. The one that
>> **** "glen/mark" just made this week.
>>
>
> I must have missed it.

You miss all the important stuff.


>>>> Given that she
>>>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
>>>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
>>>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
>>>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>>
>>> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
>>> themselves to be virtuous.
>>
>> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>>
>>>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. And it *is*, of course, a given
>>>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
>>>> animal death and suffering.
>>
>>> And why would that be?
>>
>> Because that's what drew these ****s to "veganism" in the first place.
>>
>
> 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.


>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>> whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>
> He's obviously not my good buddy,

Oh, but he is!


>>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>>>>>> virtuous?
>>
>>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
>>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
>>>>> suffering, myself included.
>>
>>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>>
>>> I think I do.
>>
>> You don't.
>
> Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?

Given already.

On Mar 9, 5:12*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 11:59 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> Veganism *is* bullshit. Here s why. It claims to be an ethical
> >>>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
> >>>>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
> >>>>>> response is ethically empty.
>
> >>>>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
> >>>>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
> >>>>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>
> >>>> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
> >>>> per se.
>
> >>> So you claim.
>
> >> It's so.
>
> >> Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.
>
> >>>>>> All vegans start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
> >>>>>> denying the antecedent:
>
> >>>>>> * * * * *If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>>>>> * * * * *I do not consume any animal parts;
>
> >>>>>> * * * * *therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>>>> That's not true.
>
> >>>> It is true.
>
> >>> How do you know?
>
> >> I've seen it from every "vegan".
>
> > Not from me you haven't.
>
> I sure have. *It's like traces of the Big Bang: *still detectable even
> though it occurred long in the past.
>
>
>
> >>>>>> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
> >>>>>> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
> >>>>>> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field
> >>>>>> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
> >>>>>> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
> >>>>>> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>
> >>>>>> All vegans also begin by saying they live a cruelty free
> >>>>>> lifestyle , but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
> >>>>>> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most vegans retreat from that
> >>>>>> position to the weaker claim that they at least minimize animal
> >>>>>> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
> >>>>>> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
> >>>>>> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the
> >>>>>> typical vegan diet, but even if one looks only at vegan diets, it is
> >>>>>> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a
> >>>>>> vegan excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,
> >>>>>> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>
> >>>>> But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
> >>>>> the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops,
>
> >>>> Irrelevant. *If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
> >>>> validly be made.
>
> >>> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
> >>> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
> >>> further information,
>
> >> No.
>
> > Why not?
>
> Why would you be able to? *I've already shown that you're not, that you
> don't even wish to do so.
>

You haven't shown any such thing.

It's not possible for you to demonstrate what I do or don't do, Ball.
You don't have any way of having any insight into the matter. You need
to get a better grip on reality.

> >>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>
> >>> Some do, some don't.
>
> >> None do.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> They tell me.
>
> Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
> be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you ****wits?
>

I know that I have made some effort to obtain the information and some
other people I have met on the Internet have as well. I have every
reason to believe that there a large number of other vegans out there
whom I have never met who have also done so.

> >>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
> >>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
> >>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
> >>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
> >>>>>> an improvement.
>
> >>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
> >>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
> >>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
> >>>>> the problem.
>
> >>>> That's a lie. *You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
> >>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
> >>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>
> >>> I do do something.
>
> >> You do nothing.
>
> > How could you possibly know,
>
> You tell me. *You've already explained that any effort whatever would
> take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.
>

Wrong. I have not told you any such thing.

> >>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
> >>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
> >>>>>> a comparison with others,
>
> >>>>> Why?
>
> >>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>
> >>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>
> >> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
> >> eaters", you ****ing retard. *From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
> >> are looking to declare their virtue. *They're declaring it when they
> >> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." *They're
> >> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." *They're declaring it
> >> when they say they're "doing the best they can." *And they're declaring
> >> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>
> >> The *entire* ****ing charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
> >> stupid ****.
>
> > Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
> > reduce animal suffering
>
> They aren't. *It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
> pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.
>

So you apparently desperately want to believe for some reason.

> >>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
> >>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>
> >>>> Not proved, but that's not the point. *Declaring oneself virtuous
> >>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
> >>>> others is itself immoral.
>
> >>> But that is not what was in question here.
>
> >> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you ****ing ****.
>
> > You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.
>
> Of course I have. *I have identified people by name who come here and do
> that. *This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.
>

Where did Glen declare himself to be virtuous?

> >>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
> >>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
> >>> than others is immoral,
>
> >> It is.
>
> > I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
> > completely unargued assertions from you.
>
> But you will, rupie - you will! *You always do.
>
> >>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
> >>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
> >>>> mean you're virtuous. *The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
> >>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>
> >>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
> >>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>
> >> That stupid **** Skanky did.
>
> > Fascinating.
>
> Not really. *Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
> that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
> sodomize the child more often. *Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
> believe that.
>

There are degrees of wrongness, and it is more wrong to sodomise the
child more often, and Adolf Hitler's conduct was even more wrong
still. This is completely obvious. It is also completely obvious that
this does not mean that the person who sodomises the child less often
is virtuous, and Skunky almost certainly realised that. Once again,
you demonstrate your incapacity to represent people's views
correctly.

> >>>>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>
> >>>>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>
> >>>> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>
> >>>>>> It also isn t
> >>>>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
> >>>>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
> >>>>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>
> >>>>> That is true.
>
> >>>> But "vegans" violate it. *They declare themselves virtuous because they
> >>>> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
> >>>> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>
> >>> Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
> >>> to be virtuous?
>
> >> HA HA HA HA HA! * Good one, Woopert. *I needed that laugh.
>
> >>>>>> It isn t true
> >>>>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
> >>>>>> is lower harm than the typical vegan diet.
>
> >>>>> This is possible
>
> >>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>>> The perversion comes from
> >>>>>> observing that even if the vegan is causing less harm than an
> >>>>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
> >>>>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
> >>>>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
> >>>>>> virtuous.
>
> >>>>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>
> >>>> I do. *It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>
> >>> What vegan claim of virtue
>
> >> The one that underlies the whole ****ing agenda, you ****. *The one that
> >> **** "glen/mark" just made this week.
>
> > I must have missed it.
>
> You miss all the important stuff.
>
> >>>> Given that she
> >>>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
> >>>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
> >>>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
> >>>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>
> >>> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
> >>> themselves to be virtuous.
>
> >> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>
> >>>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. *And it *is*, of course, a given
> >>>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
> >>>> animal death and suffering.
>
> >>> And why would that be?
>
> >> Because that's what drew these ****s to "veganism" in the first place.
>
> > 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, you strike me as an extremely irrational
person.

> >>>> * *Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> >>>> whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.
>
> >>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>
> >> Stop with the denial.
>
> > He's obviously not my good buddy,
>
> Oh, but he is!
>

Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
idea, which is obviously without the slightest rational foundation.

> >>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
> >>>>>> virtuous?
>
> >>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
> >>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>
> >>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
> >>>>> suffering, myself included.
>
> >>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>
> >>> I think I do.
>
> >> You don't.
>
> > Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
>
> Given already.

Where?

On 3/10/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:12 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 11:59 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Veganism *is* bullshit. Here s why. It claims to be an ethical
>>>>>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>>>>>>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
>>>>>>>> response is ethically empty.
>>
>>>>>>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
>>>>>>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
>>>>>>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>>
>>>>>> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
>>>>>> per se.
>>
>>>>> So you claim.
>>
>>>> It's so.
>>
>>>> Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.
>>
>>>>>>>> All vegans start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
>>>>>>>> denying the antecedent:
>>
>>>>>>>> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>>>>>> I do not consume any animal parts;
>>
>>>>>>>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>>>>> That's not true.
>>
>>>>>> It is true.
>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>> I've seen it from every "vegan".
>>
>>> Not from me you haven't.
>>
>> I sure have. It's like traces of the Big Bang: still detectable even
>> though it occurred long in the past.
>>
>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant. If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
>>>>>> validly be made.
>>
>>>>> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
>>>>> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
>>>>> further information,
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> Why would you be able to? I've already shown that you're not, that you
>> don't even wish to do so.
>>
>
> You haven't shown any such thing.

I have.


>>>>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>>
>>>>> Some do, some don't.
>>
>>>> None do.
>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>> They tell me.
>>
>> Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
>> be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you ****wits?
>>
>
> I know that I have made some effort to obtain the information

No, you haven't. You've asked Dutch and me, and even ****wit, to get it
for you.


>>>>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
>>>>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>>>>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>>>>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>>>>>>>> an improvement.
>>
>>>>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
>>>>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
>>>>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
>>>>>>> the problem.
>>
>>>>>> That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
>>>>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
>>>>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>>
>>>>> I do do something.
>>
>>>> You do nothing.
>>
>>> How could you possibly know,
>>
>> You tell me. You've already explained that any effort whatever would
>> take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, it's right.


>>>>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>>>>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
>>>>>>>> a comparison with others,
>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>>
>>>>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>>
>>>> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
>>>> eaters", you ****ing retard. From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
>>>> are looking to declare their virtue. They're declaring it when they
>>>> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." They're
>>>> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." They're declaring it
>>>> when they say they're "doing the best they can." And they're declaring
>>>> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>>
>>>> The *entire* ****ing charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
>>>> stupid ****.
>>
>>> Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
>>> reduce animal suffering
>>
>> They aren't. It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
>> pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.
>>
>
> So you apparently want to believe

Because it is true.


>>>>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
>>>>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>>
>>>>>> Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
>>>>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
>>>>>> others is itself immoral.
>>
>>>>> But that is not what was in question here.
>>
>>>> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you ****ing ****.
>>
>>> You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.
>>
>> Of course I have. I have identified people by name who come here and do
>> that. This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.
>>
>
> Where did Glen declare himself to be virtuous?

In one of his later posts, when he said he lived a "cruelty free
'lifestyle'."

>>>>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
>>>>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
>>>>> than others is immoral,
>>
>>>> It is.
>>
>>> I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
>>> completely unargued assertions from you.
>>
>> But you will, rupie - you will! You always do.
>>
>>>>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
>>>>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
>>>>>> mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
>>>>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>>
>>>>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
>>>>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>>
>>>> That stupid **** Skanky did.
>>
>>> Fascinating.
>>
>> Not really. Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
>> that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
>> sodomize the child more often. Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
>> believe that.
>>
>
> There are degrees of wrongness,

There are not. There are degrees of badness, but not wrongness.
Wrongness is binary: something is wrong, or it isn't - full stop.


> and it is more wrong to sodomise the
> child more often,

Nope. It is wrong to sodomize the child, full stop. It is *worse* to
do it more often, but it isn't "more wrong." Don't be an even bigger
dope than you already are.


>>>>>>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>>
>>>>>>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>>
>>>>>> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>>
>>>>>>>> It also isn t
>>>>>>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
>>>>>>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
>>>>>>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>>
>>>>>>> That is true.
>>
>>>>>> But "vegans" violate it. They declare themselves virtuous because they
>>>>>> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
>>>>>> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>>
>>>>> Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
>>>>> to be virtuous?
>>
>>>> HA HA HA HA HA! Good one, Woopert. I needed that laugh.
>>
>>>>>>>> It isn t true
>>>>>>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
>>>>>>>> is lower harm than the typical vegan diet.
>>
>>>>>>> This is possible
>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>> The perversion comes from
>>>>>>>> observing that even if the vegan is causing less harm than an
>>>>>>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
>>>>>>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
>>>>>>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
>>>>>>>> virtuous.
>>
>>>>>>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>>
>>>>>> I do. It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>>
>>>>> What vegan claim of virtue
>>
>>>> The one that underlies the whole ****ing agenda, you ****. The one that
>>>> **** "glen/mark" just made this week.
>>
>>> I must have missed it.
>>
>> You miss all the important stuff.
>>
>>>>>> Given that she
>>>>>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
>>>>>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
>>>>>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
>>>>>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
>>>>> themselves to be virtuous.
>>
>>>> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>>
>>>>>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. And it *is*, of course, a given
>>>>>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
>>>>>> animal death and suffering.
>>
>>>>> And why would that be?
>>
>>>> Because that's what drew these ****s to "veganism" in the first place.
>>
>>> 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.


>>>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>>>> whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>>>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>>
>> Oh, but he is!
>>
>
> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
> idea,

Not when it's right.


>>>>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>>>>>>>> virtuous?
>>
>>>>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
>>>>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
>>>>>>> suffering, myself included.
>>
>>>>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>>
>>>>> I think I do.
>>
>>>> You don't.
>>
>>> Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
>>
>> Given already.
>
> Where?

a.a.e.v.

On 10 Mrz., 14:58, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 5:12 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 11:59 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Veganism *is* bullshit. Here s why. It claims to be an ethical
> >>>>>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
> >>>>>>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
> >>>>>>>> response is ethically empty.
>
> >>>>>>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
> >>>>>>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
> >>>>>>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>
> >>>>>> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
> >>>>>> per se.
>
> >>>>> So you claim.
>
> >>>> It's so.
>
> >>>> Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.
>
> >>>>>>>> All vegans start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
> >>>>>>>> denying the antecedent:
>
> >>>>>>>> * * * * * If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>>>>>>> * * * * * I do not consume any animal parts;
>
> >>>>>>>> * * * * * therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>>>>>> That's not true.
>
> >>>>>> It is true.
>
> >>>>> How do you know?
>
> >>>> I've seen it from every "vegan".
>
> >>> Not from me you haven't.
>
> >> I sure have. *It's like traces of the Big Bang: *still detectable even
> >> though it occurred long in the past.
>
> >>>>>> Irrelevant. *If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
> >>>>>> validly be made.
>
> >>>>> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
> >>>>> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
> >>>>> further information,
>
> >>>> No.
>
> >>> Why not?
>
> >> Why would you be able to? *I've already shown that you're not, that you
> >> don't even wish to do so.
>
> > You haven't shown any such thing.
>
> I have.

What were the reasons you offered for that conclusion?

>
> >>>>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>
> >>>>> Some do, some don't.
>
> >>>> None do.
>
> >>> How do you know?
>
> >> They tell me.
>
> >> Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
> >> be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you ****wits?
>
> > I know that I have made some effort to obtain the information
>
> No, you haven't.

Why do you think that you are in a position to know?

> *You've asked Dutch and me, and even ****wit, to get it
> for you.
>

When you seem to be making the suggestion that there is something more
that I could do, it seems reasonable to ask you to be specific about
what.

> >>>>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
> >>>>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
> >>>>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
> >>>>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
> >>>>>>>> an improvement.
>
> >>>>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
> >>>>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
> >>>>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
> >>>>>>> the problem.
>
> >>>>>> That's a lie. *You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
> >>>>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
> >>>>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>
> >>>>> I do do something.
>
> >>>> You do nothing.
>
> >>> How could you possibly know,
>
> >> You tell me. *You've already explained that any effort whatever would
> >> take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, it's right.
>
> >>>>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
> >>>>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
> >>>>>>>> a comparison with others,
>
> >>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>
> >>>>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>
> >>>> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
> >>>> eaters", you ****ing retard. *From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
> >>>> are looking to declare their virtue. *They're declaring it when they
> >>>> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." *They're
> >>>> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." *They're declaring it
> >>>> when they say they're "doing the best they can." *And they're declaring
> >>>> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>
> >>>> The *entire* ****ing charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
> >>>> stupid ****.
>
> >>> Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
> >>> reduce animal suffering
>
> >> They aren't. *It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
> >> pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.
>
> > So you apparently want to believe
>
> Because it is true.
>
> >>>>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
> >>>>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>
> >>>>>> Not proved, but that's not the point. *Declaring oneself virtuous
> >>>>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
> >>>>>> others is itself immoral.
>
> >>>>> But that is not what was in question here.
>
> >>>> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you ****ing ****.
>
> >>> You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous..
>
> >> Of course I have. *I have identified people by name who come here and do
> >> that. *This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.
>
> > Where did Glen declare himself to be virtuous?
>
> In one of his later posts, when he said he lived a "cruelty free
> 'lifestyle'."
>

So he didn't declare himself to be virtuous, but he did declare,
incorrectly, that he lived a cruelty-free lifestyle.

> >>>>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
> >>>>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
> >>>>> than others is immoral,
>
> >>>> It is.
>
> >>> I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
> >>> completely unargued assertions from you.
>
> >> But you will, rupie - you will! *You always do.
>
> >>>>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
> >>>>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
> >>>>>> mean you're virtuous. *The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
> >>>>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>
> >>>>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
> >>>>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>
> >>>> That stupid **** Skanky did.
>
> >>> Fascinating.
>
> >> Not really. *Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
> >> that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
> >> sodomize the child more often. *Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
> >> believe that.
>
> > There are degrees of wrongness,
>
> There are not. *There are degrees of badness, but not wrongness.
> Wrongness is binary: *something is wrong, or it isn't - full stop.
>

I don't agree.

> > and it is more wrong to sodomise the
> > child more often,
>
> Nope. *It is wrong to sodomize the child, full stop. *It is *worse* to
> do it more often, but it isn't "more wrong." *Don't be an even bigger
> dope than you already are.
>

I don't see any significant distinction between "worse" and "more
wrong", and it looks like you've already indicated that you'd be happy
with "more bad". Seems to me you're just mucking around with words to
no particularly good purpose.

> >>>>>>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>
> >>>>>>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>
> >>>>>> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>
> >>>>>>>> It also isn t
> >>>>>>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
> >>>>>>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
> >>>>>>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>
> >>>>>>> That is true.
>
> >>>>>> But "vegans" violate it. *They declare themselves virtuous because they
> >>>>>> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
> >>>>>> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>
> >>>>> Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
> >>>>> to be virtuous?
>
> >>>> HA HA HA HA HA! * Good one, Woopert. *I needed that laugh.
>
> >>>>>>>> It isn t true
> >>>>>>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
> >>>>>>>> is lower harm than the typical vegan diet.
>
> >>>>>>> This is possible
>
> >>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>>>>> The perversion comes from
> >>>>>>>> observing that even if the vegan is causing less harm than an
> >>>>>>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
> >>>>>>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
> >>>>>>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
> >>>>>>>> virtuous.
>
> >>>>>>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>
> >>>>>> I do. *It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>
> >>>>> What vegan claim of virtue
>
> >>>> The one that underlies the whole ****ing agenda, you ****. *The one that
> >>>> **** "glen/mark" just made this week.
>
> >>> I must have missed it.
>
> >> You miss all the important stuff.
>
> >>>>>> Given that she
> >>>>>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
> >>>>>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
> >>>>>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
> >>>>>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>
> >>>>> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
> >>>>> themselves to be virtuous.
>
> >>>> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>
> >>>>>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. *And it *is*, of course, a given
> >>>>>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
> >>>>>> animal death and suffering.
>
> >>>>> And why would that be?
>
> >>>> Because that's what drew these ****s to "veganism" in the first place.
>
> >>> 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?

> >>>>>> * * Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> >>>>>> whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.
>
> >>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>
> >>>> Stop with the denial.
>
> >>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>
> >> Oh, but he is!
>
> > Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
> > idea,
>
> Not when it's right.
>

And also not when it's wrong and obviously ungrounded in the least
shred of evidence.

> >>>>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
> >>>>>>>> virtuous?
>
> >>>>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
> >>>>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>
> >>>>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
> >>>>>>> suffering, myself included.
>
> >>>>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>
> >>>>> I think I do.
>
> >>>> You don't.
>
> >>> Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
>
> >> Given already.
>
> > Where?
>
> a.a.e.v.

Actually, you've acknowledged in a.a.e.v., in posts that Derek
frequently quotes, that for most omnivores going vegan does reduce
their expected contribution to suffering.

On 3/10/2012 6:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 10 Mrz., 14:58, George > wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 5:12 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 11:59 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Veganism *is* bullshit. Here s why. It claims to be an ethical
>>>>>>>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>>>>>>>>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
>>>>>>>>>> response is ethically empty.
>>
>>>>>>>>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
>>>>>>>>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
>>>>>>>>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>>
>>>>>>>> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
>>>>>>>> per se.
>>
>>>>>>> So you claim.
>>
>>>>>> It's so.
>>
>>>>>> Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> All vegans start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
>>>>>>>>>> denying the antecedent:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not consume any animal parts;
>>
>>>>>>>>>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not true.
>>
>>>>>>>> It is true.
>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>>>> I've seen it from every "vegan".
>>
>>>>> Not from me you haven't.
>>
>>>> I sure have. It's like traces of the Big Bang: still detectable even
>>>> though it occurred long in the past.
>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
>>>>>>>> validly be made.
>>
>>>>>>> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
>>>>>>> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
>>>>>>> further information,
>>
>>>>>> No.
>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>
>>>> Why would you be able to? I've already shown that you're not, that you
>>>> don't even wish to do so.
>>
>>> You haven't shown any such thing.
>>
>> I have.
>
> What were the reasons you offered for that conclusion?
>
>>
>>>>>>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>>
>>>>>>> Some do, some don't.
>>
>>>>>> None do.
>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>> They tell me.
>>
>>>> Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
>>>> be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you ****wits?
>>
>>> I know that I have made some effort to obtain the information
>>
>> No, you haven't.
>
> Why do you think that you are in a position to know?
>
>> You've asked Dutch and me, and even ****wit, to get it
>> for you.
>>
>
> When you seem to be making the suggestion that there is something more
> that I could do, it seems reasonable to ask you to be specific about
> what.
>
>>>>>>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
>>>>>>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>>>>>>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>>>>>>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>>>>>>>>>> an improvement.
>>
>>>>>>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
>>>>>>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
>>>>>>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
>>>>>>>>> the problem.
>>
>>>>>>>> That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
>>>>>>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
>>>>>>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>>
>>>>>>> I do do something.
>>
>>>>>> You do nothing.
>>
>>>>> How could you possibly know,
>>
>>>> You tell me. You've already explained that any effort whatever would
>>>> take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> No, it's right.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>>>>>>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
>>>>>>>>>> a comparison with others,
>>
>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>>
>>>>>>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>>
>>>>>> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
>>>>>> eaters", you ****ing retard. From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
>>>>>> are looking to declare their virtue. They're declaring it when they
>>>>>> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." They're
>>>>>> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." They're declaring it
>>>>>> when they say they're "doing the best they can." And they're declaring
>>>>>> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>>
>>>>>> The *entire* ****ing charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
>>>>>> stupid ****.
>>
>>>>> Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
>>>>> reduce animal suffering
>>
>>>> They aren't. It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
>>>> pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.
>>
>>> So you apparently want to believe
>>
>> Because it is true.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
>>>>>>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>>
>>>>>>>> Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
>>>>>>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
>>>>>>>> others is itself immoral.
>>
>>>>>>> But that is not what was in question here.
>>
>>>>>> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you ****ing ****.
>>
>>>>> You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.
>>
>>>> Of course I have. I have identified people by name who come here and do
>>>> that. This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.
>>
>>> Where did Glen declare himself to be virtuous?
>>
>> In one of his later posts, when he said he lived a "cruelty free
>> 'lifestyle'."
>>
>
> So he didn't declare himself to be virtuous, but he did declare,
> incorrectly, that he lived a cruelty-free lifestyle.
>
>>>>>>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
>>>>>>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
>>>>>>> than others is immoral,
>>
>>>>>> It is.
>>
>>>>> I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
>>>>> completely unargued assertions from you.
>>
>>>> But you will, rupie - you will! You always do.
>>
>>>>>>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
>>>>>>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
>>>>>>>> mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
>>>>>>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>>
>>>>>>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
>>>>>>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>>
>>>>>> That stupid **** Skanky did.
>>
>>>>> Fascinating.
>>
>>>> Not really. Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
>>>> that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
>>>> sodomize the child more often. Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
>>>> believe that.
>>
>>> There are degrees of wrongness,
>>
>> There are not. There are degrees of badness, but not wrongness.
>> Wrongness is binary: something is wrong, or it isn't - full stop.
>>
>
> I don't agree.
>
>>> and it is more wrong to sodomise the
>>> child more often,
>>
>> Nope. It is wrong to sodomize the child, full stop. It is *worse* to
>> do it more often, but it isn't "more wrong." Don't be an even bigger
>> dope than you already are.
>>
>
> I don't see any significant distinction between "worse" and "more
> wrong", and it looks like you've already indicated that you'd be happy
> with "more bad". Seems to me you're just mucking around with words to
> no particularly good purpose.
>
>>>>>>>>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>>
>>>>>>>> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also isn t
>>>>>>>>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
>>>>>>>>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
>>>>>>>>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>>
>>>>>>>>> That is true.
>>
>>>>>>>> But "vegans" violate it. They declare themselves virtuous because they
>>>>>>>> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
>>>>>>>> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>>
>>>>>>> Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
>>>>>>> to be virtuous?
>>
>>>>>> HA HA HA HA HA! Good one, Woopert. I needed that laugh.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> It isn t true
>>>>>>>>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
>>>>>>>>>> is lower harm than the typical vegan diet.
>>
>>>>>>>>> This is possible
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The perversion comes from
>>>>>>>>>> observing that even if the vegan is causing less harm than an
>>>>>>>>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
>>>>>>>>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
>>>>>>>>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
>>>>>>>>>> virtuous.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>>
>>>>>>>> I do. It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>>
>>>>>>> What vegan claim of virtue
>>
>>>>>> The one that underlies the whole ****ing agenda, you ****. The one that
>>>>>> **** "glen/mark" just made this week.
>>
>>>>> I must have missed it.
>>
>>>> You miss all the important stuff.
>>
>>>>>>>> Given that she
>>>>>>>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
>>>>>>>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
>>>>>>>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
>>>>>>>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>>
>>>>>>> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
>>>>>>> themselves to be virtuous.
>>
>>>>>> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>>
>>>>>>>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. And it *is*, of course, a given
>>>>>>>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
>>>>>>>> animal death and suffering.
>>
>>>>>>> And why would that be?
>>
>>>>>> Because that's what drew these ****s to "veganism" in the first place.
>>
>>>>> 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.


>>>>>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>>>>>> whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>>>>>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>>>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>>
>>>> Oh, but he is!
>>
>>> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
>>> idea,
>>
>> Not when it's right.
>>
>
> And also not when it's wrong

It isn't wrong.


>>>>>>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>>>>>>>>>> virtuous?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
>>>>>>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
>>>>>>>>> suffering, myself included.
>>
>>>>>>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>>
>>>>>>> I think I do.
>>
>>>>>> You don't.
>>
>>>>> Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
>>
>>>> Given already.
>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> a.a.e.v.
>
> Actually, you've acknowledged in a.a.e.v., in posts that Derek
> frequently quotes, that for most omnivores going vegan does reduce
> their expected contribution to suffering.