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.

On Mar 15, 8:57*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

Wrong. I never believed that.

> >> 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.
>

I do have rational grounds for believing it which I have given before
more than once.

> It's entirely the point, shithead.

It's not a point supported by the evidence at hand.