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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 09:40 PM 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


“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.

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.

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.

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.

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, and that is morally repugnant. 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. 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. 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. 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.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 06:19 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 8, 2:40*pm, George Plimpton wrote:

nothing that made any sense at all


Have you found any of the choice cuts from the EXTRA livestock,
Gooberdoodle?
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 06:38 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 8, 10:40*pm, George Plimpton 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.

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. I am someone who went vegan while fully aware that
this did not mean that suffering and death was not caused in order to
produce my food. There must be many more like me.

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, and
there is no reason to think that doing the research so that reliable
information becomes available would be a wise investment of time and
resources from the point of view of reducing suffering.

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.

It is reasonable for me to claim that I am doing the best I can given
that I am going to stay employed in my current job.

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?

Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
of view of reducing harm. To point out this fact is not to make any
claims about what is and is not virtuous.

What evidence do you have that any vegan ever claimed to be virtuous
*simply because* they were doing better than most meat eaters?

and that is morally repugnant.


It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.

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. And you have no especially good reason to think that
vegans are not simply trying to do the best they can from the point of
view of reducing suffering, without having any interest in comparing
themselves to how others are doing.

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 but you've never really demonstrated this claim. If
someone who ate meat was reducing suffering just as much as the
typical vegan, then the vegan shouldn't claim to be reducing suffering
more than that meat-eater, and you have no evidence to show that any
vegan ever did make such an erroneous claim.

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. This is a straw man that you
made up.

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've given no good reason why that is a
bad or irrational thing to do.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:03 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 3/8/2012 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.


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.


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.

"vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.


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.


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?


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.

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.


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.


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. 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?

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. Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
whatever the **** his name really is, is a prime example.


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.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:29 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 9, 8:03*am, George Plimpton 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. That is a matter which is disputed by reasonable people.
In any event it looks as though you don't wish to contradict the
statement that I made.

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?









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, to follow a diet that minimises the expected
contribution to suffering and premature death, relative to your
epistemic situation, given that you don't wish to make extreme
sacrifices like quitting your job and growing all your own food.
That's what I believe I'm doing. If you don't agree, the only reason I
would be interested is if you can actually offer constructive
suggestions for how I could be doing better.

"vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.


Some do, some don't. Those that try to do it generally find that no
reliable information is available at the moment.

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. I use Google to try to find studies that have been
done on the matter and talk about the issues on discussion forums with
other people who are interested in the question of trying to reduce
suffering.

You don't have any idea of what I do or do not do. Why do you suppose
you do?

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.

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. Making an assertion about a
nonmoral fact (or an alleged nonmoral fact if you prefer to call it
that), is not making any claim 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, I just think it's incorrect. But the point is
moot, because you have offered no good evidence that anyone is doing
that.

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.

and that is morally repugnant.


It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.


It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.


Do you have any arguments to offer for this point of view?



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?

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? That's the point; where's the evidence
that this claim you keep talking about has ever actually been made?

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. I think it's entirely the product of your
imagination.

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?

*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, I've only
just met him. He seems to have the idea that there is some moral wrong
in which you are engaged which he is refraining from altogether. I
doubt that he can defend this claim, but that's between you and him.
However, it would not be correct to characterise his view as being
that he is virtuous just because he causes less suffering. If he
wanted to put forward a claim that he was virtuous (and I haven't seen
him do that) he would defend it on some other grounds.

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. I think that I have read reliable information about the
suffering that animals endure on modern factory farms, as well as
having been in some myself and also viewed a lot of video footage of
factory farms and slaughterhouses, and I think I have good reason to
believe that modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering.
Furthermore I think I also have good reason to believe that, in the
case of most animal food products, more crop production is required,
and therefore more CDs from crop production, in order to produce a
serving of the animal food product than in order to produce a
calorically equivalent serving of plant-based food product. There may
be some exceptions, rice may involve a lot of harm, for example, and
grass-fed beef not very much, although it may be difficult to be sure
that any beef you buy is really 100% grass-fed. I think that I have
good reason to believe that being vegan is a good way to reduce the
amount of suffering and premature death required to produce my food. I
also think that there is not a lot I could do to make any further
reduction, short of making extreme sacrifices like quitting my job and
joining a commune.

If you think that I am mistaken about this then perhaps you can show
me where I've gone wrong.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:48 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 3/8/2012 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.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:59 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 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?
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 04:12 PM 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 3/8/2012 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.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 09:00 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 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?
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 01:58 PM 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 3/10/2012 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.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:35 PM 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 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.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:46 PM 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 3/10/2012 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.


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:51 PM 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 10 Mrz., 15:46, George Plimpton 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?

* * *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 did you first learn that "Glen" is my good buddy?
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 03:22 PM 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 3/10/2012 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'm eating a moo-cow, mommy. Waaaahhhhh!"

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 did you first learn that "Glen" is my good buddy?


He's part of The Side, and you lot stick up for one another.
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-03-2012, 08:30 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 10, 4:22*pm, George Plimpton 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'meating a moo-cow, mommy. *Waaaahhhhh!"


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









* * * 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 did you first learn that "Glen" is my good buddy?


He's part of The Side, and you lot stick up for one another.


Derek doesn't.


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 06:32 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