“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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

It's so.

Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.


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

I've seen it from every "vegan".


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

No.


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

None do.


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

You do nothing.


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

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

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


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

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


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

It is.


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

That stupid **** Skanky did.


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

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


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

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


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

It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.


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

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


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

Stop with the denial.


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

You don't.

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

Not from me you haven't.

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

Why not?

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

How do you know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fascinating.

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

I must have missed it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:40:09 -0800, Goo 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

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
.. . .
>2) the response is ethically empty.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

****wit David Harrison - THE Goober - wussed:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:40:09 -0800, George Plimpton helpfully contributed:
>
>>
>> “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
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
> consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "the moral harm, *if any*, caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "Life "justifying" death is the
> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


> . . .
>> 2) the response is ethically empty.
>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
> animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:59:21 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:29:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:40:09 -0800, Goo 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
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>. . .
>>>2) the response is ethically empty.
>>
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>animals." - Goo
>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
>True.

At least we see that you agree with yourself about all of it at this
particular time Goob.

On 3/19/2012 12:19 PM, dh@. 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
>>>
>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>> consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the
>>> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> . . .
>>>> 2) the response is ethically empty.
>>>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>> animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> True.
>
> At least we see that you agree with yourself

I always agree with myself, Goo.

Everything I wrote above is true. I didn't bother correctly your
mangled edited "quotes" this time, because everyone knows which ones
they are, and they all know that what I actually said, rather than your
mangled, misrepresented version, is true.

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for farm animals, Goo.