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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-04-2012, 12:34 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 6, 4:18*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:

[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?

Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?


yeh, rice is incredibly lethal. That's why there are no bison left in
California. Rice farming killed them all.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-04-2012, 09:30 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 6, 11:53*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 6, 8:06 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 10:17 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 7:04 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 9:20 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 6:10 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 8:49 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 5:03 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
bits in their mouths. *I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
nothing further.


But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
"contamination" from their diet. *In my time in these groups since 1999,
I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":


* * * * * brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
* * * * * black by the addition of squid ink


* * * * * Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea& * * * * *Perrins recipe, and
* * * * * probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy


* * * * * refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
* * * * * white crystalline sugar uses bone char


* * * * * lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
* * * * * wool production


"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them. *When they find one of them and report on it here
or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! *That's
the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea& * * * * *Perrins!!!"


I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
Animal Parts). *If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
sense of unwarranted moral superiority.


This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
reduce harm to animals. *No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. *The fact
they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
*no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
their diets, is the proof.


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


The belief is plainly false.


Yes, obviously.


Getting black olives out of their diet
could not *possibly* have as great an effect at reducing harm to animals
as identifying the most harm-causing vegetable or fruit they currently
eat and finding a lower-harm substitute for it.


It is clear that not consuming animal bits - and the false sense of
moral superiority that produces - is what motivates them, rather than a
sincere wish to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


How would they get a sense of moral superiority out of it if they
didn't believe that they were doing the best thing by way of reducing
the harm they cause to animals?


1. *Their wish to feel morally superior is loathsome and inherently immoral.


I don't believe you have any good reason for thinking that they wish
to feel morally superior.


It's obvious that they do: *they *stop* their efforts at eliminating
animal bits from their diet, when that clearly has been shown not to be
enough.


What's that got to do with it?


Everything. *They *know* that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation,


No. They don't know that. You've never demonstrated that.


They do know it, because I have.


You haven't, and in any case we're talking about vegans in general,
not all vegans have read your babblings.



so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
* *That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
pedestal.


How would it be possible for them to maintain such a self-conception,
if as you claim they know that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation?


Easily, for people who are fooled by the false premise of "veganism" in
the first place.

See "the vegan shuffle".


What's the false premise?









All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.


2. *They should relinquish their false belief.


Agreed.


But they - and you - don't. *It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
*most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
are "cruelty free".


That may well be


It is; not in doubt.


On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
question was incorrect.


Nope.


You're a fool.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-04-2012, 09:32 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 7, 12:18*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:

[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that. Some do. It is probably because they have the
mistaken belief that that is the best way to reduce harm to animals.

Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?


No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
would do that, obviously.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-04-2012, 09:33 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 6, 10:44*pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote



What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.


How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-04-2012, 04:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/7/2012 1:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 6, 11:53 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 6, 8:06 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 10:17 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 7:04 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 9:20 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 6:10 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 8:49 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 5:03 pm, George wrote:
Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
nothing further.


But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
"contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":


* brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
black by the addition of squid ink


* Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea& Perrins recipe, and
probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy


* refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
white crystalline sugar uses bone char


* lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
wool production


"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea& Perrins!!!"


I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
Animal Parts). If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
sense of unwarranted moral superiority.


This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
reduce harm to animals. No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. The fact
they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
*no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
their diets, is the proof.


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


The belief is plainly false.


Yes, obviously.


Getting black olives out of their diet
could not *possibly* have as great an effect at reducing harm to animals
as identifying the most harm-causing vegetable or fruit they currently
eat and finding a lower-harm substitute for it.


It is clear that not consuming animal bits - and the false sense of
moral superiority that produces - is what motivates them, rather than a
sincere wish to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


How would they get a sense of moral superiority out of it if they
didn't believe that they were doing the best thing by way of reducing
the harm they cause to animals?


1. Their wish to feel morally superior is loathsome and inherently immoral.


I don't believe you have any good reason for thinking that they wish
to feel morally superior.


It's obvious that they do: they *stop* their efforts at eliminating
animal bits from their diet, when that clearly has been shown not to be
enough.


What's that got to do with it?


Everything. They *know* that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation,


No. They don't know that. You've never demonstrated that.


They do know it, because I have.


You haven't, and in any case we're talking about vegans in general,
not all vegans have read your babblings.



so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
pedestal.


How would it be possible for them to maintain such a self-conception,
if as you claim they know that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation?


Easily, for people who are fooled by the false premise of "veganism" in
the first place.

See "the vegan shuffle".


What's the false premise?


Already been shown to you. Your efforts to waste my time fail.



All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.


2. They should relinquish their false belief.


Agreed.


But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
*most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
are "cruelty free".


That may well be


It is; not in doubt.


On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
question was incorrect.


Nope.


You're a fool.


You lose, again.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-04-2012, 05:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:

[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.

*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?


No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
would do that, obviously.


Most "vegans" eat rice. http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-04-2012, 05:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/7/2012 1:33 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, wrote:
wrote



What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.


How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?


Your question is absurd. Their belief about the effect and sufficiency
of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
moral standing.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 07:29 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 7, 6:03*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:33 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, *wrote:
*wrote


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.


How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?


Your question is absurd. *Their belief about the effect and sufficiency
of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
moral standing.


But they do have the belief, and therefore they are motivated to do
something about animal suffering, they're just not going about it in
the best way.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 09:47 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 7, 5:54*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:30 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 6, 11:53 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 8:06 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 10:17 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 7:04 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 9:20 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 6:10 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 8:49 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 5:03 pm, George * * * * * *wrote:
Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
bits in their mouths. *I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
nothing further.


But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
"contamination" from their diet. *In my time in these groups since 1999,
I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":


* * * * ** brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
* * * * * *black by the addition of squid ink


* * * * ** Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea& * * * * * *Perrins recipe, and
* * * * * *probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy


* * * * ** refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
* * * * * *white crystalline sugar uses bone char


* * * * ** lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
* * * * * *wool production


"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them. *When they find one of them and report on it here
or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! *That's
the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea& * * * * * *Perrins!!!"


I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
Animal Parts). *If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
sense of unwarranted moral superiority.


This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
reduce harm to animals. *No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. *The fact
they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
*no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
their diets, is the proof.


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


The belief is plainly false.


Yes, obviously.


Getting black olives out of their diet
could not *possibly* have as great an effect at reducing harm to animals
as identifying the most harm-causing vegetable or fruit they currently
eat and finding a lower-harm substitute for it.


It is clear that not consuming animal bits - and the false sense of
moral superiority that produces - is what motivates them, rather than a
sincere wish to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


How would they get a sense of moral superiority out of it if they
didn't believe that they were doing the best thing by way of reducing
the harm they cause to animals?


1. *Their wish to feel morally superior is loathsome and inherently immoral.


I don't believe you have any good reason for thinking that they wish
to feel morally superior.


It's obvious that they do: *they *stop* their efforts at eliminating
animal bits from their diet, when that clearly has been shown not to be
enough.


What's that got to do with it?


Everything. *They *know* that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation,


No. They don't know that. You've never demonstrated that.


They do know it, because I have.


You haven't, and in any case we're talking about vegans in general,
not all vegans have read your babblings.


so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
* * That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
pedestal.


How would it be possible for them to maintain such a self-conception,
if as you claim they know that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation?


Easily, for people who are fooled by the false premise of "veganism" in
the first place.


See "the vegan shuffle".


What's the false premise?


Already been shown to you. *Your efforts to waste my time fail.


You seem to think that presenting your argument is a waste of time.
You ought to do something about your self-esteem.











All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.


2. *They should relinquish their false belief.


Agreed.


But they - and you - don't. *It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
*most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
are "cruelty free".


That may well be


It is; not in doubt.


On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
question was incorrect.


Nope.


You're a fool.


You lose, again.


It seems to me that what took place was that you said something very
stupid and I called you a fool. Apparently you think that means I
lose. Much joy may this belief bring you.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 09:48 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 7, 6:02*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. *Stop bullshitting.

*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this strongly held belief of yours?

Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?


No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
would do that, obviously.


Most "vegans" eat rice. *http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 04:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/7/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:03 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:33 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, wrote:
wrote


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.


How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?


Your question is absurd. Their belief about the effect and sufficiency
of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
moral standing.


But they do have the belief,


It's nothing but a façade; completely unreal. All they really have is
their own ego. All they care about is themselves.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 04:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/8/2012 1:47 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 7, 5:54 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:30 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 6, 11:53 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 8:06 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 10:17 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 7:04 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 9:20 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 6:10 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 8:49 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 5:03 pm, George wrote:
Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
nothing further.


But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
"contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":


* brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
black by the addition of squid ink


* Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea& Perrins recipe, and
probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy


* refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
white crystalline sugar uses bone char


* lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
wool production


"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea& Perrins!!!"


I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
Animal Parts). If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
sense of unwarranted moral superiority.


This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
reduce harm to animals. No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. The fact
they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
*no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
their diets, is the proof.


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


The belief is plainly false.


Yes, obviously.


Getting black olives out of their diet
could not *possibly* have as great an effect at reducing harm to animals
as identifying the most harm-causing vegetable or fruit they currently
eat and finding a lower-harm substitute for it.


It is clear that not consuming animal bits - and the false sense of
moral superiority that produces - is what motivates them, rather than a
sincere wish to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


How would they get a sense of moral superiority out of it if they
didn't believe that they were doing the best thing by way of reducing
the harm they cause to animals?


1. Their wish to feel morally superior is loathsome and inherently immoral.


I don't believe you have any good reason for thinking that they wish
to feel morally superior.


It's obvious that they do: they *stop* their efforts at eliminating
animal bits from their diet, when that clearly has been shown not to be
enough.


What's that got to do with it?


Everything. They *know* that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation,


No. They don't know that. You've never demonstrated that.


They do know it, because I have.


You haven't, and in any case we're talking about vegans in general,
not all vegans have read your babblings.


so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
pedestal.


How would it be possible for them to maintain such a self-conception,
if as you claim they know that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation?


Easily, for people who are fooled by the false premise of "veganism" in
the first place.


See "the vegan shuffle".


What's the false premise?


Already been shown to you. Your efforts to waste my time fail.


You seem to think that presenting your argument is a waste of time.


I've presented it. You have read it. Trying to get me to elaborate it
again is an attempt to waste my time. **** off.



All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.


2. They should relinquish their false belief.


Agreed.


But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
*most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
are "cruelty free".


That may well be


It is; not in doubt.


On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
question was incorrect.


Nope.


You're a fool.


You lose, again.


It seems to me that


You lost.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 04:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.

*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this


"vegans" present it to me.


Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?


No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
would do that, obviously.


Most "vegans" eat rice. http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr


You're ****ed.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 05:50 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 8, 5:21*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. *Stop bullshitting.


*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this


"vegans" present it to me.


You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?

Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?


No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
would do that, obviously.


Most "vegans" eat rice. *http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr


You're ****ed.


I don't really see why that would be.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 05:51 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 8, 5:20*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/7/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 7, 6:03 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:33 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, * *wrote:
* *wrote


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.


How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?


Your question is absurd. *Their belief about the effect and sufficiency
of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
moral standing.


But they do have the belief,


It's nothing but a façade; completely unreal. *All they really have is
their own ego. *All they care about is themselves.


I fail to see how you've given any rational grounds for thinking that.


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
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 46 07-03-2008 04:48 PM
A exceptionally stupid "vegan", "Michael Bluejay" Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 6 15-02-2008 12:02 AM
repost: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' usual suspect Vegan 153 14-01-2005 06:49 AM
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Jonathan Ball Vegan 60 27-06-2004 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 AM.

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