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.

On Apr 6, 5:03*pm, George Plimpton > 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?

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. 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.

On Apr 6, 5:46*pm, George Plimpton > 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?

On Apr 6, 9:46*am, George Plimpton > 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. *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.

Goobiedoodle, you're an idiot.

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.

2. They should relinquish their false belief.

On Apr 6, 6:10*pm, George Plimpton > 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.

> 2. *They should relinquish their false belief.

Agreed.

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.


>> 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".

On Apr 6, 7:04*pm, George Plimpton > 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?

> >> 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, but I do not have the belief under discussion, and
there are many vegans who do not.

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, so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
pedestal. 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 Apr 6, 8:06*pm, George Plimpton > 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.

> 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?

> 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.

"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.

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.


>
>> 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".


>> 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.

On 4/6/2012 1:44 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.

Exactly. Thus, "the vegan shuffle".

No matter how they try to dance around it, there is a *huge* element of
aesthetics in the "vegan" pose - far more than there is ethics.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George > 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?

Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
perfectly representative.


>>>>>> 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.

Yes, you do.

On 4/8/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:20 pm, George > 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.

No, you don't. You're just discomfited by it, and having nothing better
to do (extremely low time value), you waste time by saying, like a
school child, "is not is not is not is not." It achieves nothing.

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?

The search is motivated by the belief that not consuming animal bits is
in and of itself virtuous. They're like Jews and Muslims not consuming
pork: there is no concern for the animals, only concern that they be
virtuous.

On Apr 8, 7:11*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George > *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?
>
> Certainly. *"veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
> to by a very small number of adherents. *Those who post here are
> perfectly representative.
>

Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice. There is no "monolithic
belief system" held by those who practice it. Different people who
practice it hold different beliefs.

> >>>>>> 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.
>
> Yes, you do.

On Apr 8, 7:12*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 5:20 pm, George > *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.
>
> No, you don't. *You're just discomfited by it, and having nothing better
> to do (extremely low time value), you waste time by saying, like a
> school child, "is not is not is not is not." *It achieves nothing.

Whereas your posts, I take it, achieve something?

On 4/8/2012 9:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George > 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?
>>
>> Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
>> to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
>> perfectly representative.
>>
>
> Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice.

It's so intricately intertwined with the belief that they are
inseparable. It's a belief.

On 4/8/2012 9:03 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:12 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 8, 5:20 pm, George > 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.
>>
>> No, you don't. You're just discomfited by it, and having nothing better
>> to do (extremely low time value), you waste time by saying, like a
>> school child, "is not is not is not is not." It achieves nothing.
>
> Whereas your posts, I take it, achieve something?

Yes. They have established the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of
"veganism" and "ar".

On Apr 9, 6:45*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George > * *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?
>
> >> Certainly. *"veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
> >> to by a very small number of adherents. *Those who post here are
> >> perfectly representative.
>
> > Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice.
>
> It's so intricately intertwined with the belief that they are
> inseparable. *It's a belief.

Wrong.

On 4/8/2012 11:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:45 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 9:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George > 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?
>>
>>>> Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
>>>> to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
>>>> perfectly representative.
>>
>>> Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice.
>>
>> It's so intricately intertwined with the belief that they are
>> inseparable. It's a belief.
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm right. "veganism" is a belief system, leading to an absurdly
inconsistent and sloppy behavior.

On Apr 8, 10:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George > * *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?
>
> >> Certainly. *"veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
> >> to by a very small number of adherents. *Those who post here are
> >> perfectly representative.
>
> > Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice.
>
> It's so intricately intertwined with the belief that they are
> inseparable. *It's a belief.

so you believe.