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, 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 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 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.

"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 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 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 1:33 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 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 4/6/2012 8:03 AM, 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.

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:46:33 -0700, Goo wrote:
..
>> "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.

All of the following supposed vegetarian products contain egg whites Goober,
most if not all probably from cage raised hens:

Quorn Meat-Free Patties
Nuggets and Cutlets

Light Life Smart Menu!:
Meat Free Chick'n Nuggets
Chicken Patties
Veggie-licious Fiesta Bean Burger

Boca Meatless:
Chik'n Wings
Italian Sausage
Breakfast Patties
Breakfast Links

Morningstar Farms:
Veggie Burgers
Thai Burgers
Corn Dogs
Veggie Breakfast Breakfast Patties
Veggie Chicken
Chik'n Nuggets
Roasted Herb Chik'n

Worthington:
Vegetarian Fillets
Meatless Wham
Prosage Patties
Stakelets
Meatless Chicken
Chik Stiks
Leanies Vegetarian Hot Dogs
Meatless Smoked Turkey

On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:46:33 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
> .
>>> "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.
>
> All of the following supposed vegetarian products contain egg whites

Most "vegans" don't eat them, ****wit. Anyway, *Gloo*, most of those
products are *not* said to be vegetarian; their manufacturers refer to
them as "meatless."

You are not a man.


>
> Quorn Meat-Free Patties
> Nuggets and Cutlets
>
> Light Life Smart Menu!:
> Meat Free Chick'n Nuggets
> Chicken Patties
> Veggie-licious Fiesta Bean Burger
>
> Boca Meatless:
> Chik'n Wings
> Italian Sausage
> Breakfast Patties
> Breakfast Links
>
> Morningstar Farms:
> Veggie Burgers
> Thai Burgers
> Corn Dogs
> Veggie Breakfast Breakfast Patties
> Veggie Chicken
> Chik'n Nuggets
> Roasted Herb Chik'n
>
> Worthington:
> Vegetarian Fillets
> Meatless Wham
> Prosage Patties
> Stakelets
> Meatless Chicken
> Chik Stiks
> Leanies Vegetarian Hot Dogs
> Meatless Smoked Turkey
>