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?