Vegetarian Discussion: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search For Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

FAQ: The Irrational 'Search For Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Posts: 47

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-18 14:51:00 EST
All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.

Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. It simply is not credible.

How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.

I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

M*@gmail.com
2008-02-20 20:31:24 EST
On Feb 18, 11:51 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
>      If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
>      I do not eat meat;
>
>      Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> This argument contains a classic fallacy:  Denying the
> Antecedent.  It is obvious there are other ways to
> cause harm to animals.  The one that is much discussed
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture.  Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control.  Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> trace of animal parts from their diet.  I call this the
> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> in food.  The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> dark.  She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> diets.  Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> all but unchallenged.  What little challenge is mounted
> is not credible.  One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> kill animals.  It simply is not credible.
>
> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms?  It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> *still* accept it.
>
> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> form of religion.  Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> away.  In that light, the obsessive Search for
> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
sentance? Actually, don't bother...

Justin E. Miller
2008-02-20 23:29:55 EST
> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
> sentance? Actually, don't bother...


I'll go ahead and do it:
100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-21 00:05:57 EST
On Feb 20, 5:31 pm, maudefind...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:51 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> > I do not eat meat;
>
> > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> > if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> > Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> > - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> > animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> > the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> > kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> > *still* accept it.
>
> > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...

No, you didn't. You just don't have an answer for it.

You commit all the logical fallacies and other slovenly low quality
thinking of "veganism". You do it because you choose to be stupid.

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-21 00:06:35 EST
Justin E. Miller wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>
>
> I'll go ahead and do it:
> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.

All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an
irrational belief system.

Justin E. Miller
2008-02-21 03:49:56 EST
Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal. I
do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick to
the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out on
that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>>
>>
>> I'll go ahead and do it:
>> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
>
> All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational belief
> system.

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-21 10:07:19 EST
Justin E. Miller wrote:
> Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal. I
> do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
> front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick to
> the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out on
> that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.

Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means
not consuming any animal products at all, not just in
your diet: no leather or wool garments, no lotions
that contain lanolin, no products tested on animals,
and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly
ethics, not health.


>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>>>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll go ahead and do it:
>>> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
>>
>> All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
>> belief system.

Justin E. Miller
2008-02-21 10:38:42 EST
I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>> Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal.
>> I do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
>> front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick
>> to the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out
>> on that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.
>
> Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means not consuming
> any animal products at all, not just in your diet: no leather or wool
> garments, no lotions that contain lanolin, no products tested on
> animals, and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly ethics, not
> health.
>
>
>>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>>>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>>>>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll go ahead and do it:
>>>> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
>>>
>>> All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
>>> belief system.

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-21 10:48:24 EST
Justin E. Miller wrote:
> I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
> don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
> could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.

You seem as if you *do* care - that faced with your own
choice of what to wear on your feet, you would
consciously avoid leather.


>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>> Ok, so I'm a vegan. Why? Not because I give a crap about some animal.
>>> I do it for the dietary reasons. Would I rather have a giant steak in
>>> front of me? Hell yes I would. But it's just not healthy, so I stick
>>> to the vegan. It tastes good, so it's not like I'm really missing out
>>> on that much. Plus, milk gives me gas.
>>
>> Then you're a vegetarian, not a "vegan". "vegan" means not consuming
>> any animal products at all, not just in your diet: no leather or wool
>> garments, no lotions that contain lanolin, no products tested on
>> animals, and so on. The motive for "veganism" is supposedly ethics,
>> not health.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Justin E. Miller wrote:
>>>>>> I'm sorry, I fell asleep reading that...Can you sum it up in one
>>>>>> sentance? Actually, don't bother...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll go ahead and do it:
>>>>> 100% vegans are giving the 99.9% vegans a bad name.
>>>>
>>>> All "vegans" have a bad name, because "veganism" is an irrational
>>>> belief system.

Mr. Smartypants
2008-02-22 23:46:15 EST
On Feb 21, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> Justin E. Miller wrote:
> > I only wear the leather because I already had it, plus I'm military so I
> > don't really have a say in what type of combat boots I'm given. If I
> > could find it faux, I'd get it. Truthfully, I don't care though.
>
> You seem as if you *do* care - that faced with your own
> choice of what to wear on your feet, you would
> consciously avoid leather.
>

He already said he would if he could.

How stupid *are* you really?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron