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

FAQ: The Irrational 'Search For Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Posts: 68

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 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-05-15 15:49:13 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.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-05-15 16:38:41 EST
On May 16, 5:49 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> 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.



Yer an idiot, Boobs.


Laurie
2008-05-15 17:10:02 EST
Rudy Canoza 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.

Rudy Canoza predictably embarrasses himself yet again; his
claim "All "vegans" begin their belief ..." is totally bogus,
as is his normal style.
Vegans also stop consuming animal flesh for the well
documented positive health rewards. Thus the choice is
purely selfish, in that it reduces harm to the self. not
just to prey animals.
TCCampbell; The China Study
http://tinyurl.com/2v689m

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

Sumbeotch At Scumbum Dot Cum
2008-05-15 17:21:30 EST
not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....

do your reading.











"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message
news:DbSdnYhnkofWCbHVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> 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.



Sumbeotch At Scumbum Dot Cum
2008-05-15 17:22:01 EST
thank you.... i'm glad someone said it.. now where's their button they can
wear as an metal of honor?


























"Mr.Smartypants" <bcpg@canada.com> wrote in message
news:fb4b0ae2-4f4a-4ca8-a063-76a12b5f4a89@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 5:49 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> 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.



Yer an idiot, Boobs.



Sumbeotch At Scumbum Dot Cum
2008-05-15 17:22:18 EST
don't FEED the troll.































































"Laurie" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:8PGdnSQxzP0tO7HVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@posted.echolabs...
> Rudy Canoza 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.
>
> Rudy Canoza predictably embarrasses himself yet again; his
> claim "All "vegans" begin their belief ..." is totally bogus,
> as is his normal style.
> Vegans also stop consuming animal flesh for the well
> documented positive health rewards. Thus the choice is
> purely selfish, in that it reduces harm to the self. not
> just to prey animals.
> TCCampbell; The China Study
> http://tinyurl.com/2v689m
>
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
>
> Laurie
>
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science



Rudy Canoza
2008-05-15 21:20:54 EST
Larry Forti, complete and utter failure in business, lied:
> Rudy Canoza 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.
>
> Rudy Canoza predictably

gets it right.

Rudy Canoza
2008-05-15 21:21:23 EST
sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:
> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....

They are.


>
>
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message
> news:DbSdnYhnkofWCbHVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> 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.
>
>

Mr.Smartypants
2008-05-15 22:38:10 EST
On May 16, 11:20 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Larry Forti, complete and utter failure in business, lied:
>
> > Rudy Canoza 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.
>
> >     Rudy Canoza predictably
>
> gets it right.


You're mangling, Boobs.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-05-15 22:39:01 EST
On May 16, 11:21 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:
>
> > not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....
>
> They are.
>


You left out IMPORTANT MATERIAL, Boobs.





>
>
>
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message
> >news:DbSdnYhnkofWCbHVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


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