Vegetarian Discussion: Suffering Reduction

Suffering Reduction
Posts: 45

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)

Rupert
2012-04-04 01:04:15 EST
Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
possibly even increase suffering.

I have given my reasons for thinking this would not usually be the
case. For the great majority of meat-eaters, by going vegan they would
be reducing the amount of plant-based agriculture that has to take
place to produce their food, and also entirely eliminating the animal
agriculture required to produce it. Hence they would be reducing the
amount of suffering that takes place in order to produce their food.

There might be some people who eat a meat-based diet which requires no
more plant-based agriculture than a vegan diet. I believe that these
people are extremely rare. But for these people, it is conceivable
that no suffering reduction would be effected by going vegan. I find
it difficult to conceive of a situation where going vegan would be
likely to result in an increase in suffering. But let's say that could
happen as well.

The point is, for the vast majority of people, for people who are not
in extremely rare circumstances, it is rational to believe that going
vegan would be one good strategy (not necessarily the only one) for
reducing the amount of suffering that takes place in order to produce
your food. *And that is usually the main motivation*.

It's also pretty reasonable to believe that, for a great many people,
given the constraints they have on the amount of money and time they
can put into research, they're doing about as much as they can by way
of reducing the amount of suffering that takes place to produce their
food simply by being vegan. There just aren't any further steps you
could take, given the limited amount of information available, that
would be likely to have a significant further impact, short of extreme
measures like growing all your own food, or committing suicide.

The central proposition is not "Be vegan", the central proposition is
"Adopt a rational strategy with respect to suffering reduction". I am
always happy to listen to suggestions about how my strategy for
suffering reduction can be further improved.

George Plimpton
2012-04-04 16:17:28 EST
On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
> possibly even increase suffering.
>
> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]

The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths. Most claim
to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles. Those few who are aware of
animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither. In the end, as we
have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
*necessarily* true. So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.

The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do. If they really
were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
care to do it. Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
"irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)." They'll expend an
absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
more than a pose.

This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights". All
they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.

Rupert
2012-04-05 07:43:27 EST
On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
> > that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
> > possibly even increase suffering.
>
> > [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>
> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths.  Most claim
> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles.  Those few who are aware of
> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither.  In the end, as we
> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
> *necessarily* true.  So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>
> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do.  If they really
> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
> care to do it.  Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)."  They'll expend an
> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
>   The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
> more than a pose.
>
> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights".  All
> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.

You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
in the "irrational search for micrograms".

You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
genuinely interested in harm reduction. Some vegans do make an effort
to try and find out which plant-based products cause more harm and
accordingly avoid them. For those that don't it is probably because
the thought has not occurred to them or that they think it would be
unlikely that a significant reduction in harm could thereby be
effected. Which is probably true, it is unlikely that one could effect
much harm reduction that way, even if more research was done about the
matter. Also, investing resources in doing such research is not
necessarily the most effective way to bring about a reduction in
suffering.

I have taken an interest in trying to do something to reduce suffering
and have approached the question of how to do this in a rational way.
Lots of other vegans could say the same. You have no rational grounds
for saying otherwise.

Furthermore, it's very hard to make sense of your account of what
really motivates vegans. You seem to be claiming that somehow or other
they are interested in taking a moral stance without genuinely being
interested in harm reduction. But no sense can be made of such a moral
stance. Your views of vegans' motivations is based on an unrealistic
view of human psychology.

George Plimpton
2012-04-05 14:06:46 EST
On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
>>> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
>>> possibly even increase suffering.
>>
>>> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>>
>> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
>> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths. Most claim
>> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles. Those few who are aware of
>> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
>> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
>> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither. In the end, as we
>> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
>> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
>> *necessarily* true. So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>>
>> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
>> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do. If they really
>> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
>> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
>> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
>> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
>> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
>> care to do it. Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
>> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)." They'll expend an
>> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
>> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
>> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
>> The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
>> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
>> more than a pose.
>>
>> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
>> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights". All
>> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
>> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.
>
> You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
> are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
> vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
> in the "irrational search for micrograms".
>
> You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
> genuinely interested in harm reduction.

I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
doing nothing.

Rupert
2012-04-05 15:14:36 EST
On Apr 5, 8:06 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
> >>> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
> >>> possibly even increase suffering.
>
> >>> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>
> >> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
> >> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths.  Most claim
> >> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles.  Those few who are aware of
> >> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
> >> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
> >> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither.  In the end, as we
> >> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
> >> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
> >> *necessarily* true.  So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>
> >> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
> >> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do.  If they really
> >> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
> >> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
> >> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
> >> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
> >> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
> >> care to do it.  Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
> >> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)."  They'll expend an
> >> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
> >> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
> >> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
> >>    The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
> >> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
> >> more than a pose.
>
> >> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
> >> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights".  All
> >> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
> >> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.
>
> > You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
> > are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
> > vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
> > in the "irrational search for micrograms".
>
> > You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
> > genuinely interested in harm reduction.
>
> I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
> they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
> their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
> doing nothing.

What is it that you think they conclude about the meaning of
refraining from eating animal products?

George Plimpton
2012-04-05 15:33:09 EST
On 4/5/2012 12:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:06 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
>>>>> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
>>>>> possibly even increase suffering.
>>
>>>>> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>>
>>>> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
>>>> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths. Most claim
>>>> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles. Those few who are aware of
>>>> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
>>>> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
>>>> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither. In the end, as we
>>>> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
>>>> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
>>>> *necessarily* true. So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>>
>>>> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
>>>> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do. If they really
>>>> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
>>>> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
>>>> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
>>>> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
>>>> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
>>>> care to do it. Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
>>>> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)." They'll expend an
>>>> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
>>>> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
>>>> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
>>>> The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
>>>> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
>>>> more than a pose.
>>
>>>> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
>>>> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights". All
>>>> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
>>>> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.
>>
>>> You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
>>> are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
>>> vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
>>> in the "irrational search for micrograms".
>>
>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
>>> genuinely interested in harm reduction.
>>
>> I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
>> they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
>> their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
>> doing nothing.
>
> What is it that you think they conclude about the meaning of
> refraining from eating animal products?

I've been over all that with you before.

Rupert
2012-04-05 15:53:39 EST
On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:06 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
> >>>>> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
> >>>>> possibly even increase suffering.
>
> >>>>> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>
> >>>> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
> >>>> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths.  Most claim
> >>>> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles.  Those few who are aware of
> >>>> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
> >>>> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
> >>>> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither.  In the end, as we
> >>>> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
> >>>> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
> >>>> *necessarily* true.  So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>
> >>>> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
> >>>> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do.  If they really
> >>>> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
> >>>> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
> >>>> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
> >>>> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
> >>>> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
> >>>> care to do it.  Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
> >>>> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)."  They'll expend an
> >>>> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
> >>>> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
> >>>> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
> >>>>     The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
> >>>> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
> >>>> more than a pose.
>
> >>>> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
> >>>> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights".  All
> >>>> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
> >>>> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.
>
> >>> You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
> >>> are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
> >>> vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
> >>> in the "irrational search for micrograms".
>
> >>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
> >>> genuinely interested in harm reduction.
>
> >> I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
> >> they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
> >> their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
> >> doing nothing.
>
> > What is it that you think they conclude about the meaning of
> > refraining from eating animal products?
>
> I've been over all that with you before.

Suppose they conclude that they've made some efforts to reduce the
amount of suffering that takes place in order to produce their food,
and furthermore that they've done about all they can do in that regard
short of extreme measures. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion?

George Plimpton
2012-04-05 15:55:43 EST
On 4/5/2012 12:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/5/2012 12:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 8:06 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
>>>>>>> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
>>>>>>> possibly even increase suffering.
>>
>>>>>>> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>>
>>>>>> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
>>>>>> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths. Most claim
>>>>>> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles. Those few who are aware of
>>>>>> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
>>>>>> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
>>>>>> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither. In the end, as we
>>>>>> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
>>>>>> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
>>>>>> *necessarily* true. So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>>
>>>>>> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
>>>>>> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do. If they really
>>>>>> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
>>>>>> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
>>>>>> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
>>>>>> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
>>>>>> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
>>>>>> care to do it. Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
>>>>>> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)." They'll expend an
>>>>>> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
>>>>>> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
>>>>>> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
>>>>>> The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
>>>>>> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
>>>>>> more than a pose.
>>
>>>>>> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
>>>>>> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights". All
>>>>>> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
>>>>>> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.
>>
>>>>> You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
>>>>> are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
>>>>> vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
>>>>> in the "irrational search for micrograms".
>>
>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
>>>>> genuinely interested in harm reduction.
>>
>>>> I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
>>>> they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
>>>> their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
>>>> doing nothing.
>>
>>> What is it that you think they conclude about the meaning of
>>> refraining from eating animal products?
>>
>> I've been over all that with you before.
>
> Suppose they conclude that they've made some efforts to reduce the
> amount of suffering that takes place in order to produce their food,
> and furthermore that they've done about all they can do in that regard
> short of extreme measures. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion?

No, because it's not supported by the evidence.

Rupert
2012-04-05 16:32:01 EST
On Apr 5, 9:55 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/5/2012 12:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 5, 8:06 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
> >>>>>>> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
> >>>>>>> possibly even increase suffering.
>
> >>>>>>> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>
> >>>>>> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
> >>>>>> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths.  Most claim
> >>>>>> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles.  Those few who are aware of
> >>>>>> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
> >>>>>> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
> >>>>>> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither.  In the end, as we
> >>>>>> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
> >>>>>> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
> >>>>>> *necessarily* true.  So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>
> >>>>>> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
> >>>>>> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do.  If they really
> >>>>>> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
> >>>>>> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
> >>>>>> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
> >>>>>> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
> >>>>>> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
> >>>>>> care to do it.  Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
> >>>>>> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)."  They'll expend an
> >>>>>> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
> >>>>>> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
> >>>>>> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
> >>>>>>      The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
> >>>>>> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
> >>>>>> more than a pose.
>
> >>>>>> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
> >>>>>> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights".  All
> >>>>>> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
> >>>>>> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.
>
> >>>>> You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
> >>>>> are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
> >>>>> vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
> >>>>> in the "irrational search for micrograms".
>
> >>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
> >>>>> genuinely interested in harm reduction.
>
> >>>> I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
> >>>> they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
> >>>> their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
> >>>> doing nothing.
>
> >>> What is it that you think they conclude about the meaning of
> >>> refraining from eating animal products?
>
> >> I've been over all that with you before.
>
> > Suppose they conclude that they've made some efforts to reduce the
> > amount of suffering that takes place in order to produce their food,
> > and furthermore that they've done about all they can do in that regard
> > short of extreme measures. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion?
>
> No, because it's not supported by the evidence.

Why not?

George Plimpton
2012-04-05 17:15:46 EST
On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:55 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/5/2012 12:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:06 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:17 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 10:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Ball has been talking a lot lately about how it could conceivably be
>>>>>>>>> that some people would not reduce suffering by going vegan or would
>>>>>>>>> possibly even increase suffering.
>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip remaining self-serving wheeze]
>>
>>>>>>>> The first problem is "vegans" - all of them - always claim too much
>>>>>>>> merely by virtue of not putting animal bits in their mouths. Most claim
>>>>>>>> to be living "cruelty free" lifestyles. Those few who are aware of
>>>>>>>> animal CDs in agriculture abandon the silly "cruelty free" claim, but
>>>>>>>> fall back on something equally untenable such as "minimizing" or "doing
>>>>>>>> the best I can", when in fact they're doing neither. In the end, as we
>>>>>>>> have always seen, they can do *no* better than to claim, "At least I'm
>>>>>>>> doing better than meat eaters", and as we have shown, even that is not
>>>>>>>> *necessarily* true. So, the "vegan" claim to virtue is baseless.
>>
>>>>>>>> The second problem is that refraining from putting animal bits in their
>>>>>>>> mouths is *all* that the vast majority of "vegans" do. If they really
>>>>>>>> were interested in trying to achieve the greatest reduction in harm to
>>>>>>>> animals they could, we'd expect to see some investigation into which
>>>>>>>> vegetable and fruit crops are relatively lower in terms of harm to
>>>>>>>> animals, and a substitution of those in place of higher-harm produce,
>>>>>>>> but *NO* such investigation has ever been done...nor does any "vegan"
>>>>>>>> care to do it. Yet they *all* engage in what I long ago dubbed the
>>>>>>>> "irrational search for micrograms (of animal parts)." They'll expend an
>>>>>>>> absurd amount of time looking for the micrograms of squid ink in brined
>>>>>>>> black olives, or the milligram of anchovy in a bottle of Worcestershire
>>>>>>>> sauce, but not a bit of time getting high-CD produce out of their diets.
>>>>>>>> The irrational search for micrograms, in which *ALL* "vegans" engage,
>>>>>>>> is the proof of the bankruptcy of their moral pose - and it *is* nothing
>>>>>>>> more than a pose.
>>
>>>>>>>> This leads to the sound conclusion that "vegans" aren't really
>>>>>>>> interested in harm reduction nor in respecting animals' "rights". All
>>>>>>>> they're interested in is a moral stance, one in which they can flatter
>>>>>>>> themselves with the belief they're "better" than others.
>>
>>>>>>> You are engaging in sweeping generalisations about all vegans which
>>>>>>> are obviously not defensible. Different vegans are motivated to be
>>>>>>> vegan for different reasons. It is not the case that all vegans engage
>>>>>>> in the "irrational search for micrograms".
>>
>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that vegans are not
>>>>>>> genuinely interested in harm reduction.
>>
>>>>>> I do, because when it is shown that they cannot validly conclude what
>>>>>> they do about the meaning of refraining from putting animal bits in
>>>>>> their mouths, they just keep on making their discredited claims and
>>>>>> doing nothing.
>>
>>>>> What is it that you think they conclude about the meaning of
>>>>> refraining from eating animal products?
>>
>>>> I've been over all that with you before.
>>
>>> Suppose they conclude that they've made some efforts to reduce the
>>> amount of suffering that takes place in order to produce their food,
>>> and furthermore that they've done about all they can do in that regard
>>> short of extreme measures. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion?
>>
>> No, because it's not supported by the evidence.
>
> Why not?

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


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