Vegetarian Discussion: "The 'vegan' Shuffle"

"The 'vegan' Shuffle"
Posts: 36

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2013-05-08 01:58:23 EST
"vegans" just can't address this.

http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one

Rupert
2013-05-08 03:34:46 EST
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> "vegans" just can't address this.
>
>
>
> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one

He writes

"Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.

This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."

Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.

It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.

Derek
2013-05-08 05:18:05 EST
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
>He writes
>
>"Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
>This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>
>Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>
>It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.

For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
accrued during the production of my food are unintended.

Hope you had a good day yesterday! 37, eh? I'm 51 today.

Rupert
2013-05-08 06:19:22 EST
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:18:05 AM UTC+2, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> "vegans" just can't address this.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
> >
>
> >He writes
>
> >
>
> >"Extrapolating from that, it�s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
> >
>
> >This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don�t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven�t reduced it to the max."
>
> >
>
> >Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>
> >
>
> >It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.
>
>
>
> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>
> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>
>
>
> Hope you had a good day yesterday! 37, eh? I'm 51 today.

Happy birthday, Derek.

One of the mathematically interesting things about yesterday's birthday was that my age and my father's age are the first two irregular primes. (You can read about irregular primes on Wikipedia.)

Derek
2013-05-08 08:26:53 EST
On Wed, 8 May 2013 03:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:18:05 AM UTC+2, Derek wrote:
[]
>> Hope you had a good day yesterday! 37, eh? I'm 51 today.
>
>Happy birthday, Derek.

Cheers. They're perfect opportunities, aren't they, for getting all those
items you want but can't justify spending the cash on. This year I've been
/granted/ a pair of wireless headphones and a 35mm scanner for all those
hundreds, if not a couple of thousand, of photo negatives I've been keeping
all these years.

>One of the mathematically interesting things about yesterday's birthday was that my age and my father's age are the first two irregular primes. (You can read about irregular primes on Wikipedia.)

Sorry, no: I can't read a damn thing about them. I did try for a while but I
didn't really get anywhere. I failed get anywhere recently when reading a
paper on Dedekind domains as well. In fact I couldn't get started, to be
honest. You're weird.

George Plimpton
2013-05-08 12:03:24 EST
On 5/8/2013 12:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
> He writes
>
> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>
> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.

Not by being "vegan". If *all* you do in the area of reducing suffering
is to follow a "vegan" diet, then it would be better for you simply to
kill yourself. A meat eater might take other active steps to reduce
suffering with far more effect than a "vegan" who does nothing beyond
following a "vegan" diet.

As always, you're deliberately missing the point. All we need do to
realize that "veganism" is a worthless response is to note that not all
"vegan" diets cause the same amount of suffering. It is entirely
plausible that you follow the very worst "vegan" diet, out of all
possible "vegan" diets, in terms of the animal suffering you cause. I
suspect your particular "vegan" diet is actually worse than the average
of all "vegan" diets in terms of the suffering it causes, as you seem
not to care about animal suffering all that much.

D*@.
2013-05-08 13:10:21 EST
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>
>He writes

Why can you present examples from Goo's links, but not from your own? It's
not that you can't present quotes. It's that there's nothing at your links that
you feel is worth presenting.

>"Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.

I've been pointing out to you for years that veganism "helps" animals in the
same way that dead people help them. No way. Did you think I was lying all those
years?

>This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering

Yet you won't even consider anything that actually contributes to lives of
positive value for livestock animals, so why did you bother presenting that?

>(freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>
>Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.

I've been pointing out for years that buying cage free eggs is better than
doing nothing because that's the most CLEARLY OBVIOUS example I can think of so
it seems even you should be able to appreciate it. But no, you can't. Not even
close in fact. So I pointed out that the number of deaths in crop production
varies greatly from one situation to another in case you cared anything at all
about your contribution to the deaths of wildlife and you've shown that you
don't care about that either. A vegan who doesn't care about livestock or
wildlife is no better than a meat consumer who doesn't care about livestock or
wildlife.

George Plimpton
2013-05-08 15:17:28 EST
On 5/8/2013 10:10 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>
> I've been pointing out

No.


> to you for years that veganism "helps" animals in the
> same way that dead people help them. No way. Did you think I was lying all those
> years?

You were just posting pointless blabber, that's all.


George Plimpton
2013-05-08 15:34:49 EST
On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>
>> He writes
>>
>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>>
>> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>>
>> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>>
>> It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.
>
> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.

Many of them are intended. Some animals are actively exterminated to
ensure a larger harvest. In any case, it's a little hard to continue to
maintain that expected collateral deaths are unintended.

Intent can't be the only thing that matters. Suppose 1,000 sentient
animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
intend them to die or not.

The point of the "vegan shuffle" post is to show that "vegans" keep
flip-flopping back and forth between rights and suffering, and it serves
to gut their entire stance.


Derek
2013-05-08 19:16:06 EST
On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:34:49 -0700, George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote:

>On 5/8/2013 2:18 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:58:23 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> "vegans" just can't address this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and-one
>>>
>>> He writes
>>>
>>> "Extrapolating from that, it’s not that each of us must reduce suffering to the maximum amount we possibly can, since that would require suicide (which Norris rejects as a necessity), freeganism (eating only foods that would otherwise go to waste), not having kids or any other option that reduces suffering more than the consumer veganism that vegans promote.
>>>
>>> This logic suggests we have no obligation to be vegan. For one thing, there are better ways than veganism for individuals to reduce suffering (freeganism being an indisputable case of this). Furthermore, because there are these better ways and vegans still insist that giving up animal products is enough, this shows that it is okay to reduce suffering to some extent without going all the way. The only obligation is to cause less suffering than the maximum amount of suffering you could cause. You don’t even need to reduce suffering as much as vegans do, then, because the suffering reduction level that satisfies them is arbitrary, since they haven’t reduced it to the max."
>>>
>>> Reducing suffering to the maximum possible extent would not require suicide. One can be more effective at reducing suffering by staying alive.
>>>
>>> It's not really helpful to focus on the question of what extent of suffering reduction is obligatory. If it is agreed that suffering reduction is a desirable goal, then it can be rational to be vegan and promote veganism as one reasonable strategy for trying to achieve this goal. There may be other strategies which are at least equally good. The question "but what is it that each of us is obliged to do?" is a red herring, really.
>>
>> For me, it's *all* about intent. Intent matters. The collateral deaths
>> accrued during the production of my food are unintended.
>
>Many of them are intended.

Not by me. By definition, collateral deaths are unforeseen and
unintentional. Intent is all-important to me. You've conceded in the past
that I shouldn't think that buying vegetables is morally wrong, on the basis
that intent matters.

[Rupert wrote]
> By that logic you should also say that Derek thinks that buying
> vegetables is morally wrong.
[you wrote]
Nope. Intent matters.
[end]
George Plimpton Nov 15 2012 http://tinyurl.com/chano27

>Some animals are actively exterminated to
>ensure a larger harvest. In any case, it's a little hard to continue to
>maintain that expected collateral deaths are unintended.

Well, I certainly don't intend them.

>Intent can't be the only thing that matters.

It is for me. Like I said, "For me, it's *all* about intent."

>Suppose 1,000 sentient
>animals are killed every month for your meals, and only one for mine.
>It simply has to be worse for more sentient animals to die, whether you
>intend them to die or not.

I still wouldn't be able to intentionally kill animals for food, even under
those circumstances; they hold a right against me not to be used for my food
preferences. To paraphrase your argument, suppose 1000 children are killed
every month for your meals during crop production, and only one for mine
because I eat children. It would certainly be worse for more children to
die, whether you intend them to die or not, but I still doubt you would
switch from eating vegetables to children because of those deaths. They too
hold an inalienable right not to be used for your food preferences. You
couldn't do it.

>The point of the "vegan shuffle" post is to show that "vegans" keep
>flip-flopping back and forth between rights and suffering, and it serves
>to gut their entire stance.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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