"veganism" is bullshit

[George Plimpton]

“Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
response is ethically empty.

All “vegans” start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
denying the antecedent:

If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.

I do not consume any animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.

The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field –
usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.

All “vegans” also begin by saying they live a “cruelty free
‘lifestyle’”, but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
collateral deaths elaborated above. Most “vegans” retreat from that
position to the weaker claim that they at least “minimize” animal
suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the
typical “vegan” diet, but even if one looks only at “vegan” diets, it is
obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a
“vegan” excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,
he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.

The next retreat is to the claim of “doing the best I can,” but again
that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
an improvement.

In the end, the “vegan” has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
of all: “I’m doing better than you meat eaters.” That makes virtue into
a comparison with others, and that is morally repugnant. It also isn’t
true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
others; it consists solely in doing what is right. It isn’t true
because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
is lower harm than the typical “vegan” diet. The perversion comes from
observing that even if the “vegan” is causing less harm than an
omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
virtuous. How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
virtuous?

“Veganism” is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
based wholly on self-exaltation.

[Mr.Smartypants]

On Mar 8, 2:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

<nothing that made any sense at all>


Have you found any of the choice cuts from the EXTRA livestock,
Gooberdoodle?

[Rupert]

On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> “Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
> response is ethically empty.
>

People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.

> All “vegans” start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
> denying the antecedent:
>
>       If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
>       I do not consume any animal parts;
>
>       therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>

That's not true. I am someone who went vegan while fully aware that
this did not mean that suffering and death was not caused in order to
produce my food. There must be many more like me.

> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field –
> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>
> All “vegans” also begin by saying they live a “cruelty free
> ‘lifestyle’”, but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most “vegans” retreat from that
> position to the weaker claim that they at least “minimize” animal
> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the
> typical “vegan” diet, but even if one looks only at “vegan” diets, it is
> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a
> “vegan” excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,
> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>

But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops, and
there is no reason to think that doing the research so that reliable
information becomes available would be a wise investment of time and
resources from the point of view of reducing suffering.

> The next retreat is to the claim of “doing the best I can,” but again
> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
> an improvement.
>

There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
the problem.

It is reasonable for me to claim that I am doing the best I can given
that I am going to stay employed in my current job.

> In the end, the “vegan” has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
> of all: “I’m doing better than you meat eaters.” That makes virtue into
> a comparison with others,

Why?

Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
of view of reducing harm. To point out this fact is not to make any
claims about what is and is not virtuous.

What evidence do you have that any vegan ever claimed to be virtuous
*simply because* they were doing better than most meat eaters?

> and that is morally repugnant.

It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.

> It also isn’t
> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.

That is true. And you have no especially good reason to think that
vegans are not simply trying to do the best they can from the point of
view of reducing suffering, without having any interest in comparing
themselves to how others are doing.

> It isn’t true
> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
> is lower harm than the typical “vegan” diet.

This is possible but you've never really demonstrated this claim. If
someone who ate meat was reducing suffering just as much as the
typical vegan, then the vegan shouldn't claim to be reducing suffering
more than that meat-eater, and you have no evidence to show that any
vegan ever did make such an erroneous claim.

> The perversion comes from
> observing that even if the “vegan” is causing less harm than an
> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
> virtuous.

You have no good reason for thinking so. This is a straw man that you
made up.

> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
> virtuous?
>
> “Veganism” is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
> based wholly on self-exaltation.

Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
suffering, myself included. You've given no good reason why that is a
bad or irrational thing to do.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> “Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
>> response is ethically empty.
>>
>
> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.

There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
per se.

>> All “vegans” start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
>> denying the antecedent:
>>
>> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>> I do not consume any animal parts;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>
> That's not true.

It is true.

>> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
>> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
>> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field –
>> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
>> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
>> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>>
>> All “vegans” also begin by saying they live a “cruelty free
>> ‘lifestyle’”, but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
>> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most “vegans” retreat from that
>> position to the weaker claim that they at least “minimize” animal
>> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
>> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
>> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the
>> typical “vegan” diet, but even if one looks only at “vegan” diets, it is
>> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a
>> “vegan” excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,
>> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>>
>
> But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
> the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops,

Irrelevant. If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
validly be made.

"vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.

>> The next retreat is to the claim of “doing the best I can,” but again
>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>> an improvement.
>>
>
> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
> the problem.

That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.

>> In the end, the “vegan” has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>> of all: “I’m doing better than you meat eaters.” That makes virtue into
>> a comparison with others,
>
> Why?

What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?

> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
> of view of reducing harm.

Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
*solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
others is itself immoral.

Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
that is not to sodomize the boy ever.

>> and that is morally repugnant.
>
> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.

It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.

>
>> It also isn’t
>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>
> That is true.

But "vegans" violate it. They declare themselves virtuous because they
believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
something that is flatly wrong is zero.

>> It isn’t true
>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
>> is lower harm than the typical “vegan” diet.
>
> This is possible

Yes.

>> The perversion comes from
>> observing that even if the “vegan” is causing less harm than an
>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
>> virtuous.
>
> You have no good reason for thinking so.

I do. It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue. Given that she
sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?

In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. And it *is*, of course, a given
that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
animal death and suffering. Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.

>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>> virtuous?
>>
>> “Veganism” is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>
> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
> suffering, myself included.

You have no valid reason for believing it does so.

[Rupert]

On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> “Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
> >> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
> >> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
> >> response is ethically empty.
>
> > People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
> > to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
> > is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>
> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
> per se.
>

So you claim. That is a matter which is disputed by reasonable people.
In any event it looks as though you don't wish to contradict the
statement that I made.

> >> All “vegans” start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of
> >> denying the antecedent:
>
> >>        If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>        I do not consume any animal parts;
>
> >>        therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> > That's not true.
>
> It is true.
>

How do you know?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
> >> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
> >> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field –
> >> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
> >> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
> >> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>
> >> All “vegans” also begin by saying they live a “cruelty free
> >> ‘lifestyle’”, but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
> >> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most “vegans” retreat from that
> >> position to the weaker claim that they at least “minimize” animal
> >> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
> >> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
> >> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the
> >> typical “vegan” diet, but even if one looks only at “vegan” diets, it is
> >> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a
> >> “vegan” excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,
> >> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>
> > But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
> > the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops,
>
> Irrelevant.  If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
> validly be made.
>

You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
further information, to follow a diet that minimises the expected
contribution to suffering and premature death, relative to your
epistemic situation, given that you don't wish to make extreme
sacrifices like quitting your job and growing all your own food.
That's what I believe I'm doing. If you don't agree, the only reason I
would be interested is if you can actually offer constructive
suggestions for how I could be doing better.

> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>

Some do, some don't. Those that try to do it generally find that no
reliable information is available at the moment.

> >> The next retreat is to the claim of “doing the best I can,” but again
> >> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
> >> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
> >> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
> >> an improvement.
>
> > There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
> > but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
> > what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
> > the problem.
>
> That's a lie.  You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>

I do do something. I use Google to try to find studies that have been
done on the matter and talk about the issues on discussion forums with
other people who are interested in the question of trying to reduce
suffering.

You don't have any idea of what I do or do not do. Why do you suppose
you do?

> >> In the end, the “vegan” has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
> >> of all: “I’m doing better than you meat eaters.” That makes virtue into
> >> a comparison with others,
>
> > Why?
>
> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>

Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.

> > Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
> > of view of reducing harm.
>
> Not proved, but that's not the point.  Declaring oneself virtuous
> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
> others is itself immoral.
>

But that is not what was in question here. Making an assertion about a
nonmoral fact (or an alleged nonmoral fact if you prefer to call it
that), is not making any claim to be virtuous.

I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
than others is immoral, I just think it's incorrect. But the point is
moot, because you have offered no good evidence that anyone is doing
that.

> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
> mean you're virtuous.  The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>

Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
believe anyone's ever argued with you there.

> >> and that is morally repugnant.
>
> > It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>
> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>

Do you have any arguments to offer for this point of view?

>
>
> >> It also isn’t
> >> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
> >> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
> >> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>
> > That is true.
>
> But "vegans" violate it.  They declare themselves virtuous because they
> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>

Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
to be virtuous?

> >> It isn’t true
> >> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that
> >> is lower harm than the typical “vegan” diet.
>
> > This is possible
>
> Yes.
>
> >> The perversion comes from
> >> observing that even if the “vegan” is causing less harm than an
> >> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
> >> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
> >> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
> >> virtuous.
>
> > You have no good reason for thinking so.
>
> I do.  It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.

What vegan claim of virtue? That's the point; where's the evidence
that this claim you keep talking about has ever actually been made?

> Given that she
> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>

I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
themselves to be virtuous. I think it's entirely the product of your
imagination.

> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do.  And it *is*, of course, a given
> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
> animal death and suffering.

And why would that be?

> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>

I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy, I've only
just met him. He seems to have the idea that there is some moral wrong
in which you are engaged which he is refraining from altogether. I
doubt that he can defend this claim, but that's between you and him.
However, it would not be correct to characterise his view as being
that he is virtuous just because he causes less suffering. If he
wanted to put forward a claim that he was virtuous (and I haven't seen
him do that) he would defend it on some other grounds.

> >> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
> >> virtuous?
>
> >> “Veganism” is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
> >> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>
> > Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
> > suffering, myself included.
>
> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.

I think I do. I think that I have read reliable information about the
suffering that animals endure on modern factory farms, as well as
having been in some myself and also viewed a lot of video footage of
factory farms and slaughterhouses, and I think I have good reason to
believe that modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering.
Furthermore I think I also have good reason to believe that, in the
case of most animal food products, more crop production is required,
and therefore more CDs from crop production, in order to produce a
serving of the animal food product than in order to produce a
calorically equivalent serving of plant-based food product. There may
be some exceptions, rice may involve a lot of harm, for example, and
grass-fed beef not very much, although it may be difficult to be sure
that any beef you buy is really 100% grass-fed. I think that I have
good reason to believe that being vegan is a good way to reduce the
amount of suffering and premature death required to produce my food. I
also think that there is not a lot I could do to make any further
reduction, short of making extreme sacrifices like quitting my job and
joining a commune.

If you think that I am mistaken about this then perhaps you can show
me where I've gone wrong.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>> �Veganism� *is* bullshit. Here�s why. It claims to be an ethical

>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
>>>> response is ethically empty.
>>
>>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
>>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
>>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>>
>> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
>> per se.
>>
>
> So you claim.

It's so.

Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.


>>>> All �vegans� start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of

>>>> denying the antecedent:
>>
>>>> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>>> I do not consume any animal parts;
>>
>>>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>>
>>> That's not true.
>>
>> It is true.
>>
>
> How do you know?

I've seen it from every "vegan".

>>
>>>> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
>>>> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture

>>>> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field �

>>>> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
>>>> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
>>>> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>>

>>>> All �vegans� also begin by saying they live a �cruelty free
>>>> �lifestyle��, but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
>>>> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most �vegans� retreat from that
>>>> position to the weaker claim that they at least �minimize� animal

>>>> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
>>>> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
>>>> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the

>>>> typical �vegan� diet, but even if one looks only at �vegan� diets, it is

>>>> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a

>>>> �vegan� excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,

>>>> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>>
>>> But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
>>> the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops,
>>
>> Irrelevant. If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
>> validly be made.
>>
>
> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
> further information,

No.

>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>>
>
> Some do, some don't.

None do.


>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of �doing the best I can,� but again

>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>>>> an improvement.
>>
>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
>>> the problem.
>>
>> That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>>
>
> I do do something.

You do nothing.


>>>> In the end, the �vegan� has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>>>> of all: �I�m doing better than you meat eaters.� That makes virtue into

>>>> a comparison with others,
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>>
>
> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.

It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
eaters", you fucking retard. From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
are looking to declare their virtue. They're declaring it when they
dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." They're
declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." They're declaring it
when they say they're "doing the best they can." And they're declaring
it when they say "I'm doing better than you."

The *entire* fucking charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
stupid cunt.

>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
>>> of view of reducing harm.
>>
>> Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
>> others is itself immoral.
>>
>
> But that is not what was in question here.

It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you fucking twat.

> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
> than others is immoral,

It is.

>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
>> mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>>
>
> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.

That stupid cunt Skanky did.

>>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>>
>>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>>
>> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>>
>>

>>>> It also isn�t

>>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
>>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
>>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>>
>>> That is true.
>>
>> But "vegans" violate it. They declare themselves virtuous because they
>> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
>> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>>
>
> Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
> to be virtuous?

HA HA HA HA HA! Good one, Woopert. I needed that laugh.


>>>> It isn�t true

>>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that

>>>> is lower harm than the typical �vegan� diet.

>>
>>> This is possible
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> The perversion comes from

>>>> observing that even if the �vegan� is causing less harm than an

>>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
>>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
>>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
>>>> virtuous.
>>
>>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>>
>> I do. It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>
> What vegan claim of virtue

The one that underlies the whole fucking agenda, you twat. The one that
cunt "glen/mark" just made this week.

>> Given that she
>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>>
>
> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
> themselves to be virtuous.

It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.

>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. And it *is*, of course, a given
>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
>> animal death and suffering.
>
> And why would that be?

Because that's what drew these twats to "veganism" in the first place.

>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy

Stop with the denial.

>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>>>> virtuous?
>>

>>>> �Veganism� is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose

>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>>
>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
>>> suffering, myself included.
>>
>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>
> I think I do.

You don't.

[Rupert]

On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:03 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 10:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 8, 10:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:

> >>>> Veganism *is* bullshit. Here s why. It claims to be an ethical

> >>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
> >>>> is an ethical problem in the human use of animals per se, and 2) the
> >>>> response is ethically empty.
>
> >>> People who are confronted with the facts about what actually happens
> >>> to animals who are used for human ends generally do agree that there
> >>> is a fairly serious ethical problem with it.
>
> >> There is no inherent ethical problem concerning the human use of animals
> >> per se.
>
> > So you claim.
>
> It's so.
>
> Not you nor anyone else has ever shown the contrary.
>

> >>>> All vegans start by committing a logical fallacy, the fallacy of

> >>>> denying the antecedent:
>
> >>>>         If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>>>         I do not consume any animal parts;
>
> >>>>         therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death of animals.
>
> >>> That's not true.
>
> >> It is true.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> I've seen it from every "vegan".
>

Not from me you haven't.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> The conclusion is wrong because consuming animal parts is not the only
> >>>> way in which animals are caused to suffer and die. Crop agriculture
> >>>> kills and maims uncounted millions of wild animals of the field

> >>>> usually not as large as the largest livestock, but millions of bird,
> >>>> reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals; even animals as large as deer
> >>>> are routinely killed by crop machinery. So, the conclusion is false.
>

> >>>> All vegans also begin by saying they live a cruelty free
> >>>> lifestyle , but this is also bullshit, due to the fact of animal
> >>>> collateral deaths elaborated above. Most vegans retreat from that
> >>>> position to the weaker claim that they at least minimize animal

> >>>> suffering and death, but that is also bullshit. To minimize, they must
> >>>> count, and no one does that. It is conceivable to follow a
> >>>> meat-including diet that actually causes less harm to animals than the

> >>>> typical vegan diet, but even if one looks only at vegan diets, it is

> >>>> obvious that some food crops cause less harm than others; unless a

> >>>> vegan excludes everything but the least-harm vegetables from his diet,

> >>>> he cannot be said to be minimizing the harm he causes.
>
> >>> But it is not possible at present to get reliable information about
> >>> the different amounts of harm caused by the different food crops,
>
> >> Irrelevant.  If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
> >> validly be made.
>
> > You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
> > limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
> > further information,
>
> No.
>

Why not?

> >> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>
> > Some do, some don't.
>
> None do.
>

How do you know?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again

> >>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
> >>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
> >>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
> >>>> an improvement.
>
> >>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
> >>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
> >>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
> >>> the problem.
>
> >> That's a lie.  You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
> >> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
> >> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>
> > I do do something.
>
> You do nothing.
>

How could you possibly know, and why do you suppose anyone would be
interested in your pronouncements about the matter which are obviously
not made on the basis of adequate information?

> >>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
> >>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into

> >>>> a comparison with others,
>
> >>> Why?
>
> >> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>
> > Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>
> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
> eaters", you fucking retard.  From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
> are looking to declare their virtue.  They're declaring it when they
> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'."  They're
> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing."  They're declaring it
> when they say they're "doing the best they can."  And they're declaring
> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>
> The *entire* fucking charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
> stupid cunt.
>

Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
reduce animal suffering, and that they're not really all that
interested in the question of whether they're more virtuous than you
or not, although you certainly seem to be?

> >>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
> >>> of view of reducing harm.
>
> >> Not proved, but that's not the point.  Declaring oneself virtuous
> >> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
> >> others is itself immoral.
>
> > But that is not what was in question here.
>
> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you fucking twat.
>

You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.
Obviously this idea you have that vegans want to declare themselves
more virtuous than you is what bugs you about the whole thing, but
there is no good reason to think that any vegan is interested in that
issue. Vegans are interested in trying to make efforts to reduce
animal suffering and persuade others to do likewise.

> > I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
> > virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
> > than others is immoral,
>
> It is.
>

I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
completely unargued assertions from you.

> >> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
> >> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
> >> mean you're virtuous.  The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
> >> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>
> > Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
> > believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>
> That stupid cunt Skanky did.
>

Fascinating.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> and that is morally repugnant.
>
> >>> It's not really all that morally repugnant, just incorrect.
>
> >> It is repugnant to any right-thinking person.
>

> >>>> It also isn t

> >>>> true, and it also yields perverse results. The claim is morally
> >>>> repugnant because virtue never consists in comparing one's behavior with
> >>>> others; it consists solely in doing what is right.
>
> >>> That is true.
>
> >> But "vegans" violate it.  They declare themselves virtuous because they
> >> believe they do less of something wrong, when the only correct amount of
> >> something that is flatly wrong is zero.
>
> > Do you have the least shred of evidence that vegans declare themselves
> > to be virtuous?
>
> HA HA HA HA HA!   Good one, Woopert.  I needed that laugh.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >>>> It isn t true

> >>>> because it is possible, as I said, to follow a meat-including diet that

> >>>> is lower harm than the typical vegan diet.

>
> >>> This is possible
>
> >> Yes.
>
> >>>> The perversion comes from

> >>>> observing that even if the vegan is causing less harm than an

> >>>> omnivore, his criterion for determining virtue would allow him to
> >>>> INCREASE the amount of harm he causes to animals, but as long as it
> >>>> remains less than that of omnivores, he would pronounce himself still
> >>>> virtuous.
>
> >>> You have no good reason for thinking so.
>
> >> I do.  It is intrinsic to the "vegan" claim of virtue.
>
> > What vegan claim of virtue
>
> The one that underlies the whole fucking agenda, you twat.  The one that
> cunt "glen/mark" just made this week.
>

I must have missed it.

I really am not aware of any evidence that vegans have any interest in
proving themselves to be virtuous. I think they are interested in
trying to do something about animal suffering. Your constant
declarations otherwise strike me as without rational foundation.

> >> Given that she
> >> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
> >> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
> >> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
> >> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>
> > I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
> > themselves to be virtuous.
>
> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>
> >> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do.  And it *is*, of course, a given
> >> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
> >> animal death and suffering.
>
> > And why would that be?
>
> Because that's what drew these twats to "veganism" in the first place.
>

The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
about animal suffering. It's utterly absurd to suppose otherwise.

> >>   Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> >> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>
> > I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>
> Stop with the denial.
>

He's obviously not my good buddy, you stupid fool. He's someone I met
about a week ago, who happens to be a vegan like me, with whom I have
some significant points of disagreement, and about whom I have no
strong feelings one way or the other. Do you suppose that Derek is my
good buddy just because he is a vegan?

> >>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
> >>>> virtuous?
>

> >>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose

> >>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>
> >>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
> >>> suffering, myself included.
>
> >> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>
> > I think I do.
>
> You don't.

Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?

[George Plimpton]

I sure have. It's like traces of the Big Bang: still detectable even
though it occurred long in the past.

Why would you be able to? I've already shown that you're not, that you
don't even wish to do so.

>>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>>
>>> Some do, some don't.
>>
>> None do.
>>
>
> How do you know?

They tell me.

Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you fuckwits?

>>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
>>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>>>>>> an improvement.
>>
>>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
>>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
>>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
>>>>> the problem.
>>
>>>> That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
>>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
>>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>>
>>> I do do something.
>>
>> You do nothing.
>>
>
> How could you possibly know,

You tell me. You've already explained that any effort whatever would
take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.

>>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
>>>>>> a comparison with others,
>>
>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>>
>>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>>
>> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
>> eaters", you fucking retard. From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
>> are looking to declare their virtue. They're declaring it when they
>> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." They're
>> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." They're declaring it
>> when they say they're "doing the best they can." And they're declaring
>> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>>
>> The *entire* fucking charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
>> stupid cunt.
>>
>
> Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
> reduce animal suffering

They aren't. It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.

>>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
>>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>>
>>>> Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
>>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
>>>> others is itself immoral.
>>
>>> But that is not what was in question here.
>>
>> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you fucking twat.
>>
>
> You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.

Of course I have. I have identified people by name who come here and do
that. This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.

>>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
>>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
>>> than others is immoral,
>>
>> It is.
>>
>
> I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
> completely unargued assertions from you.

But you will, rupie - you will! You always do.

>>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
>>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
>>>> mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
>>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>>
>>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
>>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>>
>> That stupid cunt Skanky did.
>>
>
> Fascinating.

Not really. Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
sodomize the child more often. Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
believe that.

You miss all the important stuff.

>>>> Given that she
>>>> sanctimoniously declares herself virtuous for allegedly causing less
>>>> harm to animals, why wouldn't the "vegan" continue to declare herself
>>>> virtuous if her CD toll rose, as long as it remains below what she
>>>> imagines to be the death toll for omnivores?
>>
>>> I'm not aware of any evidence that any vegan has ever declared
>>> themselves to be virtuous.
>>
>> It's intrinsic to the entire bullshit proposition.
>>
>>>> In fact, that is exactly what she'd do. And it *is*, of course, a given
>>>> that the "vegan" declares herself virtuous for supposedly causing less
>>>> animal death and suffering.
>>
>>> And why would that be?
>>
>> Because that's what drew these twats to "veganism" in the first place.
>>
>
> The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
> about animal suffering.

It's not. It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.

>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>
> He's obviously not my good buddy,

Oh, but he is!

>>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>>>>>> virtuous?
>>
>>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
>>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
>>>>> suffering, myself included.
>>
>>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>>
>>> I think I do.
>>
>> You don't.
>
> Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?

Given already.

[Rupert]

You haven't shown any such thing.

It's not possible for you to demonstrate what I do or don't do, Ball.
You don't have any way of having any insight into the matter. You need
to get a better grip on reality.

> >>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>
> >>> Some do, some don't.
>
> >> None do.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> They tell me.
>
> Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
> be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you fuckwits?
>

I know that I have made some effort to obtain the information and some
other people I have met on the Internet have as well. I have every
reason to believe that there a large number of other vegans out there
whom I have never met who have also done so.

> >>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
> >>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
> >>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
> >>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
> >>>>>> an improvement.
>
> >>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
> >>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
> >>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
> >>>>> the problem.
>
> >>>> That's a lie.  You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
> >>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
> >>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>
> >>> I do do something.
>
> >> You do nothing.
>
> > How could you possibly know,
>
> You tell me.  You've already explained that any effort whatever would
> take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.
>

Wrong. I have not told you any such thing.

> >>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
> >>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
> >>>>>> a comparison with others,
>
> >>>>> Why?
>
> >>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>
> >>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>
> >> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
> >> eaters", you fucking retard.  From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
> >> are looking to declare their virtue.  They're declaring it when they
> >> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'."  They're
> >> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing."  They're declaring it
> >> when they say they're "doing the best they can."  And they're declaring
> >> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>
> >> The *entire* fucking charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
> >> stupid cunt.
>
> > Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
> > reduce animal suffering
>
> They aren't.  It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
> pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.
>

So you apparently desperately want to believe for some reason.

> >>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
> >>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>
> >>>> Not proved, but that's not the point.  Declaring oneself virtuous
> >>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
> >>>> others is itself immoral.
>
> >>> But that is not what was in question here.
>
> >> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you fucking twat.
>
> > You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.
>
> Of course I have.  I have identified people by name who come here and do
> that.  This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.
>

Where did Glen declare himself to be virtuous?

> >>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
> >>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
> >>> than others is immoral,
>
> >> It is.
>
> > I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
> > completely unargued assertions from you.
>
> But you will, rupie - you will!  You always do.
>
> >>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
> >>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
> >>>> mean you're virtuous.  The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
> >>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>
> >>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
> >>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>
> >> That stupid cunt Skanky did.
>
> > Fascinating.
>
> Not really.  Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
> that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
> sodomize the child more often.  Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
> believe that.
>

There are degrees of wrongness, and it is more wrong to sodomise the
child more often, and Adolf Hitler's conduct was even more wrong
still. This is completely obvious. It is also completely obvious that
this does not mean that the person who sodomises the child less often
is virtuous, and Skunky almost certainly realised that. Once again,
you demonstrate your incapacity to represent people's views
correctly.

As I have said before, you strike me as an extremely irrational
person.

> >>>>    Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> >>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>
> >>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>
> >> Stop with the denial.
>
> > He's obviously not my good buddy,
>
> Oh, but he is!
>

Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
idea, which is obviously without the slightest rational foundation.

> >>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
> >>>>>> virtuous?
>
> >>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
> >>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>
> >>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
> >>>>> suffering, myself included.
>
> >>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>
> >>> I think I do.
>
> >> You don't.
>
> > Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
>
> Given already.

Where?

[George Plimpton]

>>>>>> Irrelevant. If the data aren't there, no claim about "minimizing can
>>>>>> validly be made.
>>
>>>>> You can make a claim that you are doing the best you can, given the
>>>>> limited information available and limited resources you have to gather
>>>>> further information,
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> Why would you be able to? I've already shown that you're not, that you
>> don't even wish to do so.
>>
>
> You haven't shown any such thing.

I have.

>>>>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>>
>>>>> Some do, some don't.
>>
>>>> None do.
>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>> They tell me.
>>
>> Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
>> be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you fuckwits?
>>
>
> I know that I have made some effort to obtain the information

No, you haven't. You've asked Dutch and me, and even Fuckwit, to get it
for you.

>>>>>>>> The next retreat is to the claim of doing the best I can, but again
>>>>>>>> that is bullshit, for the same reason: unless one has undertaken to
>>>>>>>> measure the harm, it is unlikely one is doing the best one can; there
>>>>>>>> must be *some* change, say less rice and more soybeans, that would yield
>>>>>>>> an improvement.
>>
>>>>>>> There might be some changes that would yield an improvement in my diet
>>>>>>> but there is no reason to think that it is within my power to find out
>>>>>>> what they are unless I quit my job and take up full-time research into
>>>>>>> the problem.
>>
>>>>>> That's a lie. You could do *something* to try to learn about lower CD
>>>>>> vegetables, but you do nothing, and you use this bullshit about "I'd
>>>>>> have to quit my job" as a catch-all excuse.
>>
>>>>> I do do something.
>>
>>>> You do nothing.
>>
>>> How could you possibly know,
>>
>> You tell me. You've already explained that any effort whatever would
>> take you away from the things you prefer to do with your time.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, it's right.

>>>>>>>> In the end, the vegan has to retreat to the nastiest, vilest position
>>>>>>>> of all: I m doing better than you meat eaters. That makes virtue into
>>>>>>>> a comparison with others,
>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>> What does "I'm doing better than you meat eaters" mean, idiot?
>>
>>>>> Exactly what it says. Note that no reference to virtue is made.
>>
>>>> It's the entire reason for saying "I'm doing better than you meat
>>>> eaters", you fucking retard. From the very beginning, *all* "vegans"
>>>> are looking to declare their virtue. They're declaring it when they
>>>> dishonestly say they live "cruelty free 'lifestyles'." They're
>>>> declaring it when they say they're "minimizing." They're declaring it
>>>> when they say they're "doing the best they can." And they're declaring
>>>> it when they say "I'm doing better than you."
>>
>>>> The *entire* fucking charade is about declaring themselves virtuous, you
>>>> stupid cunt.
>>
>>> Has it occurred to you that they might just be interested in trying to
>>> reduce animal suffering
>>
>> They aren't. It's about trying to put themselves on a fake moral
>> pedestal, and using a sham about reducing suffering as the justification.
>>
>

> So you apparently want to believe

Because it is true.

>>>>>>> Vegans *do* generally do better than most meat eaters from the point
>>>>>>> of view of reducing harm.
>>
>>>>>> Not proved, but that's not the point. Declaring oneself virtuous
>>>>>> *solely* because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong than
>>>>>> others is itself immoral.
>>
>>>>> But that is not what was in question here.
>>
>>>> It is *exactly* what is in question *HERE*, you fucking twat.
>>
>>> You've offered no evidence that anyone's declared themselves virtuous.
>>
>> Of course I have. I have identified people by name who come here and do
>> that. This most recent shitbag, "glen/mark", is an example.
>>
>
> Where did Glen declare himself to be virtuous?

In one of his later posts, when he said he lived a "cruelty free
'lifestyle'."

>>>>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
>>>>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
>>>>> than others is immoral,
>>
>>>> It is.
>>
>>> I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
>>> completely unargued assertions from you.
>>
>> But you will, rupie - you will! You always do.
>>
>>>>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
>>>>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
>>>>>> mean you're virtuous. The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
>>>>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>>
>>>>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
>>>>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>>
>>>> That stupid cunt Skanky did.
>>
>>> Fascinating.
>>
>> Not really. Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
>> that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
>> sodomize the child more often. Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
>> believe that.
>>
>
> There are degrees of wrongness,

There are not. There are degrees of badness, but not wrongness.
Wrongness is binary: something is wrong, or it isn't - full stop.

> and it is more wrong to sodomise the
> child more often,

Nope. It is wrong to sodomize the child, full stop. It is *worse* to
do it more often, but it isn't "more wrong." Don't be an even bigger
dope than you already are.

It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.

>>>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>>>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>>
>> Oh, but he is!
>>
>
> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
> idea,

Not when it's right.

>>>>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
>>>>>>>> virtuous?
>>
>>>>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
>>>>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
>>>>>>> suffering, myself included.
>>
>>>>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>>
>>>>> I think I do.
>>
>>>> You don't.
>>
>>> Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
>>
>> Given already.
>
> Where?

a.a.e.v.

[Rupert]

What were the reasons you offered for that conclusion?

>
> >>>>>> "vegans" make no effort to obtain that information.
>
> >>>>> Some do, some don't.
>
> >>>> None do.
>
> >>> How do you know?
>
> >> They tell me.
>
> >> Do you mean to tell me you think some might have done, but they wouldn't
> >> be so kind as to share the information with the rest of you fuckwits?
>
> > I know that I have made some effort to obtain the information
>
> No, you haven't.

Why do you think that you are in a position to know?

>  You've asked Dutch and me, and even Fuckwit, to get it
> for you.
>

When you seem to be making the suggestion that there is something more
that I could do, it seems reasonable to ask you to be specific about
what.

So he didn't declare himself to be virtuous, but he did declare,
incorrectly, that he lived a cruelty-free lifestyle.

> >>>>> I am also not especially convinced that declaring oneself to be
> >>>>> virtuous solely because one is allegedly doing less of something wrong
> >>>>> than others is immoral,
>
> >>>> It is.
>
> >>> I am not aware of any reason why I should take any interest in
> >>> completely unargued assertions from you.
>
> >> But you will, rupie - you will!  You always do.
>
> >>>>>> Just because you sodomize the 8-year-old child next door "only" three
> >>>>>> times a week while your brother sodomizes the child 10 times doesn't
> >>>>>> mean you're virtuous.  The only way you can be virtuous with respect to
> >>>>>> that is not to sodomize the boy ever.
>
> >>>>> Quite. So that establishes that making the claim is incorrect. I don't
> >>>>> believe anyone's ever argued with you there.
>
> >>>> That stupid cunt Skanky did.
>
> >>> Fascinating.
>
> >> Not really.  Skanky the car-less parasitic pothead really did believe
> >> that there were degrees of wrongness, and that it was "more wrong" to
> >> sodomize the child more often.  Quite clearly, "vegans" generally
> >> believe that.
>
> > There are degrees of wrongness,
>
> There are not.  There are degrees of badness, but not wrongness.
> Wrongness is binary:  something is wrong, or it isn't - full stop.
>

I don't agree.

> > and it is more wrong to sodomise the
> > child more often,
>
> Nope.  It is wrong to sodomize the child, full stop.  It is *worse* to
> do it more often, but it isn't "more wrong."  Don't be an even bigger
> dope than you already are.
>

I don't see any significant distinction between "worse" and "more
wrong", and it looks like you've already indicated that you'd be happy
with "more bad". Seems to me you're just mucking around with words to
no particularly good purpose.

You reckon?

> >>>>>>     Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> >>>>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>
> >>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>
> >>>> Stop with the denial.
>
> >>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>
> >> Oh, but he is!
>
> > Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
> > idea,
>
> Not when it's right.
>

And also not when it's wrong and obviously ungrounded in the least
shred of evidence.

> >>>>>>>> How can increasing the harm one causes to animals be called
> >>>>>>>> virtuous?
>
> >>>>>>>> Veganism is bullshit through and through. It is a false moral pose
> >>>>>>>> based wholly on self-exaltation.
>
> >>>>>>> Plenty of people are vegan simply because they want to try to reduce
> >>>>>>> suffering, myself included.
>
> >>>>>> You have no valid reason for believing it does so.
>
> >>>>> I think I do.
>
> >>>> You don't.
>
> >>> Are you able to offer reasons for thinking that I am mistaken?
>
> >> Given already.
>
> > Where?
>
> a.a.e.v.

Actually, you've acknowledged in a.a.e.v., in posts that Derek
frequently quotes, that for most omnivores going vegan does reduce
their expected contribution to suffering.

[George Plimpton]

Oh, yes, for certain.

>>>>>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>>>>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>>>>>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>>>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>>
>>>> Oh, but he is!
>>
>>> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
>>> idea,
>>
>> Not when it's right.
>>
>
> And also not when it's wrong

It isn't wrong.

[Rupert]

On 10 Mrz., 15:46, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>> The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
> >>>>> about animal suffering.
>
> >>>> It's not.  It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.
>
> >>> As I have said before,
>
> >> It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.
>
> > You reckon?
>
> Oh, yes, for certain.
>

So you think that it doesn't strike me as irrational to deny that for
most vegans the initial interest in veganism is motivated by concern
about animal suffering?

> >>>>>>>>      Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> >>>>>>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>
> >>>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>
> >>>>>> Stop with the denial.
>
> >>>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>
> >>>> Oh, but he is!
>
> >>> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
> >>> idea,
>
> >> Not when it's right.
>
> > And also not when it's wrong
>
> It isn't wrong.

How did you first learn that "Glen" is my good buddy?

[George Plimpton]

On 3/10/2012 6:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 10 Mrz., 15:46, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
>>>>>>> about animal suffering.
>>
>>>>>> It's not. It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.
>>
>>>>> As I have said before,
>>
>>>> It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.
>>
>>> You reckon?
>>
>> Oh, yes, for certain.
>>
>
> So you think that it doesn't strike me as irrational to deny that for
> most vegans the initial interest in veganism is motivated by concern
> about animal suffering?

It's motivated by a childlike misunderstanding of it. *All* they see is
that the meat came from a "cute" animal, and they feel "sad" about it.
"Awww...I'm eating a moo-cow, mommy. Waaaahhhhh!"

>>>>>>>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>>>>>>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>>>>>>>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>>>>>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>>
>>>>>> Oh, but he is!
>>
>>>>> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
>>>>> idea,
>>
>>>> Not when it's right.
>>
>>> And also not when it's wrong
>>
>> It isn't wrong.
>
> How did you first learn that "Glen" is my good buddy?

He's part of The Side, and you lot stick up for one another.

[Rupert]

On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 6:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mrz., 15:46, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >>>>>>> The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
> >>>>>>> about animal suffering.
>
> >>>>>> It's not.  It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.
>
> >>>>> As I have said before,
>
> >>>> It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.
>
> >>> You reckon?
>
> >> Oh, yes, for certain.
>
> > So you think that it doesn't strike me as irrational to deny that for
> > most vegans the initial interest in veganism is motivated by concern
> > about animal suffering?
>
> It's motivated by a childlike misunderstanding of it.  *All* they see is
> that the meat came from a "cute" animal, and they feel "sad" about it.
> "Awww...I'meating a moo-cow, mommy.  Waaaahhhhh!"
>

And presumably you would claim that these utterances of yours don't
strike me as irrational.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>       Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
> >>>>>>>>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>
> >>>>>>>> Stop with the denial.
>
> >>>>>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>
> >>>>>> Oh, but he is!
>
> >>>>> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
> >>>>> idea,
>
> >>>> Not when it's right.
>
> >>> And also not when it's wrong
>
> >> It isn't wrong.
>
> > How did you first learn that "Glen" is my good buddy?
>
> He's part of The Side, and you lot stick up for one another.

Derek doesn't.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/13/2012 1:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 6:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Mrz., 15:46, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
>>>>>>>>> about animal suffering.
>>
>>>>>>>> It's not. It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.
>>
>>>>>>> As I have said before,
>>
>>>>>> It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.
>>
>>>>> You reckon?
>>
>>>> Oh, yes, for certain.
>>
>>> So you think that it doesn't strike me as irrational to deny that for
>>> most vegans the initial interest in veganism is motivated by concern
>>> about animal suffering?
>>
>> It's motivated by a childlike misunderstanding of it. *All* they see is
>> that the meat came from a "cute" animal, and they feel "sad" about it.
>> "Awww...I'meating a moo-cow, mommy. Waaaahhhhh!"
>>
>
> And presumably you would claim that these utterances of yours don't
> strike me as irrational.

Of course - they are. I denigrate your fake concern for animals for the
childlike emotional reaction they are.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your good buddy "glen" or "mark" or
>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever the fuck his name really is, is a prime example.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know where you got the idea that he's my good buddy
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the denial.
>>
>>>>>>>>> He's obviously not my good buddy,
>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, but he is!
>>
>>>>>>> Well, we can certainly be sure that you're not going to let go of this
>>>>>>> idea,
>>
>>>>>> Not when it's right.
>>
>>>>> And also not when it's wrong
>>
>>>> It isn't wrong.
>>
>>> How did you first learn that "Glen" is my good buddy?
>>
>> He's part of The Side, and you lot stick up for one another.
>
> Derek doesn't.

Derek is unique.

[Rupert]

On 13 Mrz., 15:58, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/13/2012 1:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/10/2012 6:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 10 Mrz., 15:46, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
> >>>>>>>>> about animal suffering.
>
> >>>>>>>> It's not.  It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.
>
> >>>>>>> As I have said before,
>
> >>>>>> It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.
>
> >>>>> You reckon?
>
> >>>> Oh, yes, for certain.
>
> >>> So you think that it doesn't strike me as irrational to deny that for
> >>> most vegans the initial interest in veganism is motivated by concern
> >>> about animal suffering?
>
> >> It's motivated by a childlike misunderstanding of it.  *All* they see is
> >> that the meat came from a "cute" animal, and they feel "sad" about it.

> >> "Awww...I'meatinga moo-cow, mommy.  Waaaahhhhh!"

>
> > And presumably you would claim that these utterances of yours don't
> > strike me as irrational.
>
> Of course - they are.  I denigrate your fake concern for animals for the
> childlike emotional reaction they are.
>

What evidence do you have that the concern is fake?

[George Plimpton]

It's a concern for yourself, not for animals.

[Rupert]

On 13 Mrz., 17:21, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/13/2012 8:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Mrz., 15:58, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/13/2012 1:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 3/10/2012 6:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 10 Mrz., 15:46, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> The initial interest in veganism is obviously motivated by concern
> >>>>>>>>>>> about animal suffering.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's not.  It's motivated by a childish personification of animals.
>
> >>>>>>>>> As I have said before,
>
> >>>>>>>> It was bullshit before, just as it's bullshit now.
>
> >>>>>>> You reckon?
>
> >>>>>> Oh, yes, for certain.
>
> >>>>> So you think that it doesn't strike me as irrational to deny that for
> >>>>> most vegans the initial interest in veganism is motivated by concern
> >>>>> about animal suffering?
>
> >>>> It's motivated by a childlike misunderstanding of it.  *All* they see is
> >>>> that the meat came from a "cute" animal, and they feel "sad" about it.

> >>>> "Awww...I'meatingamoo-cow, mommy.  Waaaahhhhh!"

>
> >>> And presumably you would claim that these utterances of yours don't
> >>> strike me as irrational.
>
> >> Of course - they are.  I denigrate your fake concern for animals for the
> >> childlike emotional reaction they are.
>
> > What evidence do you have that the concern is fake?
>
> It's a concern for yourself, not for animals.

Why do you think that?

[George Plimpton]

I've shown that often enough over the time you've been participating here.

[dh]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:40:09 -0800, Goo wrote:

>
>“Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
>response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>is an ethical problem

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
. . .

>2) the response is ethically empty.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - THE Goober - wussed:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:40:09 -0800, George Plimpton helpfully contributed:

>
>>
>> “Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>> is an ethical problem
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral

> consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "the moral harm, *if any*, caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of

> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> "Life "justifying" death is the

> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the

> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting

> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing

> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

> . . .
>> 2) the response is ethically empty.
>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm

> animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's

> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would

> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that

> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to

> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.

[Rupert]

And how do you think you have shown it?

[George Plimpton]

> And how do [timewasting]

I've shown it.

[Rupert]

Really?

[George Plimpton]

Yep.

[Rupert]

And have you convinced me that you've shown it?

[George Plimpton]

I don't really care. You've seen what I have said. Whether or not
you're convinced is immaterial.

[Dutch]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5fed284b-2f52-45c9...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.

[Rupert]

On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.

[Rupert]

I'm obviously not aware of what arguments you have in mind. Maybe you
could actually answer the question.

[Dutch]

>Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the "injustice"
position.

[George Plimpton]

The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. They don't have a valid
reason for not consuming animal parts. If it's because they think doing
so violates animals' "rights", they lose: their consumption causes the
violation of animals' rights. Point this out, and they switch to
reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. Suggest
that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.

Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
reason of not consuming animal parts. They still violate animal rights
in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
not even doing better than all meat consumers.

"veganism" is bullshit. It is philosophically bankrupt.

[Rupert]

On Mar 15, 2:51 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?

[Rupert]

On Mar 15, 4:06 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:
>

> >> Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

> >> On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>> One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
> >>> detail in the vegan shuffle argument.
>
> >> Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.
>
> > The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
> > longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
> > belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
> > forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
> > the "injustice" position.
>
> The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent.  They don't have a valid
> reason for not consuming animal parts.  If it's because they think doing
> so violates animals' "rights", they lose:  their consumption causes the
> violation of animals' rights.  Point this out, and they switch to
> reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
> that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow.  Suggest
> that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
> by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.
>

I will gladly switch to consuming meat that involves less suffering
when I am convinced that there is a practical means of doing so. You
have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I am not
convinced that they really would involve less suffering.

> Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
> reason of not consuming animal parts.  They still violate animal rights
> in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
> not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
> of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
> aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
> not even doing better than all meat consumers.
>

There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
given the limited information that is available. You also haven't
pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
better than a vegan. For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
they are doing better than a vegan.

You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering. You claim you
have, but as usual you can't deliver the goods.

> "veganism" is bullshit.  It is philosophically bankrupt.

Wrong.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/14/2012 8:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 15, 4:06 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>> Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
>>>>> detail in the vegan shuffle argument.
>>
>>>> Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.
>>
>>> The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
>>> longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
>>> belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
>>> forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
>>> the "injustice" position.
>>
>> The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. They don't have a valid
>> reason for not consuming animal parts. If it's because they think doing
>> so violates animals' "rights", they lose: their consumption causes the
>> violation of animals' rights. Point this out, and they switch to
>> reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
>> that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. Suggest
>> that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
>> by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.
>>
>
> I will gladly switch to consuming meat that involves less suffering
> when I am convinced that there is a practical means of doing so.

You aren't honestly open to being convinced of it. You rule it out by
axiomatically.

> You have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I
> am not convinced that they really would involve less suffering.

And because of the way you play the game, you will never find out,
because you won't even make an effort to determine how much suffering
you cause. You don't care. You're happy and smugly satisfied that
you're "better" than omnivores.

>> Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
>> reason of not consuming animal parts. They still violate animal rights
>> in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
>> not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
>> of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
>> aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
>> not even doing better than all meat consumers.
>>
>
> There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
> given the limited information that is available.

They aren't "doing" anything. Their entire conclusion is based on what
they're *not* doing: consuming animal parts. They assume that what
they're not doing is all they need to know. That has been proved not to
be a sound basis for the conclusion.

*Some* improvement could be had for very little effort, but they won't
undertake *any* effort to learn how they might improve. The decision
not to consume animal parts is not the starting point in a quest to
cause less harm - it's the ending point.

> You also haven't
> pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
> better than a vegan.

Meat consumers don't make any of the fatuous claims of "vegans". They
don't accept the fake moral issues that "vegans" want to inject into diet.

> For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
> they are doing better than a vegan.

Why are you comparing yourself with meat consumers to show that you're
virtuous? Don't you know that's invalid?

1. Your diet causes the "rights" of animals to be violated.
2. You almost certainly are not consuming the least-harm "vegan"
diet that you could, let alone the least-harm overall diet.

What does the level of harm caused by "most meat consumers" have to do
with what *you* are doing?

Nothing, that's what.

> You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
> are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering.

I most certainly have. I have shown beyond all dispute that their
decision not to consume animal parts absolutely does *NOT* lead to the
conclusion they wish to believe, yet they do nothing more than that. It
*can't* be about animal suffering, because they don't do anything after
their assumption has been falsified, which of course it has.

[George Plimpton]

Nice try, woopert. We're not talking about your alleged initial motive.
What I said is that your supposed concern is fake. The proof of that
is that when it is conclusively demonstrated that the *sole* step you
take - refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth - does not
lead to the conclusion you assumed, you nonetheless stick with it, and
do nothing more.

You began by believing one or both of two things:

1. Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
that you weren't violating the "rights" of any animals.

2. Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
that you were causing less harm to animals than *all* meat consumers.

It cannot be doubted or disputed that you believed one or both of these
things. If you didn't, then there could not possibly be any rational
basis for concluding that you ought not put animal parts in your mouth.


It has been shown beyond all dispute that neither is true:

1. The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
producing the things you consume.

2. Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.

[Dutch]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

If the motivation were to help animals then there would be no shifting of
arguments, no angry denials, the response would be one of simply
acknowledging the receipt of new, helpful, constructive information.
You've done that to some extent, but you're not typical either.

[George Plimpton]

I don't think he has done that at all. He has done nothing but quibble,
and complain that the evidence isn't ironclad. There has been complete
opposition to the idea that he is not "doing all he can", instead
invoking vague and utterly solipsistic notions of what's "reasonable" -
that is, whatever he *feels* like doing, not what an objective person
might feel is reasonable.

[Rupert]

You have no rational grounds for thinking that. You've never presented
any evidence that there is a practical means of doing so, so you have
no rational grounds for thinking I'm not open to being convinced.

> > You have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I
> > am not convinced that they really would involve less suffering.
>
> And because of the way you play the game, you will never find out,
> because you won't even make an effort to determine how much suffering
> you cause.  You don't care.  You're happy and smugly satisfied that
> you're "better" than omnivores.
>

This is false. I have made an effort to determine how much suffering I
cause, and I engaged you in a recent thread about a specific estimate.

> >> Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
> >> reason of not consuming animal parts.  They still violate animal rights
> >> in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
> >> not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
> >> of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
> >> aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
> >> not even doing better than all meat consumers.
>
> > There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
> > given the limited information that is available.
>
> They aren't "doing" anything.  Their entire conclusion is based on what
> they're *not* doing:  consuming animal parts.  They assume that what
> they're not doing is all they need to know.  That has been proved not to
> be a sound basis for the conclusion.
>

Going vegan on the basis of information about what happens on modern
animal farms is doing something. And you've offered no good reason for
thinking that this is not "doing the best one can" by way of reducing
animal suffering.

> *Some* improvement could be had for very little effort,

What's your evidence for that?

> but they won't
> undertake *any* effort to learn how they might improve.  The decision
> not to consume animal parts is not the starting point in a quest to
> cause less harm - it's the ending point.
>
> > You also haven't
> > pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
> > better than a vegan.
>
> Meat consumers don't make any of the fatuous claims of "vegans".  They
> don't accept the fake moral issues that "vegans" want to inject into diet.
>

You just *did* make a claim that some meat consumers are doing better
than vegans. This claim has not been substantiated.

> > For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
> > they are doing better than a vegan.
>
> Why are you comparing yourself with meat consumers to show that you're
> virtuous?

I'm not. I'm responding to a claim that you made. You brought the
comparison up, not me.

> Don't you know that's invalid?
>
> 1.  Your diet causes the "rights" of animals to be violated.

That depends what rights they have.

> 2.  You almost certainly are not consuming the least-harm "vegan"
>      diet that you could, let alone the least-harm overall diet.
>

Yes, I have done everything I can to reduce the amount of harm caused
by my diet, short of quitting my job, given the limited amount of
information that is available.

> What does the level of harm caused by "most meat consumers" have to do
> with what *you* are doing?
>
> Nothing, that's what.
>

You were the one who brought the subject up.

> > You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
> > are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering.
>
> I most certainly have.  I have shown beyond all dispute that their
> decision not to consume animal parts absolutely does *NOT* lead to the
> conclusion they wish to believe,

What conclusion?

> yet they do nothing more than that.  It
> *can't* be about animal suffering, because they don't do anything after
> their assumption has been falsified, which of course it has.

You're a fool.

[Rupert]

On Mar 15, 7:56 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 11:21 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

What do you, as an objective person, feel that it would be reasonable
for me to do if I wanted to make every reasonable effort to reduce the
amount of harm required to produce my food?

[Rupert]

What I began by believing is that following a vegan diet would be
doing about as much as I could, short of taking extreme measures, by
way of reducing the amount of harm required to produce my food. It has
not been shown that this is not true.

> 1.  The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
>      producing the things you consume.
>
> 2.  Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
>      that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.

I think the meat consumers who are causing less harm than me would be
rare indeed, but that's beside the point.

[George Plimpton]

I do. You've told us.

>>> You have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I
>>> am not convinced that they really would involve less suffering.
>>
>> And because of the way you play the game, you will never find out,
>> because you won't even make an effort to determine how much suffering
>> you cause. You don't care. You're happy and smugly satisfied that
>> you're "better" than omnivores.
>>
>
> This is false. I have made an effort to determine how much suffering I
> cause,

No, you haven't. You've categorically said the data aren't available.

Stop lying.

>>>> Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
>>>> reason of not consuming animal parts. They still violate animal rights
>>>> in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
>>>> not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
>>>> of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
>>>> aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
>>>> not even doing better than all meat consumers.
>>
>>> There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
>>> given the limited information that is available.
>>
>> They aren't "doing" anything. Their entire conclusion is based on what
>> they're *not* doing: consuming animal parts. They assume that what
>> they're not doing is all they need to know. That has been proved not to
>> be a sound basis for the conclusion.
>>
>
> Going vegan on the basis of information about what happens on modern
> animal farms

If you eat meat, you aren't required to eat meat from animal farms.
That has *ZERO* bearing on the harm you *cause*, rather than the harm
you don't cause by putting any particular type of meat in your mouth.

You have no idea what amount of harm you cause - zero idea.

>> *Some* improvement could be had for very little effort,
>
> What's your evidence for that?

Fuck you, cocksucker. We've been through this. Stop trying to waste my
time, prick.

>> but they won't
>> undertake *any* effort to learn how they might improve. The decision
>> not to consume animal parts is not the starting point in a quest to
>> cause less harm - it's the ending point.
>>
>>> You also haven't
>>> pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
>>> better than a vegan.
>>
>> Meat consumers don't make any of the fatuous claims of "vegans". They
>> don't accept the fake moral issues that "vegans" want to inject into diet.
>>
>
> You just *did* make a claim that some meat consumers are doing better
> than vegans.

*Individual* meat consumers, unlike *all* individual "vegans", make no
claim about causing harm.

>>> For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
>>> they are doing better than a vegan.
>>
>> Why are you comparing yourself with meat consumers to show that you're
>> virtuous?
>
> I'm not.

You are. What you really wrote above, substituting where necessary, is

"For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that they are doing better

than a *me*." You were making a statement about yourself.

>> Don't you know that's invalid?
>>
>> 1. Your diet causes the "rights" of animals to be violated.
>
> That depends what rights they have.

The *same* rights would be violated whether they are killed by combines
or killed in slaughterhouses. Fuck off, twat.

>> 2. You almost certainly are not consuming the least-harm "vegan"
>> diet that you could, let alone the least-harm overall diet.
>>
>
> Yes, I have done everything I can to reduce the amount of harm caused
> by my diet,

You have done *NOTHING*. You don't "do" anything. You *don't* put
animal parts in your mouth - that's all.

>> What does the level of harm caused by "most meat consumers" have to do
>> with what *you* are doing?
>>
>> Nothing, that's what.
>>
>
> You were the one who brought the subject up.

*You* are doing nothing. You obsess solely on what you're *not* doing:
consuming animal bits. That's *meaningless* in terms of quantifying
the harm you cause. You don't want to quantify it - you don't care.

>>> You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
>>> are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering.
>>
>> I most certainly have. I have shown beyond all dispute that their
>> decision not to consume animal parts absolutely does *NOT* lead to the
>> conclusion they wish to believe,
>
> What conclusion?

The conclusion that they're not violating animal rights, and that
they're "minimizing"/"doing the best they can"/"doing better than
omnivores". That conclusion, you cunt.

>> yet they do nothing more than that. It
>> *can't* be about animal suffering, because they don't do anything after
>> their assumption has been falsified, which of course it has.
>
> You're a fool.

I've killed you.

[George Plimpton]

...that you were living a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'." You were and are
wrong.

>> 1. The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
>> producing the things you consume.
>>
>> 2. Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
>> that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.
>
> I think the meat consumers who are causing less harm than me would be
> rare indeed,

You have no way of knowing.

It's entirely the point, shithead.

[George Plimpton]

Something other than sit back and throw up your hands and moan that
there's no data.

You do nothing. This is established beyond dispute.

[Rupert]

The data aren't available, and I wouldn't know that unless I had made
some effort to find them, would I?

However there are some estimates that have been made of how much
suffering a vegan diet causes, and I engaged with you about one such
estimate in a recent thread.

Steven Davis writes

"In a study that has been done to examine the
effect of harvesting grain crops, Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported
that
mouse population density dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/
ha
postharvest. This decrease was attributed to both migration out of the
field
and to mortality. They estimated the mortality rate to be 52%. In
another
study, Nass et al. (1971) reported that the mortality rate of
Polynesian
rats was 77% during the harvest of sugar cane in Hawaii. These are the
estimated mortality rates for only a single species, and for only a
single
operation (i.e., harvesting). Therefore, an estimate somewhere between
52
and 77% (say 60%) for animals of all kinds killed during the
production
year would be reasonable. If we multiply the population density shown
in
Tew and Macdonald’s (1993) paper (25/ha) times a 60% mortality rate,
that equals a mortality of 15 animals/ha each year."

Does that strike you as a reasonable estimate? And do you also agree
that one hectare planted with soy and corn can produce 1000 kilograms
of protein, and that the mean annual dietary requirement for an adult
is 20 kilograms of protein?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
> >>>> reason of not consuming animal parts.  They still violate animal rights
> >>>> in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
> >>>> not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
> >>>> of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
> >>>> aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
> >>>> not even doing better than all meat consumers.
>
> >>> There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
> >>> given the limited information that is available.
>
> >> They aren't "doing" anything.  Their entire conclusion is based on what
> >> they're *not* doing:  consuming animal parts.  They assume that what
> >> they're not doing is all they need to know.  That has been proved not to
> >> be a sound basis for the conclusion.
>
> > Going vegan on the basis of information about what happens on modern
> > animal farms
>
> If you eat meat, you aren't required to eat meat from animal farms.
> That has *ZERO* bearing on the harm you *cause*, rather than the harm
> you don't cause by putting any particular type of meat in your mouth.
>

If you are avoiding causing a certain type of harm without replacing
it with a comparably bad harm then obviously you are achieving a
reduction in the amount of harm caused.

> You have no idea what amount of harm you cause - zero idea.
>

See above.

> >> *Some* improvement could be had for very little effort,
>
> > What's your evidence for that?
>
> Fuck you, cocksucker.  We've been through this.  Stop trying to waste my
> time, prick.
>

I take it you have no evidence, then.

> >> but they won't
> >> undertake *any* effort to learn how they might improve.  The decision
> >> not to consume animal parts is not the starting point in a quest to
> >> cause less harm - it's the ending point.
>
> >>> You also haven't
> >>> pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
> >>> better than a vegan.
>
> >> Meat consumers don't make any of the fatuous claims of "vegans".  They
> >> don't accept the fake moral issues that "vegans" want to inject into diet.
>
> > You just *did* make a claim that some meat consumers are doing better
> > than vegans.
>
> *Individual* meat consumers, unlike *all* individual "vegans", make no
> claim about causing harm.
>

Yes, but I was engaging the claim that you made that some meat
consumers cause less harm than vegans.

> >>> For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
> >>> they are doing better than a vegan.
>
> >> Why are you comparing yourself with meat consumers to show that you're
> >> virtuous?
>
> > I'm not.
>
> You are.  What you really wrote above, substituting where necessary, is
> "For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that they are doing better
> than a *me*."  You were making a statement about yourself.
>

It *entailed* a statement about myself, yes. But the reason I made the
statement is to engage with a claim that you made, not to try to prove
myself virtuous. You have no rational grounds for thinking that the
point of the statement was to try to prove myself virtuous, or that I
believe that simply showing that I am doing better than most meat
consumers is enough to show that I am virtuous.

> >> Don't you know that's invalid?
>
> >> 1.  Your diet causes the "rights" of animals to be violated.
>
> > That depends what rights they have.
>
> The *same* rights would be violated whether they are killed by combines
> or killed in slaughterhouses.  Fuck off, twat.
>

Other rights would be violated by factory-farming.

I've always agreed that those systems of animal agriculture which
cause no more harm than plant-based agriculture are just as morally
defensible, and you knew that.

> >> 2.  You almost certainly are not consuming the least-harm "vegan"
> >>       diet that you could, let alone the least-harm overall diet.
>
> > Yes, I have done everything I can to reduce the amount of harm caused
> > by my diet,
>
> You have done *NOTHING*.  You don't "do" anything.  You *don't* put
> animal parts in your mouth - that's all.
>

Take the step of becoming a vegan is doing something. You have given
no rational grounds for thinking that I am not doing everything I
reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death

required to produce my food.

> >> What does the level of harm caused by "most meat consumers" have to do
> >> with what *you* are doing?
>
> >> Nothing, that's what.
>
> > You were the one who brought the subject up.
>
> *You* are doing nothing.  You obsess solely on what you're *not* doing:
>   consuming animal bits.  That's *meaningless* in terms of quantifying
> the harm you cause.  You don't want to quantify it - you don't care.
>

I'm not doing nothing. I acquired some information about what happens
on modern animal farms and responded by going vegan. I also made some
effort to find out about the harm caused by plant-food production,
which I discussed with you above.

> >>> You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
> >>> are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering.
>
> >> I most certainly have.  I have shown beyond all dispute that their
> >> decision not to consume animal parts absolutely does *NOT* lead to the
> >> conclusion they wish to believe,
>
> > What conclusion?
>
> The conclusion that they're not violating animal rights, and that
> they're "minimizing"/"doing the best they can"/"doing better than
> omnivores".  That conclusion, you cunt.
>

You haven't shown that it doesn't mean they're doing the best they
can.

> >> yet they do nothing more than that.  It
> >> *can't* be about animal suffering, because they don't do anything after
> >> their assumption has been falsified, which of course it has.
>
> > You're a fool.
>
> I've killed you.

Veganism is *obviously* in most cases an effort to do something about
animal suffering. Any fool should be able to see this.

[Rupert]

That's not an answer to the question.

> You do nothing.  This is established beyond dispute.

Actually, no rational person would dispute that I have done something.

[Rupert]

Wrong. I never believed that.

> >> 1.  The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
> >>       producing the things you consume.
>
> >> 2.  Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
> >>       that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.
>
> > I think the meat consumers who are causing less harm than me would be
> > rare indeed,
>
> You have no way of knowing.
>

I do have rational grounds for believing it which I have given before
more than once.

> It's entirely the point, shithead.

It's not a point supported by the evidence at hand.

[Dutch]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote

It's true he has done all that, but he has also acknowledged that some
diets/lifestyles containing meat and other animal products may cause less
animal suffering than a given vegan diet/lifestyle. I find that quite
unusual, in fact I can't recall another vegan who has admitted that.

[dh]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:59:21 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:29:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:40:09 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>“Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
>>>response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>>>is an ethical problem
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>. . .
>>>2) the response is ethically empty.
>>
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>animals." - Goo
>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
>True.

At least we see that you agree with yourself about all of it at this
particular time Goob.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/19/2012 12:19 PM, dh@. wrote:

>>>> “Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
>>>> response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
>>>> is an ethical problem
>>>
>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral

>>> consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude

>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of

>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the

>>> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the

>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting

>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing

>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>> . . .
>>>> 2) the response is ethically empty.
>>>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm

>>> animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's

>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would

>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that

>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to

>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>
>> True.
>
> At least we see that you agree with yourself

I always agree with myself, Goo.

Everything I wrote above is true. I didn't bother correctly your
mangled edited "quotes" this time, because everyone knows which ones
they are, and they all know that what I actually said, rather than your
mangled, misrepresented version, is true.

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for farm animals, Goo.

[Nunya Bidnits]

Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I will gladly switch to consuming meat that involves less suffering
> when I am convinced that there is a practical means of doing so. You
> have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I am not
> convinced that they really would involve less suffering.

Eat bugs. People worldwide do it, why not you? What right do you have to
consume farmed products with their high impact on the environment, species
selection, and collateral damage when you could just wander around picking
up bugs, the most sustainable and lowest impact form of food on the planet?
Hmmm?

Now go eat your roaches and stop wasting bandwidth.

[George Plimpton]

Woopert prefers to do the "vegan shuffle", a dance adored only by
clueless urbanites.

[Rupert]

On 21 Mrz., 16:00, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@eternal-
september.invalid> wrote:

I tried to verify using Google that it is possible to sustain yourself
by eating insects that you just pick up from your environment and was
not able to do it. I would need to find more information before I was
convinced that this is a practical suggestion for keeping myself alive.

[Rupert]

On 21 Mrz., 16:00, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@eternal-
september.invalid> wrote:

No, I take it back, I have found some useful information, so I agree,
it is a good suggestion.

[Rupert]

On Mar 21, 4:00 pm, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@eternal-
september.invalid> wrote:

You can't eat wild-caught insects in urban areas because they contain
traces of pesticides. You have to buy or breed the insects and feed
them, which means the best you are achieving is a way of recycling
some of your plant food waste into more protein. It still might be
worth doing, but possibly an even better approach is eating oysters.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Oysters are a good source of mercury.

[George Plimpton]

> Fuckwit Harrison shoves raw oysters up my coal chute.

You sick fat fuck.