Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism
9 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
Apr 6, 2012, 11:03:31 AM4/6/12
to
Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
nothing further.
But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
"contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":
* brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
black by the addition of squid ink
* Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea & Perrins recipe, and
probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy
* refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
white crystalline sugar uses bone char
* lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
wool production
"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea & Perrins!!!"
I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
Animal Parts). If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
sense of unwarranted moral superiority.
This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
reduce harm to animals. No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. The fact
they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
*no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
their diets, is the proof.
satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
nothing further.
But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
"contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":
* brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
black by the addition of squid ink
* Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea & Perrins recipe, and
probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy
* refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
white crystalline sugar uses bone char
* lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
wool production
"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea & Perrins!!!"
I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
Animal Parts). If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
sense of unwarranted moral superiority.
This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
reduce harm to animals. No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. The fact
they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
*no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
their diets, is the proof.
Rupert
Apr 6, 2012, 11:25:59 AM4/6/12
to
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?
George Plimpton
Apr 6, 2012, 11:46:01 AM4/6/12
to
On 4/6/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:03 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
>> satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
>> reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
>> bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
>> any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
>> eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
>> nothing further.
>>
>> But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
>> for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
>> "contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
>> I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":
>>
>> * brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
>> black by the addition of squid ink
>>
>> * Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea& Perrins recipe, and
> On Apr 6, 5:03 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
>> satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
>> reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
>> bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
>> any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
>> eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
>> nothing further.
>>
>> But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
>> for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
>> "contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
>> I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":
>>
>> * brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
>> black by the addition of squid ink
>>
>> probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy
>>
>> * refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
>> white crystalline sugar uses bone char
>>
>> * lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
>> wool production
>>
>> "vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
>> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
>> and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
>> or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
>> announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
>> the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea& Perrins!!!"
>>
>> * refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
>> white crystalline sugar uses bone char
>>
>> * lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
>> wool production
>>
>> "vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
>> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
>> and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
>> or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
>> announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
>>
>> I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
>> Animal Parts). If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
>> vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
>> from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
>> reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
>> micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
>> sense of unwarranted moral superiority.
>>
>> This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
>> completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
>> reduce harm to animals. No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
>> an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
>> superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. The fact
>> they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
>> *no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
>> their diets, is the proof.
>
> What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
> (falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
> animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
> didn't have that belief?
The belief is plainly false. Getting black olives out of their diet
>> I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
>> Animal Parts). If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
>> vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
>> from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
>> reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
>> micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
>> sense of unwarranted moral superiority.
>>
>> This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
>> completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
>> reduce harm to animals. No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
>> an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
>> superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. The fact
>> they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
>> *no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
>> their diets, is the proof.
>
> What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
> (falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
> animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
> didn't have that belief?
could not *possibly* have as great an effect at reducing harm to animals
as identifying the most harm-causing vegetable or fruit they currently
eat and finding a lower-harm substitute for it.
It is clear that not consuming animal bits - and the false sense of
moral superiority that produces - is what motivates them, rather than a
sincere wish to reduce the harm they cause to animals.
Mr.Smartypants
Apr 6, 2012, 11:52:55 AM4/6/12
to
Rupert
Apr 6, 2012, 11:49:07 AM4/6/12
to
> Getting black olives out of their diet
> could not *possibly* have as great an effect at reducing harm to animals
> as identifying the most harm-causing vegetable or fruit they currently
> eat and finding a lower-harm substitute for it.
>
> It is clear that not consuming animal bits - and the false sense of
> moral superiority that produces - is what motivates them, rather than a
> sincere wish to reduce the harm they cause to animals.
didn't believe that they were doing the best thing by way of reducing
the harm they cause to animals?
George Plimpton
Apr 6, 2012, 12:10:27 PM4/6/12
to
2. They should relinquish their false belief.
Rupert
Apr 6, 2012, 12:20:16 PM4/6/12
to
to feel morally superior.
> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
George Plimpton
Apr 6, 2012, 1:04:47 PM4/6/12
to
animal bits from their diet, when that clearly has been shown not to be
enough.
>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>
> Agreed.
*most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
are "cruelty free".
Rupert
Apr 6, 2012, 1:17:28 PM4/6/12
to
> >> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
> *most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
> are "cruelty free".
there are many vegans who do not.
George Plimpton
Apr 6, 2012, 2:06:26 PM4/6/12
to
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation, so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
pedestal. All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.
>>>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
>> *most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
>> are "cruelty free".
>
> That may well be
Rupert
Apr 6, 2012, 3:19:02 PM4/6/12
to
> so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
> That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
> pedestal.
if as you claim they know that they aren't doing all that might
reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
motivation?
> All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.
>
> >>>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>
> >>> Agreed.
>
> >> But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
> >> *most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
> >> are "cruelty free".
>
> > That may well be
>
> It is; not in doubt.
question was incorrect.
Dutch
Apr 6, 2012, 4:44:39 PM4/6/12
to
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.
>
> What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
> (falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
> animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
> didn't have that belief?
They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
> What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
> (falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
> animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
> didn't have that belief?
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.
George Plimpton
Apr 6, 2012, 5:53:09 PM4/6/12
to
>
>> so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
>> That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
>> pedestal.
>
> How would it be possible for them to maintain such a self-conception,
> if as you claim they know that they aren't doing all that might
> reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
> motivation?
the first place.
See "the vegan shuffle".
>> All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.
>>
>>>>>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>>
>>>>> Agreed.
>>
>>>> But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
>>>> *most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
>>>> are "cruelty free".
>>
>>> That may well be
>>
>> It is; not in doubt.
>
> On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
> question was incorrect.
George Plimpton
Apr 6, 2012, 5:54:47 PM4/6/12
to
No matter how they try to dance around it, there is a *huge* element of
aesthetics in the "vegan" pose - far more than there is ethics.
George Plimpton
Apr 6, 2012, 6:18:54 PM4/6/12
to
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
> [steaming load snipped]
Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?
Mr.Smartypants
Apr 6, 2012, 7:34:07 PM4/6/12
to
California. Rice farming killed them all.
Rupert
Apr 7, 2012, 4:32:26 AM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > [steaming load snipped]
>
> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>
Not all vegans do that. Some do. It is probably because they have the
> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > [steaming load snipped]
>
> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>
mistaken belief that that is the best way to reduce harm to animals.
> Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
> about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
> sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
> to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?
would do that, obviously.
Rupert
Apr 7, 2012, 4:33:33 AM4/7/12
to
On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?
Rupert
Apr 7, 2012, 4:30:57 AM4/7/12
to
not all vegans have read your babblings.
>
>
> >> so plainly that *isn't* the motivation; it's something else.
> >> That something else is the self-conception as being on a moral
> >> pedestal.
>
> > How would it be possible for them to maintain such a self-conception,
> > if as you claim they know that they aren't doing all that might
> > reasonably be expected of them if harm reduction legitimately were the
> > motivation?
>
> Easily, for people who are fooled by the false premise of "veganism" in
> the first place.
>
> See "the vegan shuffle".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.
>
> >>>>>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>
> >>>>> Agreed.
>
> >>>> But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
> >>>> *most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
> >>>> are "cruelty free".
>
> >>> That may well be
>
> >> It is; not in doubt.
>
> > On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
> > question was incorrect.
>
> Nope.
George Plimpton
Apr 7, 2012, 11:54:36 AM4/7/12
to
>>
>>>> All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.
>>
>>>>>>>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>>
>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>
>>>>>> But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
>>>>>> *most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
>>>>>> are "cruelty free".
>>
>>>>> That may well be
>>
>>>> It is; not in doubt.
>>
>>> On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
>>> question was incorrect.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> You're a fool.
George Plimpton
Apr 7, 2012, 12:02:47 PM4/7/12
to
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> [steaming load snipped]
>>
>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>>
>
> Not all vegans do that.
*ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> [steaming load snipped]
>>
>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>>
>
> Not all vegans do that.
*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>> Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
>> about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
>> sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
>> to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?
>
> No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
> would do that, obviously.
George Plimpton
Apr 7, 2012, 12:03:48 PM4/7/12
to
of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
moral standing.
Rupert
Apr 8, 2012, 2:29:53 AM4/8/12
to
something about animal suffering, they're just not going about it in
the best way.
Rupert
Apr 8, 2012, 4:48:46 AM4/8/12
to
On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> [steaming load snipped]
>
> >> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
> >> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
> >> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>
> > Not all vegans do that.
>
> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>
> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>
How did you come by evidence for this strongly held belief of yours?
> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> [steaming load snipped]
>
> >> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
> >> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
> >> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>
> > Not all vegans do that.
>
> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>
> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>
Rupert
Apr 8, 2012, 4:47:47 AM4/8/12
to
You ought to do something about your self-esteem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.
>
> >>>>>>>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>
> >>>>>>> Agreed.
>
> >>>>>> But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
> >>>>>> *most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
> >>>>>> are "cruelty free".
>
> >>>>> That may well be
>
> >>>> It is; not in doubt.
>
> >>> On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
> >>> question was incorrect.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> > You're a fool.
>
> You lose, again.
stupid and I called you a fool. Apparently you think that means I
lose. Much joy may this belief bring you.
George Plimpton
Apr 8, 2012, 11:20:05 AM4/8/12
to
their own ego. All they care about is themselves.
George Plimpton
Apr 8, 2012, 11:21:05 AM4/8/12
to
again is an attempt to waste my time. Fuck off.
>>>>>> All the rest of the rhetoric surrounding "veganism" points to it.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. They should relinquish their false belief.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>
>>>>>>>> But they - and you - don't. It is absurdly easy to find "vegans" -
>>>>>>>> *most* "vegans" - clinging to the belief that their consumption patterns
>>>>>>>> are "cruelty free".
>>
>>>>>>> That may well be
>>
>>>>>> It is; not in doubt.
>>
>>>>> On the other hand your statement that I have the false belief in
>>>>> question was incorrect.
>>
>>>> Nope.
>>
>>> You're a fool.
>>
>> You lose, again.
>
> It seems to me that
George Plimpton
Apr 8, 2012, 11:21:40 AM4/8/12
to
On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>>
>>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
>>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
>>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>>
>>> Not all vegans do that.
>>
>> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>>
>> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
>> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
>> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>>
>
> How did you come by evidence for this
"vegans" present it to me.
> On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>>
>>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
>>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
>>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>>
>>> Not all vegans do that.
>>
>> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>>
>> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
>> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
>> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>>
>
> How did you come by evidence for this
>>>> Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
>>>> about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
>>>> sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
>>>> to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?
>>
>>> No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
>>> would do that, obviously.
>>
>> Most "vegans" eat rice. http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr
Rupert
Apr 8, 2012, 12:50:06 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>
> >>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
> >>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
> >>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>
> >>> Not all vegans do that.
>
> >> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>
> >> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
> >> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
> >> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>
> > How did you come by evidence for this
>
> "vegans" present it to me.
>
You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
> On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>
> >>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
> >>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
> >>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>
> >>> Not all vegans do that.
>
> >> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>
> >> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
> >> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
> >> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>
> > How did you come by evidence for this
>
> "vegans" present it to me.
>
vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?
> >>>> Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
> >>>> about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
> >>>> sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
> >>>> to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?
>
> >>> No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
> >>> would do that, obviously.
>
> >> Most "vegans" eat rice. http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr
>
> You're fucked.
Rupert
Apr 8, 2012, 12:51:02 PM4/8/12
to
George Plimpton
Apr 8, 2012, 1:11:25 PM4/8/12
to
On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>>
>>>>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
>>>>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
>>>>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>>
>>>>> Not all vegans do that.
>>
>>>> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>>
>>>> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
>>>> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
>>>> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>>
>>> How did you come by evidence for this
>>
>> "vegans" present it to me.
>>
>
> You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
> vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?
Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
> On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>>
>>>>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
>>>>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
>>>>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>>
>>>>> Not all vegans do that.
>>
>>>> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>>
>>>> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
>>>> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
>>>> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>>
>>> How did you come by evidence for this
>>
>> "vegans" present it to me.
>>
>
> You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
> vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?
to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
perfectly representative.
>>>>>> Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
>>>>>> about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
>>>>>> sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
>>>>>> to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?
>>
>>>>> No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
>>>>> would do that, obviously.
>>
>>>> Most "vegans" eat rice. http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr
>>
>> You're fucked.
>
> I don't really see why that would be.
George Plimpton
Apr 8, 2012, 1:12:22 PM4/8/12
to
to do (extremely low time value), you waste time by saying, like a
school child, "is not is not is not is not." It achieves nothing.
George Plimpton
Apr 8, 2012, 3:23:23 PM4/8/12
to
> What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
> (falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
> animals?
The search is motivated by the belief that not consuming animal bits is
> (falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
> animals?
in and of itself virtuous. They're like Jews and Muslims not consuming
pork: there is no concern for the animals, only concern that they be
virtuous.
Rupert
Apr 9, 2012, 12:02:10 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>
> >>>>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
> >>>>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
> >>>>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>
> >>>>> Not all vegans do that.
>
> >>>> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>
> >>>> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
> >>>> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
> >>>> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>
> >>> How did you come by evidence for this
>
> >> "vegans" present it to me.
>
> > You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
> > vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?
>
> Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
> to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
> perfectly representative.
>
Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice. There is no "monolithic
> On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>
> >>>>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
> >>>>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
> >>>>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>
> >>>>> Not all vegans do that.
>
> >>>> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>
> >>>> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
> >>>> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
> >>>> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>
> >>> How did you come by evidence for this
>
> >> "vegans" present it to me.
>
> > You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
> > vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?
>
> Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
> to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
> perfectly representative.
>
belief system" held by those who practice it. Different people who
practice it hold different beliefs.
Rupert
Apr 9, 2012, 12:03:33 AM4/9/12
to
George Plimpton
Apr 9, 2012, 12:45:34 AM4/9/12
to
inseparable. It's a belief.
George Plimpton
Apr 9, 2012, 12:46:08 AM4/9/12
to
"veganism" and "ar".
Rupert
Apr 9, 2012, 2:44:01 AM4/9/12
to
George Plimpton
Apr 9, 2012, 10:31:59 AM4/9/12
to
inconsistent and sloppy behavior.
Mr.Smartypants
Apr 9, 2012, 11:21:14 AM4/9/12
to
Adalberto
Sep 14, 2012, 10:46:34 AM9/14/12
to
The Vegan Society of UK points out that the choice of veganism should be driven by the desire to improve the well being of (in order): People, Animals, the Environment.
So "we the People" shouldn't put our health at risk for the sake of animals, as many "vegans" actually do, as you pointed out clearly.
All other animal-suffering issues should be posted solely on alt.food.vegan, as from a scientific standpoint even the Environment should come before the Animals in the list of our values: where should those rescued animals actually live, if we continue to destroy the whole environment while trying to save them?
So: People, Environment, Animals.
Adalberto
Il giorno venerdì 6 aprile 2012 17:03:31 UTC+2, George Plimpton ha scritto:
> Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
>
> satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
>
> reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
>
> bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
>
> any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
>
> eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
>
> nothing further.
>
>
>
> But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
>
> for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
>
> "contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
>
> I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":
>
>
>
> * brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
>
> black by the addition of squid ink
>
>
>
> * Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea & Perrins recipe, and
So "we the People" shouldn't put our health at risk for the sake of animals, as many "vegans" actually do, as you pointed out clearly.
All other animal-suffering issues should be posted solely on alt.food.vegan, as from a scientific standpoint even the Environment should come before the Animals in the list of our values: where should those rescued animals actually live, if we continue to destroy the whole environment while trying to save them?
So: People, Environment, Animals.
Adalberto
Il giorno venerdì 6 aprile 2012 17:03:31 UTC+2, George Plimpton ha scritto:
> Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
>
> satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
>
> reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
>
> bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
>
> any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
>
> eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
>
> nothing further.
>
>
>
> But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
>
> for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
>
> "contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
>
> I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":
>
>
>
> * brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
>
> black by the addition of squid ink
>
>
>
>
> probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy
>
>
>
> * refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
>
> white crystalline sugar uses bone char
>
>
>
> * lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
>
> wool production
>
>
>
>
>
> "vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
>
> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
>
> and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
>
> or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
>
> announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
>
> the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea & Perrins!!!"
> probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy
>
>
>
> * refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
>
> white crystalline sugar uses bone char
>
>
>
> * lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
>
> wool production
>
>
>
>
>
> "vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
>
> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
>
> and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
>
> or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
>
> announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
>
George Plimpton
Oct 1, 2013, 10:46:33 AM10/1/13
to
dh
Oct 2, 2013, 3:22:31 PM10/2/13
to
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:46:33 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
most if not all probably from cage raised hens:
Quorn Meat-Free Patties
Nuggets and Cutlets
Light Life Smart Menu!:
Meat Free Chick'n Nuggets
Chicken Patties
Veggie-licious Fiesta Bean Burger
Boca Meatless:
Chik'n Wings
Italian Sausage
Breakfast Patties
Breakfast Links
Morningstar Farms:
Veggie Burgers
Thai Burgers
Corn Dogs
Veggie Breakfast Breakfast Patties
Veggie Chicken
Chik'n Nuggets
Roasted Herb Chik'n
Worthington:
Vegetarian Fillets
Meatless Wham
Prosage Patties
Stakelets
Meatless Chicken
Chik Stiks
Leanies Vegetarian Hot Dogs
Meatless Smoked Turkey
.
>> "vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
>> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
>> and eliminating them.
All of the following supposed vegetarian products contain egg whites Goober,
>> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
>> and eliminating them.
most if not all probably from cage raised hens:
Quorn Meat-Free Patties
Nuggets and Cutlets
Light Life Smart Menu!:
Meat Free Chick'n Nuggets
Chicken Patties
Veggie-licious Fiesta Bean Burger
Boca Meatless:
Chik'n Wings
Italian Sausage
Breakfast Patties
Breakfast Links
Morningstar Farms:
Veggie Burgers
Thai Burgers
Corn Dogs
Veggie Breakfast Breakfast Patties
Veggie Chicken
Chik'n Nuggets
Roasted Herb Chik'n
Worthington:
Vegetarian Fillets
Meatless Wham
Prosage Patties
Stakelets
Meatless Chicken
Chik Stiks
Leanies Vegetarian Hot Dogs
Meatless Smoked Turkey
George Plimpton
Oct 2, 2013, 4:23:56 PM10/2/13
to
On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:46:33 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
> .
>>> "vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
>>> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
>>> and eliminating them.
>
> All of the following supposed vegetarian products contain egg whites
Most "vegans" don't eat them, Fuckwit. Anyway, *Gloo*, most of those
products are *not* said to be vegetarian; their manufacturers refer to
them as "meatless."
You are not a man.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:46:33 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
> .
>>> "vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
>>> last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
>>> and eliminating them.
>
> All of the following supposed vegetarian products contain egg whites
products are *not* said to be vegetarian; their manufacturers refer to
them as "meatless."
You are not a man.
0 new messages