Re: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

sumbeotch at s***bum dot *** wrote:
> not all vegans are idealistic ****tards....

They are.


> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:DbSdnYhnkofWCbHVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>
>>       If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>
>>       I do not eat meat;
>>
>>       Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>>
>> This argument contains a classic fallacy:  Denying the
>> Antecedent.  It is obvious there are other ways to
>> cause harm to animals.  The one that is much discussed
>> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
>> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture.  Uncounted
>> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
>> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
>> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
>> control.  Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
>> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>>
>> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
>> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
>> trace of animal parts from their diet.  I call this the
>> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
>> in food.  The idea, of course, is to determine if there
>> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
>> if so, exclude it from their diet.
>>
>> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
>> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
>> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
>> dark.  She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
>> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
>> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
>> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
>> diets.  Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
>> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>>
>> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
>> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
>> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
>> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
>> all but unchallenged.  What little challenge is mounted
>> is not credible.  One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
>> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
>> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
>> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
>> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
>> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
>> kill animals.  It simply is not credible.
>>
>> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
>> Micrograms?  It is as if, despite some of them knowing
>> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
>> *still* accept it.
>>
>> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
>> form of religion.  Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
>> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
>> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
>> away.  In that light, the obsessive Search for
>> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
>> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
>> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. 
> 
>