On May 16, 11:21=A0am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> sumbeotch at s***bum dot *** wrote:
>
> > not all vegans are idealistic ****tards....
>
> They are.
>
You left out IM****TANT MATERIAL, Boobs.
>
>
>
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:DbSdnYhnkofWCbHVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> >> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 I do not eat meat;
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> >> This argument contains a classic fallacy: =A0Denying the
> >> Antecedent. =A0It is obvious there are other ways to
> >> cause harm to animals. =A0The one that is much discussed
> >> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> >> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. =A0Uncounted
> >> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> >> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> >> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> >> control. =A0Once "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. =A0I call this the
> >> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> >> in food. =A0The 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. =A0She 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. =A0Nonetheless, 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. =A0What little challenge is mounted
> >> is not credible. =A0One "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. =A0It simply is not credible.
>
> >> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> >> Micrograms? =A0It 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. =A0Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> >> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> >> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> >> away. =A0In 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
