XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,    
   lt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.philosophy   
   From: usagi@tsukino.ca   
      
   On 4/7/2012 12:08 AM, George Plimpton wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > A while 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.   
      
   Vegetarianism is skillful means.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)