XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,    
   lt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.philosophy   
   From: holme@yahoo.co   
      
   "George Plimpton"  wrote in message   
   news:Tt-dnScIwoVFm-LSnZ2dnUVZ5vqdnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   > 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.   
      
   How true. Anyway vegetarianism is a fetish of the rich. You can bet any   
   Rickshaw driver, who is forced to be vegetarian by his poverty, would jump   
   at the chance of getting some proper calories. They are so under wieght for   
   such a job. Only the indolent rich would contemplate vegatarianism.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)