XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan.science, ta   
   k.politics.animals   
   From: george@si.not   
      
   On 4/6/2012 8:03 AM, George Plimpton 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   
   >      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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)