On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply better people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259
>>
>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he says he doesn't.
>>
>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it?
>>
>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is better than that
>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and contentious topic as
>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to generate a lot of
>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to defend yourself
>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral pedestal, so you just
>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than those who use
>>>>>> animal products.
>>
>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be "well-founded".
>>
>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because bragging about
>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that one is better,
>>>> is still disparaged.
>>
>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or not. You *do*
>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you lie and claim
>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe.
>>
>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't this lead
>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief?
>>
>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. You know this.
>>
>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat eaters
>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth.
>>
>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say that one
>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of the school
>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You can't
>>> meaningfully compare two different people.
>>
>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time - say,
>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, then I am
>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt.
>
> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, yes, and I
> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, other
> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of suffering
> required to produce your food is morally better than not doing so.

The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded belief that
you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts in your
mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan shuffle"
argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you aren't
"doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering merely by not
putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude you're
doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, relative to
someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of animal
parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one causes are false.