On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 11:47 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.
>>
>>> You obviously want to believe that what's in it for me to be a vegan
>>> is to be able to view myself as a "better" person, as opposed to
>>> trying to do something about animal suffering.
>>
>> It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the
>> amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain
>> "vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. As there is no objective
>> moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in
>> your self-esteem. You think you're "better" than meat eaters.
>>
>> * you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not
>> "doing the best you can".
>
> I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal
> suffering required to produce my food.

You can't conclude anything about it. There is no /a priori/ reason to
believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal
suffering of all of humanity. *Nothing* about merely not putting animal
parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal
suffering than anyone else.

That is a fact, and you know it.