On Mar 23, 4:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?