View Single Post
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 4:01*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.


No, I don't. I don't think it's especially sensible not to believe
that going vegan is a good strategy for reducing the amount of animal
suffering one causes.