On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > 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.

You *do* know it. You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts
in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal
suffering than anyone. You *know* that. Stop lying.


> 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.

You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is
reducing suffering.