"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 4:56*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > *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?
>
> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting shitbag. *The
> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering
> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
> demonstrated to be illogical and false.
No, it hasn't.
> Go try to waste the time of
> someone else, you ****ing clueless urbanite pantywaist.
|