On Mar 23, 8:31*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George >
> >> 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.
>
> >> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
> >> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
> >> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."
>
> > I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. What it
> > does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you
> > consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you live) a
> > form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of
> > pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total
> > pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that certainly
> > creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution caused
> > by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater
> > than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make
> > stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but I don't
> > know.
>
> >> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to stop
> >> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
> >> think you're better than them because you recycle?
>
> > In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping material
> > out of landfills.
>
> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite right.
> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal in my
> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one thinks of
> that as a moral issue /per se/. *However, the AR/AL crowd do think human
> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either
> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering that
> crosses some moral threshold. *"aras" think that refraining from
> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only
> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement that
> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not sure
> that it is.

I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out
of landfills. Make up your mind.