View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/23/2012 1:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.


Did you decide to stop lying about it, or were you just too flummoxed to
think of a good lie?


>>> 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.

>
> Absolute nonsense.


Yes, it is absolute nonsense for you to think that *not* putting animal
parts in your pie-hole automatically means you're reducing suffering.