On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > 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.

I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation.