On Mar 23, 11:07*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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?
>

Tell me more about how I don't think you're an idiot, Ball.

> >>> 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.