"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 11:19*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
And you believe that doing it makes you better.
|