On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > 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.

I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling
makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it.