On 3/24/2012 6:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Do you believe that it is better to cause less suffering?

Yes, but there's no reason to think being "vegan" necessarily does that.
For some people, that move might increase animal suffering.