On 3/24/2012 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, 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.
>>
>>> Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount
>>> of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount
>>> of suffering required to produce your food?
>>
>> That's the wrong question.
>
> It would be great if you could answer it, nevertheless.

Of course it's rational to believe that the amount of suffering cause by
- *not* "required" by - your diet might exceed that caused by mine. You
don't know what I eat, apart from some meat, and you don't know how much
meat I eat or the provenance of it. Simply *not* eating meat doesn't
say anything about the amount of suffering you cause relative to what I
cause.


>> The proper question is, why would you
>> *possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you
>> are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering?
>>
>
> That's changing the topic. Your original claim was that I might be
> causing more animal suffering than anyone.

And you might well be.


>
> You evidently think that you are doing all you need to do by doing
> nothing at all, so I don't see how you can object if I claim that I am
> doing all that I need to do.

I'm not the one claiming there is a moral imperative not to harm
animals, and I'm not the one making some ****witted claim about the
level of harm caused by my diet.

You're going around in circles, as usual. You want to claim you're
making a significant reduction in harm merely by *not* consuming meat,
and you also want to pretend you're doing as much as you reasonably can
be expected to do, and neither is true. It's all about your ego and vanity.


>> You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes
>> meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone.
>
> No. I don't know that.

Yes, you do know it. You know that it *could* mean that.


>> You just
>> can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute
>> to animal suffering.
>
> I can make some conclusions,

You cannot make any reasonable conclusion. The fact you stick with this
utterly illogical and unfounded position proves your irrationality and
bad faith.