On Mar 25, 3:32*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

I have explained why I think it is reasonable to believe that that
would generally not be the case.