On Mar 25, 3:37*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

I don't think it's rational to believe that at all, and I've explained
why quite a few times in the past.

> >> 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 say that neither is true, but your view strikes me as irrational.

> >> 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.

I do not agree.