On 3/24/2012 6:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:32 am, George > 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.

It was bullshit - self-serving bullshit.

The fact is, you *do* know that it could be the case, and there is
*nothing* intrinsic to refraining from putting animal parts in your
mouth that rules it out - but still, that's all you do.