On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote:
> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton 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.
>
> And better than others who don't.

Quite likely, greggeorge.


> You believe something is bad and so
> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing.

My action unequivocally is a reduction.


> Vegans believe
> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that
> bad thing.

Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction.