On Mar 25, 7:12*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 3:37 am, George > *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 caused 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,
>
> It is absolutely rational to believe that it could be the case.
>

Well, I think it's very irrational to believe that. It gets boring to
repeat the reasons why endlessly.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> 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,
>
> Neither is true. *Your conclusion is unwarranted.
>

That's an assertion, not an argument.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> Pure irrational obstinacy.

Actually, I think you'll find it's because you haven't offered the
least reason in support of your position.