On Mar 26, 12:12*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 3:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 7:10 am, George > *wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > There are good reasons for thinking it would usually not be the case.
>
> But you can't rule out that it is the case,

Yes, in general, you can rule out the possibility that that would be
the case.

> and clearly you aren't doing
> all you *reasonably* can do to prevent suffering.
>

Why not?

> We have been over this too many times to count. *If you *wanted* to -
> but you don't - you could find a better "vegan" diet than the one you
> follow, "better" meaning with respect to harming animals.

How do you know?

> That's the
> crux of the whole issue: *merely by not consuming animal parts, you have
> no idea if you're following the best "vegan" diet possible, let alone
> the best of all possible diets. *But refraining from putting animal
> parts in your mouth is the beginning and the end of your effort.

It's not.