View Single Post
  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 25, 7:15*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.


Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce
their food, and no animal agriculture at all. So less suffering takes
place in order to produce their food. It's not rocket science.