"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 31, 2:39*am, Rupert > wrote:
> 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.
>
*Everything* is rocket science to the Gooberdoodle.
|