"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 2, 10:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > *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,
>
> Not necessarily.
How would that work out?
|