On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > 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?

Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the
animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes
some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material.