View Single Post
  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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 ...
>>

>
> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction
> by going vegan.


No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal
bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and
that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually
increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts.