On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely.

No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been
whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in
harm. The answer is no, you need more information.