On Apr 5, 8:13*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> 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.
>
> >>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a
> >>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end
> >>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan
> >>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you.
>
> >> All that needed to be shown.
>
> > I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially
> > interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is
> > any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount
> > of harm they were causing by going vegan.
>
> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth
> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful.

That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. It really is quite
ludicrous that anyone could take such nonsense seriously.