View Single Post
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Apr 5, 9:33*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 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 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.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some.

>
> >>>>>>>> QED

>
> >>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit]

>
> >>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a
> >>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your
> >>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the
> >>>>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from
> >>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best
> >>>>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but
> >>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort
> >>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop
> >>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them.

>
> >>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for
> >>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause.

>
> >>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make.

>
> >>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a
> >>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that
> >>> takes place to produce the food they eat?

>
> >> It's bullshit - they haven't.

>
> > What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion?

>
> Been over all that with you already.


I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that
conclusion.