"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 5, 9:56*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > *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.
>
> I do recall it.
That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much.
|