"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > 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.
>>
>> Oh, well...
>
> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of
> the conclusion, but in fact you have not.
In fact, I have, numerous times.
|