"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 5:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
|