View Single Post
  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>
> You cannot show me where you have done this.


You already know where I've done this.