On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 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 ...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal
>>>>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been
>>>>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in
>>>>>>>>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information.
>>
>>>>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a
>>>>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end
>>>>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan
>>>>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you.
>>
>>>>>>>> All that needed to be shown.
>>
>>>>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially
>>>>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is
>>>>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount
>>>>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan.
>>
>>>>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth
>>>>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful.
>>
>>>>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense.
>>
>>>> It isn't. It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to
>>>> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores
>>>> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. *Everyone* apart from
>>>> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags,
>>>> which is exactly what they are. They're also clueless urbanites, as
>>>> well as animal rights passivists.
>>
>>> You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat-
>>> including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism
>>> would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it
>>> follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful
>>> by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too
>>> silly to comment on.
>>
>> It isn't.
>
> Of course it is.

It's not, of course.



>> You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you
>> *do* eat.
>>
>
> No, I don't know because the data is not available.

And you don't have any interest in finding it. That's the whole
problem. You've put yourself into a position in which you imagine -
nothing more - that you're "better" than omnivores, and that was the
goal. You don't *CARE* how much suffering and death your meals cause,
as long as they don't cause a particular kind.