"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 3:57*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
|