On Apr 6, 8:08*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 10:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 7:05 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/6/2012 9:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/6/2012 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > * * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>>>>>>> No, I do not,
>
> >>>>>>>> You do. *You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off.
>
> >>>>>>> You have never offered good reasons
>
> >>>>>> I have.
>
> >>>>> So what's wrong with offering them now?
>
> >>>> You already know what they are. *You're just trying to waste my time.
>
> >>> How would you define "delusion"?
>
> >> By example. *Here's an example: *most "vegans" believe their diets are
> >> "cruelty free", when they aren't.
>
> > You think that's a delusion as opposed to just a mistaken belief?
>
> It's a delusion when they persist in it, when irrefutable evidence that
> it's wrong is presented to them.

In the case of your belief that I already know what good reasons you
have offered for thinking that vegans have not adopted a rational
strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that takes place
to produce the food they eat, that belief is unfalsifiable really. If
you insist on believing that I know it then there is not a lot that I
can do to prove to you that I don't know it. If someone clings
steadfastly to an unfalsifiable belief in the absence of the least
scintilla of evidence in its favour, is it reasonable to call that a
delusion?