"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 8:08 pm, George > 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's too long for a dependent clause. Don't do that.
|