On 4/8/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:20 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/7/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 6:03 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2012 1:33 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote
>>
>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
>>>>>>> (falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
>>>>>>> animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
>>>>>>> didn't have that belief?
>>
>>>>>> They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
>>>>>> by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
>>>>>> standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
>>>>>> something to that effect.
>>
>>>>> How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
>>>>> a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
>>>>> way to reduce harm to animals?
>>
>>>> Your question is absurd. Their belief about the effect and sufficiency
>>>> of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
>>>> moral standing.
>>
>>> But they do have the belief,
>>
>> It's nothing but a façade; completely unreal. All they really have is
>> their own ego. All they care about is themselves.
>
> I fail to see how you've given any rational grounds for thinking that.

No, you don't. You're just discomfited by it, and having nothing better
to do (extremely low time value), you waste time by saying, like a
school child, "is not is not is not is not." It achieves nothing.