Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism
On Apr 8, 7:12*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
Whereas your posts, I take it, achieve something?
|