Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism
On 4/8/2012 9:03 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:12 pm, George > 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?
Yes. They have established the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of
"veganism" and "ar".
|