 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/24/2012 6:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > 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. > > Do you believe that it is better to cause less suffering? Yes, but there's no reason to think being "vegan" necessarily does that. For some people, that move might increase animal suffering. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/24/2012 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:47 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. >> >>>>>>>>> You obviously want to believe that what's in it for me to be a vegan >>>>>>>>> is to be able to view myself as a "better" person, as opposed to >>>>>>>>> trying to do something about animal suffering. >> >>>>>>>> It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the >>>>>>>> amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain >>>>>>>> "vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. As there is no objective >>>>>>>> moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in >>>>>>>> your self-esteem. You think you're "better" than meat eaters. >> >>>>>>>> * you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not >>>>>>>> "doing the best you can". >> >>>>>>> I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal >>>>>>> suffering required to produce my food. >> >>>>>> You can't conclude anything about it. There is no /a priori/ reason to >>>>>> believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal >>>>>> suffering of all of humanity. *Nothing* about merely not putting animal >>>>>> parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal >>>>>> suffering than anyone else. >> >>>>>> That is a fact, and you know it. >> >>>>> No, I don't. >> >>>> You *do* know it. You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts >>>> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal >>>> suffering than anyone. You *know* that. Stop lying. >> >>> Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount >>> of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount >>> of suffering required to produce your food? >> >> That's the wrong question. > > It would be great if you could answer it, nevertheless. Of course it's rational to believe that the amount of suffering cause by - *not* "required" by - your diet might exceed that caused by mine. You don't know what I eat, apart from some meat, and you don't know how much meat I eat or the provenance of it. Simply *not* eating meat doesn't say anything about the amount of suffering you cause relative to what I cause. >> The proper question is, why would you >> *possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you >> are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering? >> > > That's changing the topic. Your original claim was that I might be > causing more animal suffering than anyone. And you might well be. > > You evidently think that you are doing all you need to do by doing > nothing at all, so I don't see how you can object if I claim that I am > doing all that I need to do. I'm not the one claiming there is a moral imperative not to harm animals, and I'm not the one making some ****witted claim about the level of harm caused by my diet. You're going around in circles, as usual. You want to claim you're making a significant reduction in harm merely by *not* consuming meat, and you also want to pretend you're doing as much as you reasonably can be expected to do, and neither is true. It's all about your ego and vanity. >> You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes >> meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone. > > No. I don't know that. Yes, you do know it. You know that it *could* mean that. >> You just >> can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute >> to animal suffering. > > I can make some conclusions, You cannot make any reasonable conclusion. The fact you stick with this utterly illogical and unfounded position proves your irrationality and bad faith. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 25, 3:32*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 6:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > *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. > > > Do you believe that it is better to cause less suffering? > > Yes, but there's no reason to think being "vegan" necessarily does that. > * For some people, that move might increase animal suffering. I have explained why I think it is reasonable to believe that that would generally not be the case. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 25, 3:37*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:47 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. > > >>>>>>>>> You obviously want to believe that what's in it for me to be a vegan > >>>>>>>>> is to be able to view myself as a "better" person, as opposed to > >>>>>>>>> trying to do something about animal suffering. > > >>>>>>>> It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the > >>>>>>>> amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain > >>>>>>>> "vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. *As there is no objective > >>>>>>>> moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in > >>>>>>>> your self-esteem. *You think you're "better" than meat eaters. > > >>>>>>>> * you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not > >>>>>>>> "doing the best you can". > > >>>>>>> I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal > >>>>>>> suffering required to produce my food. > > >>>>>> You can't conclude anything about it. *There is no /a priori/ reason to > >>>>>> believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal > >>>>>> suffering of all of humanity. **Nothing* about merely not putting animal > >>>>>> parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal > >>>>>> suffering than anyone else. > > >>>>>> That is a fact, and you know it. > > >>>>> No, I don't. > > >>>> You *do* know it. *You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts > >>>> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal > >>>> suffering than anyone. *You *know* that. *Stop lying. > > >>> Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount > >>> of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount > >>> of suffering required to produce your food? > > >> That's the wrong question. > > > It would be great if you could answer it, nevertheless. > > Of course it's rational to believe that the amount of suffering cause by > - *not* "required" by - your diet might exceed that caused by mine. *You > don't know what I eat, apart from some meat, and you don't know how much > meat I eat or the provenance of it. *Simply *not* eating meat doesn't > say anything about the amount of suffering you cause relative to what I > cause. > I don't think it's rational to believe that at all, and I've explained why quite a few times in the past. > >> The proper question is, why would you > >> *possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you > >> are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering? > > > That's changing the topic. Your original claim was that I might be > > causing more animal suffering than anyone. > > And you might well be. > > > > > You evidently think that you are doing all you need to do by doing > > nothing at all, so I don't see how you can object if I claim that I am > > doing all that I need to do. > > I'm not the one claiming there is a moral imperative not to harm > animals, and I'm not the one making some ****witted claim about the > level of harm caused by my diet. > > You're going around in circles, as usual. *You want to claim you're > making a significant reduction in harm merely by *not* consuming meat, > and you also want to pretend you're doing as much as you reasonably can > be expected to do, and neither is true. *It's all about your ego and vanity. > You say that neither is true, but your view strikes me as irrational. > >> You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes > >> meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone. > > > No. I don't know that. > > Yes, you do know it. *You know that it *could* mean that. > > >> You just > >> can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute > >> to animal suffering. > > > I can make some conclusions, > > You cannot make any reasonable conclusion. *The fact you stick with this > utterly illogical and unfounded position proves your irrationality and > bad faith. I do not agree. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 23/03/2012 17:44, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > wrote: >>> 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." *BUSTED* > 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, It is. You know it is. Dumping garbage is 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. Vegans intuitively hold the belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth. But they're not entitled to believe they're better, according to your rules. You intuitively hold the belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in pollution merely by *not* putting garbage in one's garbage bin. But you're fully entitled to believe you're better, according to the different rules you follow. It obvious that you have one rule for vegans while following a different rule. You measure your virtue by comparing your garbage bin to other's garbage bins, but you don't allow vegans to measure their virtue by comparing their shopping cart to other's shopping carts. St. Derek reveals your double standard here and proves that is you who is arrogant and egotistical, not the vegans you're too keen to malign. >> 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. Better than who, the unethical scumbags who don't recycle? So that's your game is it? You *DO* think you're more virtuous, *better* than others by comparing your efforts to reduce something you believe is bad to the efforts, or lack of, of others. You're a hypocrite. An arrogant and egotistical hypocrite. Start believing in your own bullshit before telling others to live by it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 23/03/2012 17:20, Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > wrote: >> 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 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? He *does* think he's better. Read his post. He thinks he's better than others who don't recycle. He measures his virtue by comparing his garbage bin to others' garbage bins. He looks down from his moral pedestal at others who don't recycle and thinks he's better than they are because he's reducing something he believes is bad that others don't. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
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. You believe something is bad and so you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. Vegans believe something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that bad thing. You believe you're better than those who don't try to reduce their contribution to your bad thing and so you automatically think vegans believe they're better than those who don't try to reduce their contribution to their bad thing. You measure your virtue by comparing yourself to others and so you think vegans measure their virtue by comparing themselves to others as well. You're projecting your own faults onto vegans and trying to malign them for something only you do. *LOL* |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 24, 9:08*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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/24/2012 6:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:32 am, George > wrote: >> On 3/24/2012 6:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > 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. >> >>> Do you believe that it is better to cause less suffering? >> >> Yes, but there's no reason to think being "vegan" necessarily does that. >> For some people, that move might increase animal suffering. > > I have explained why I think it is reasonable to believe that that > would generally not be the case. It was bullshit - self-serving bullshit. The fact is, you *do* know that it could be the case, and there is *nothing* intrinsic to refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth that rules it out - but still, that's all you do. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/24/2012 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:37 am, George > wrote: >> On 3/24/2012 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:47 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You obviously want to believe that what's in it for me to be a vegan >>>>>>>>>>> is to be able to view myself as a "better" person, as opposed to >>>>>>>>>>> trying to do something about animal suffering. >> >>>>>>>>>> It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the >>>>>>>>>> amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain >>>>>>>>>> "vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. As there is no objective >>>>>>>>>> moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in >>>>>>>>>> your self-esteem. You think you're "better" than meat eaters. >> >>>>>>>>>> * you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not >>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can". >> >>>>>>>>> I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal >>>>>>>>> suffering required to produce my food. >> >>>>>>>> You can't conclude anything about it. There is no /a priori/ reason to >>>>>>>> believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal >>>>>>>> suffering of all of humanity. *Nothing* about merely not putting animal >>>>>>>> parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal >>>>>>>> suffering than anyone else. >> >>>>>>>> That is a fact, and you know it. >> >>>>>>> No, I don't. >> >>>>>> You *do* know it. You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts >>>>>> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal >>>>>> suffering than anyone. You *know* that. Stop lying. >> >>>>> Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount >>>>> of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount >>>>> of suffering required to produce your food? >> >>>> That's the wrong question. >> >>> It would be great if you could answer it, nevertheless. >> >> Of course it's rational to believe that the amount of suffering caused by >> - *not* "required" by - your diet might exceed that caused by mine. You >> don't know what I eat, apart from some meat, and you don't know how much >> meat I eat or the provenance of it. Simply *not* eating meat doesn't >> say anything about the amount of suffering you cause relative to what I >> cause. >> > > I don't think it's rational to believe that at all, It is absolutely rational to believe that it could be the case. >>>> The proper question is, why would you >>>> *possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you >>>> are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering? >> >>> That's changing the topic. Your original claim was that I might be >>> causing more animal suffering than anyone. >> >> And you might well be. >> >> >> >>> You evidently think that you are doing all you need to do by doing >>> nothing at all, so I don't see how you can object if I claim that I am >>> doing all that I need to do. >> >> I'm not the one claiming there is a moral imperative not to harm >> animals, and I'm not the one making some ****witted claim about the >> level of harm caused by my diet. >> >> You're going around in circles, as usual. You want to claim you're >> making a significant reduction in harm merely by *not* consuming meat, >> and you also want to pretend you're doing as much as you reasonably can >> be expected to do, and neither is true. It's all about your ego and vanity. >> > > You say that neither is true, Neither is true. Your conclusion is unwarranted. >>>> You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes >>>> meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone. >> >>> No. I don't know that. >> >> Yes, you do know it. You know that it *could* mean that. >> >>>> You just >>>> can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute >>>> to animal suffering. >> >>> I can make some conclusions, >> >> You cannot make any reasonable conclusion. The fact you stick with this >> utterly illogical and unfounded position proves your irrationality and >> bad faith. > > I do not agree. Pure irrational obstinacy. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/24/2012 7:27 PM, Glen wrote:
> On 23/03/2012 17:44, George Plimpton wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>> wrote: > >>>> 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." > > *BUSTED* > >> 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, > > It is. It could be, greggeorge. >> 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. > > Vegans intuitively hold the belief that one is making a meaningful > reduction in animal suffering merely by *not* putting animal parts in > one's mouth. They're wrong, greggeorge. >>> 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. > > Better than who, the unethical scumbags who don't recycle? Better than I would be if I didn't recycle, nutless. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote in message ...
> On 23/03/2012 17:44, George Plimpton wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>> wrote: > >>>> 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." > > *BUSTED* > >> 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, > > It is. You know it is. Dumping garbage is 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. > > Vegans intuitively hold the belief that one is making a meaningful > reduction in animal suffering merely by *not* putting animal parts in > one's mouth. But they're not entitled to believe they're better, according > to your rules. You intuitively hold the belief that one is making a > meaningful reduction in pollution merely by *not* putting garbage in one's > garbage bin. But you're fully entitled to believe you're better, according > to the different rules you follow. It obvious that you have one rule for > vegans while following a different rule. You measure your virtue by > comparing your garbage bin to other's garbage bins, but you don't allow > vegans to measure their virtue by comparing their shopping cart to other's > shopping carts. St. Derek reveals your double standard here and proves > that is you who is arrogant and egotistical, not the vegans you're too > keen to malign. > >>> 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. > > Better than who, the unethical scumbags who don't recycle? So that's your > game is it? You *DO* think you're more virtuous, *better* than others by > comparing your efforts to reduce something you believe is bad to the > efforts, or lack of, of others. You're a hypocrite. An arrogant and > egotistical hypocrite. Start believing in your own bullshit before telling > others to live by it. Simply doing something in a way that you think may be better than another way is not the same as shouting from the rooftops, or even thinking, that those who don't follow your lead are akin to barbarians or murderers. Raising animals for food is not evil, if you think so you and you don't keep your twisted view to yourself then you deserve all the verbal abuse you get. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 25, 7:10*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 6:55 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 3:32 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/24/2012 6:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > * *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. > > >>> Do you believe that it is better to cause less suffering? > > >> Yes, but there's no reason to think being "vegan" necessarily does that. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 25, 7:12*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 3:37 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/24/2012 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:47 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You obviously want to believe that what's in it for me to be a vegan > >>>>>>>>>>> is to be able to view myself as a "better" person, as opposed to > >>>>>>>>>>> trying to do something about animal suffering. > > >>>>>>>>>> It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the > >>>>>>>>>> amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain > >>>>>>>>>> "vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. *As there is no objective > >>>>>>>>>> moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in > >>>>>>>>>> your self-esteem. *You think you're "better" than meat eaters. > > >>>>>>>>>> * you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not > >>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can". > > >>>>>>>>> I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal > >>>>>>>>> suffering required to produce my food. > > >>>>>>>> You can't conclude anything about it. *There is no /a priori/ reason to > >>>>>>>> believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal > >>>>>>>> suffering of all of humanity. **Nothing* about merely not putting animal > >>>>>>>> parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal > >>>>>>>> suffering than anyone else. > > >>>>>>>> That is a fact, and you know it. > > >>>>>>> No, I don't. > > >>>>>> You *do* know it. *You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts > >>>>>> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal > >>>>>> suffering than anyone. *You *know* that. *Stop lying. > > >>>>> Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount > >>>>> of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount > >>>>> of suffering required to produce your food? > > >>>> That's the wrong question. > > >>> It would be great if you could answer it, nevertheless. > > >> Of course it's rational to believe that the amount of suffering caused by > >> - *not* "required" by - your diet might exceed that caused by mine. *You > >> don't know what I eat, apart from some meat, and you don't know how much > >> meat I eat or the provenance of it. *Simply *not* eating meat doesn't > >> say anything about the amount of suffering you cause relative to what I > >> cause. > > > I don't think it's rational to believe that at all, > > It is absolutely rational to believe that it could be the case. > Well, I think it's very irrational to believe that. It gets boring to repeat the reasons why endlessly. > > > > > > > > > >>>> The proper question is, why would you > >>>> *possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you > >>>> are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering? > > >>> That's changing the topic. Your original claim was that I might be > >>> causing more animal suffering than anyone. > > >> And you might well be. > > >>> You evidently think that you are doing all you need to do by doing > >>> nothing at all, so I don't see how you can object if I claim that I am > >>> doing all that I need to do. > > >> I'm not the one claiming there is a moral imperative not to harm > >> animals, and I'm not the one making some ****witted claim about the > >> level of harm caused by my diet. > > >> You're going around in circles, as usual. *You want to claim you're > >> making a significant reduction in harm merely by *not* consuming meat, > >> and you also want to pretend you're doing as much as you reasonably can > >> be expected to do, and neither is true. *It's all about your ego and vanity. > > > You say that neither is true, > > Neither is true. *Your conclusion is unwarranted. > That's an assertion, not an argument. > > > > > > > > > >>>> You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes > >>>> meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone. > > >>> No. I don't know that. > > >> Yes, you do know it. *You know that it *could* mean that. > > >>>> You just > >>>> can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute > >>>> to animal suffering. > > >>> I can make some conclusions, > > >> You cannot make any reasonable conclusion. *The fact you stick with this > >> utterly illogical and unfounded position proves your irrationality and > >> bad faith. > > > I do not agree. > > Pure irrational obstinacy. Actually, I think you'll find it's because you haven't offered the least reason in support of your position. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 06:15, George Plimpton 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. Candid admission that you measure your virtue by comparing it to others' virtue. Thank you. You've said that that's a disgusting vegan trait but it turns out that it's your own. >> You believe something is bad and so >> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > My action unequivocally is a reduction. No it isn't. More than 230,000 tons of waste sent for recycling by householders is being dumped in landfill sites every year, it is claimed. Councils say the waste is ' contaminated', and it is cheaper to bury it than to remove the unwanted elements. However, the policy risks bringing the entire council recycling regime into disrepute. http://tinyurl.com/cwe5gk The Eight Myths of Recycling By Daniel Benjamin Garbage is the unavoidable by-product of production and consumption. There are three ways to deal with it, all known and used since antiquity: dumping, burning, and recycling. For thousands of years it was commonplace to dump rubbish on site--on the floor, or out the window. Scavenging domestic animals, chiefly pigs and dogs, consumed the edible parts, and poor people salvaged what they could. The rest was covered and built upon. Eventually, humans began to use more elaborate methods of dealing with their rubbish. The first modern incinerator (called a "destructor") went into operation in Nottingham, England in 1874. After World War II, landfills became the accepted means of dealing with trash. The modern era of the recycling craze can be traced to 1987, when the garbage barge Mobro 4000 had to spend two months touring the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico before it found a home for its load. The Environmental Defense Fund, the National Solid Waste Management Association (whose members were anxious to line up new customers for their expanding landfill capacity), the press, and finally the Environmental Protection Agency, spun the story of a garbage crisis out of control. By 1995, the majority of Americans thought trash was our number one environmental problem--with 77 percent reporting that increased recycling of household rubbish was the solution. Yet these claims and fears were based on errors and misinformation, which I have compiled into the Eight Great Myths of Recycling. Myth 1: Our Garbage Will Bury Us Fact: Even though the United States is larger, more affluent, and producing more garbage, it now has more landfill capacity that ever before. The erroneous opposite impression comes from old studies that counted the number of landfills (which has declined) rather than landfill capacity (which has grown). There are a few places, like New Jersey, where capacity has shrunk. But the uneven distribution of landfill space is no more important than the uneven distribution of automobile manufacturing. Perhaps the most important fact is this: If we permitted our rubbish to grow to the height of New York City's famous Fresh Kills landfill (225 feet), a site only about 10 miles on a side could hold all of America's garbage for the next century. Myth 2: Our Garbage Will Poison Us Fact: Almost anything can pose a theoretical threat, but evidence of actual harm from landfills is almost non-existent, as the Environmental Protection Agency itself acknowledges. The EPA has concluded that landfills constructed according to agency regulations can be expected to cause a total of 5.7 cancer-related deaths over the next 300 years. It isn't household waste, but improperly or illegally dumped industrial wastes that can be harmful. Household recycling programs have no effect on those wastes, a fact ignored by messianic proponents of recycling. Myth 3: Our Packaging Is Immoral Fact: Many people argue that the best way to "save landfill space" is to reduce the amount of packaging Americans use, via mandatory controls. But packaging can actually reduce total garbage produced and total resources used. The average American family generates fully one third less trash than does the average Mexican household. The reason is that our intensive use of packaging yields less spoilage and breakage, thereby saving resources, and producing, on balance, less total rubbish. Careful packaging also reduces food poisoning and other health problems. Over the past 25 years, market incen-tives have already reduced the weights of individual packages by 30 to 70 percent. An average aluminium can weighed nearly 21 grams in 1972; in 2002, that same can weighs in at under 14 grams. A plastic grocery sack was 2.3 mils thick in 1976; by 2001, it was a mere 0.7 mils. By contrast, the environmentally sensitive New York Times has been growing. A year's worth of the newspaper now weighs 520 pounds and occupies more than 40 cubic feet in a landfill. This is equivalent in weight to 17,180 aluminum cans--nearly a century's worth of beer and soft drink consumption by one person. Clearly, people anxious to heal Mother Earth must forego the Times! Myth 4: We Must Achieve "Trash Independence" Fact: Garbage has become an inter-state business, with 47 states exporting the stuff and 45 importing it. Environ-mentalists contend that each state should dispose within its borders all the trash produced within its borders. But why? Transporting garbage across an arbitrary legal boundary has no effect on the envi-ronmental impact of the disposal of that material. Moving a ton of trash is no more hazardous than moving a ton of any other commodity. Myth 5: We're Squandering Irreplaceable Resources Fact: Thanks to numerous innovations, we now produce about twice as much output per unit of energy as we did 50 years ago, and five times as much as we did 200 years ago. Automobiles use only half as much metal as in 1970, and one optical fiber carries the same number of calls as 625 copper wires did 20 years ago. Bridges are built with less steel, because steel is stronger and engineering is improved. Automobile and truck engines consume less fuel per unit of work performed, and produce fewer emissions. To address the issue of paper, the most-promoted form of recycling: The amount of new growth that occurs each year in forests is more than 20 times the number of trees consumed by the world each year for wood and paper. Where loss of forest land is taking place, as in tropical rain forests, it can be traced directly to a lack of private property rights. Governments have used forests, especially the valuable tropical ones, as an easy way to raise quick cash. Wherever private property rights to forests are well-defined and enforced, forests are either stable or growing. More recycling of paper or cardboard would not eliminate tropical forest losses. Myth 6: Recycling Always Protects the Environment Fact: Recycling is a manufacturing process, and therefore it too has environ-mental impact. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment says that it is "not clear whether secondary manufacturing [i.e., recycling] produces less pollution per ton of material processed than primary manufacturing." Recycling merely changes the nature of pollution--sometimes decreasing it, and sometimes increasing it. This effect is particularly apparent in the case of curbside recycling, which is mandated or strongly encouraged by governments in many communities around the country. Curbside recycling requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount of waste materials. Instead of one truck picking up 40 pounds of garbage, one will pick up four pounds of recyclables and a second will collect 36 pounds of rubbish. Los Angeles has estimated that due to curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is twice as large as it otherwise would be--800 vs. 400 trucks. This means more iron ore and coal mining, more steel and rub-ber manufacturing, more petroleum extracted and refined for fuel--and of course all that extra air pollution in the Los Angeles basin as the 400 added trucks cruise the streets. Myth 7: Recycling Saves Resources Fact: Using less of one resource usually means using more of another. Curbside recycling is substantially more costly and uses far more resources than a program in which disposal is combined with a voluntary drop-off/buy-back option. The reason: Curbside recycling of household rubbish uses huge amounts of capital and labor per pound of material recycled. Overall, curbside recycling costs between 35 and 55 percent more than simply disposing of the item. It typically wastes resources. In the ordinary course of daily living, we already reuse most higher value items. The only things that intentionally end up in the trash are both low in value and costly to reuse or recycle. Yet these are the items that municipal recycling programs are targeting--the very things that consumers have already decided are too worthless or costly to deal with further. All of the profitable, socially productive opportunities for recycling were long ago co-opted by the private sector, because they pay back. The bulk of all curbside recycling programs simply waste resources. Myth 8: Without Forced Mandates, There Wouldn't Be Any Recycling Fact: Long before state or local governments had even contemplated the word recycling, the makers of steel, aluminum, and thousands of other products were recycling manufacturing scraps. Some operated post-consumer drop-off centers. As for the claim that the private sector promotes premature or excessive disposal, this ignores an enormous body of evidence to the contrary. Firms only survive in the marketplace if they take into account all costs. Fifty years ago, when labor was cheap compared to materials, goods were built to be repaired, so that the expensive materials could be used for a longer period of time. As the price of labor has risen and the cost of materials has fallen, manufacturers have responded by building items to be used until they break, and then discarded. There is no bias against recycling; there is merely a market-driven effort to conserve the most valuable resources. Informed, voluntary recycling con-serves resources and raises our wealth, enabling us to achieve valued ends that would otherwise be impossible. Mandatory programs, however, in which people are directly or indirectly compelled to do what they know is not sensible, routinely make society worse off. Such programs force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard. Except in a few rare cases, the free market is eminently capable of providing both disposal and recycling in an amount and mix that creates the greatest wealth for society. This makes possible the widest and most satisfying range of human endeavors. Simply put, market prices are sufficient to induce the trash-man to come, and to make his burden bearable, and neither he nor we can hope for any better than that. Daniel Benjamin is a professor at Clemson University and a senior associate at PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center http://tinyurl.com/pxbpj7 Modern properly maintained landfills are good for the environment. SAN FRANCISCO--The newly built Sierra Point Radisson Hotel puts a positive spin on the word "dump." Built on a garbage landfill in San Francisco because of a lack of land, the 210-room property with a view of the San Francisco Bay opened July 26 after 13 months of construction and 18 months of planning. General contractor Dave Zurbin of Webcor Builders said that with everybody wanting property with a view of the water, landfills are becoming a common building site for commercial businesses, golf courses and now hotels. "There is nowhere left to build," he said. "Everybody wants to live and work on the peninsula, so they have to start building on landfills." Although San Francisco's barriers to entry gave developers little choice but to build on the landfill, the eight-story hotel couldn't be at a better location--100 feet from the water, said Navin Dimond, owner of the Sierra Point Radisson and principal of Stonebridge Cos. in Aurora, Colo. "You would never be able to tell it used to be landfill. It's a nice area right on the bay," Dimond said. A special foundation Although the 50-acre landfill was filled and sealed several years before Stonebridge Cos. bought the land, Pahl-Pahl-Pahl Architects/Planners and Webcor had to design and create a solid foundation for the hotel. In addition, they had to develop and install a mechanism to prevent toxic methane gas from the landfill from leaking into the hotel. First, a 4-foot-thick clay cap was laid over the already-covered landfill. Then, because the subsurface conditions were unsuitable for supporting the weight of the hotel, concrete piles were driven into the ground, some as far as 150 feet. Finally, the piles were capped with an additional layer of concrete to ensure that there were no openings for methane to get through. Harvey Hwang, assistant project manager at Webcor, said driving the piles into the concrete and landfill was a challenge, especially because the piles could hit garbage buried within the landfill and break. By the time the foundation had been sealed, 50 of 387 piles had broken. "We were always at risk of hitting something as we were on our way down [through the landfill], and then we would have to start over," he said. From there, a methane-gas-collecting system was incorporated into the structure. Under regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency and the county, the designers and contractors had to make sure that even if methane gas escaped from the landfill, it would not leak into the hotel. The collecting system operates by capturing and holding leaked methane gas within tubes installed under the floor slab. The gas then is released from the tubes into the air via a chimney-like structure, away from the hotel. However, the chances that methane gas could escape a sealed landfill are slim, Zurbin said. "The slab of clay is pretty much impermeable," he said. In anticipation of possible movement of the building, the structural design also required incorporating hinged slabs at all the building's entrances. Proper precautions Steve Wall, solid waste management engineer for the EPA in San Francisco, said building on a landfill is safe, as long as proper procedures are followed. In the United States, regulation of landfills is delegated to the state, and then, in cases such as California, delegated to the county. Wall said the Sierra Point designers and builders have taken the proper precautions, but suggested installing a gas-monitoring system in the hotel just to be safe. "Although it may seem redundant, a gas-monitoring system on the lower floors would be good in case gas leaks," he said. Generally, a hotel of this type and size costs about $17 million, but building on a landfill requires an additional $500,000 to $1 million, according to Hwang. He would not reveal the cost of the Sierra Point Radisson, but said it was more than $17 million. The cost, however, was well worth it because the hotel is on the water, Dimond said. Even better, Joe Pahl, architect for Pahl-Pahl-Pahl, said guests will never feel like or even know that they are staying on a landfill because of the transformation of the site. "There is no way you can tell that it used to be a landfill. There is landscaping, pools and parking lots," Pahl said. Hwang said building the Sierra Point Radisson on a landfill was a good use of land. "Why leave it as a dump when you could make it into beautiful land for people to use?" he said RELATED ARTICLE: Landfill building musts 1. A 4-foot-thick clay cap should be laid over the covered landfill. 2. Concrete piles should be driven into the landfill through the clay cap to ensure a solid foundation. 3. Special venting should be designed and incorporated into the construction of the hotel to capture methane gas from the landfill. http://tinyurl.com/okd4ce >> 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. Yours certainly doesn't, so get off your moral pedestal and stop believing you're more virtuous than others by comparing your garbage *LOL* with theirs hypocrite. Start believing in your own bullshit before telling others to live by it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 12:19, Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, > wrote: > > [] >> Raising animals for food is not evil > > You believe it is. > > "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and > forcing them through this mass production > assembly line "concentration camp" process is > cruel. We put innocent farm animals through > processes of suffering and early death that we > wouldn't subject the most heinous human > criminal to." > Dutch Dec 27 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6wjl2o2 > > There's not a single issue raised here in all the years you've been > trying to bash those you've tried but failed to aspire to that you > haven't lied about. > > Note to Glen. > > Dutch lies about everything. Everything! He first came here claiming > to be an advocate for the proposition of animal rights. > > *Animal Rights.* > > "I am an animal rights believer." > Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 > > and > > "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted > like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". > They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our > own rights are b) to what degree and how we value > the animal or species." > Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh > > But within just a few months he started writing > things like; > > "They have no rights because the very idea of > a world of animals with rights is a laugh." > Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc > > and > > "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I > find it irrational …." > Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 > > But then he switched back again, accepting the > proposition of animal rights and claiming to have > signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian > government. > > "I recently signed a petition online supporting > an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament." > Dutch 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn > > and later; > > "Rights for animals exist because human rights > exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for > animals would not exist." > Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz > > and > > "If they are inherent in humans then why are > they not in some way inherent in all animals? > I think rights are a human invention which we > apply widely to humans and in specific ways in > certain situations to other animals." > ... > "There is no coherent reason why humans ought > to be prohibited from extending some form of > rights towards animals in their care." > ... > "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, > we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply > versions of them to certain animals in limited ways > within our sphere of influence." > Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb > > and > > "I measure my right to be free from physical assault > by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone > who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist > to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must > conclude that they hold rights against humans who > would abuse them." > Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp > > and > > "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar > way as minor children or people in comas. > They can hold rights against us, but we can't > hold rights against them." > Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx > > and > > "I would hold in fact that this is so plausible that apes > should be granted basic rights." > Dutch 7 July 2007 http://tinyurl.com/328k8h > > And then back again, > > "I'm not an ARA." > Dutch 19 Jul 2007 http://tinyurl.com/253nlg > > And back again > > "I believe that it is defensible to say that an animal > that is protected by laws and morals from being > attacked in some way by a human holds a right > against humans." > Dutch 16 Oct 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3rdntg8 > > *His diet on factory-farmed meat:* > > In the year 2000 Dutch claimed to have become a > vegetarian 20 years ago. > > "i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy > diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health > problems by quitting meat 20 years ago." > Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x > > But then a year later he claimed to have been a > vegetarian for only 15 years when in fact according > to his earlier quote it should then have been 21 years. > > "I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for > health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree > with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK, > because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...." > "Dutch" 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq > > And then only a week later the forgetful liar claimed > to have been vegetarian for 17 years. > > "I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years .." > Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2 > > So it's certain that he's always lied about when and > for how long he was a vegetarian. Now let's look at > his reasons given for why he became a vegetarian. > > "I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in > commercial meat production that I refuse to > eat meat produced in this way. In fact for this > and health reasons I eat no meat at all." > Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa > > and > > "Since I cannot in all good conscience tolerate > the treatment of animals in the mass meat > industry I choose not not eat it." > Dutch Dec 20 2000 http://tinyurl.com/9vc2o > > and > > "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and > forcing them through this mass production > assembly line "concentration camp" process is > cruel. We put innocent farm animals through > processes of suffering and early death that we > wouldn't subject the most heinous human > criminal to." > Dutch Dec 27 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6wjl2o2 > > But those statements concerning his "good conscience" > were obvious lies because he DOES eat meat from > those factory farms he claimed to avoid. > > "I buy what is readily available, and I assume > a lot of it comes from factory farms." > [end] > Dutch Dec 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/8w25v > > [frlpwr to Dutch] > > Why do you buy factory-farmed pork products? > [Dutch] > The same reason vegans buy factory farmed veggies, > because they're there. > [end] > Dutch Jan 27 2004 http://tinyurl.com/8qhrf > > *Logic of the larder:* > > > > [start Dutch] > > > Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that > > > we create, breed and raise, giving them a life > > > as David (dh@) says, in exchange for the use of > > > their hides. We give them life. They give us their > > > lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial > > > contract, which I believe includes treating them > > > with respect. The only contract I have with mice > > > is you get out of my grain and I won't kill you. > > > Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe > > > we're not so different after all. > Dutch 20 Jan 2001 http://tinyurl.com/34jzhm9 > > [Polly] > > Although we know there's no literal "contract", I > > do like your way of stating the fact that both humans > > and animals benefit from the animals' domestication. > [Dutch] > Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David.. > who'da thunk??? > Dutch 21 Jan 2001 http://tinyurl.com/2jdml > > and > > "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial > partnership." > Dutch http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 > > and > > "Here's how I see it... > The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places > us irrevocably in their debt. By treating them kindly and > killing them humanely we may only approach making it > a square deal, but we can never get there." > Dutch Feb 26 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jhcg8 > > and > > "The LoL is the belief that because by using animal > products we indirectly cause animals to come into > existence that we are entitled to use these animals' > existence (their lives) as a defence against critics of > the use of animal products. > …… > The LoL advocate can still claim to be doing something > morally admirable by eating a burger." > Dutch July 3 2010 http://tinyurl.com/387kk4u > > *Collateral Deaths:* > > "There is a whole different mindset between tolerating > collateral death in your life and seeking out direct > sacrifice for your subsistence." > Dutch Aug 26 2000 http://tinyurl.com/7dduf > > and > > "The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it > enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that > their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis > attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n > diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually > unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility. > It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the > v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." > Dutch Dec 13 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf > > and > > "It's not that easy banmilk. Nobody doubts that animals > die in agriculture except people in complete denial. What > you must do is somehow rationalize that 'fact' with your > philosophy. It's not hard to do really, just admit you don't > care much about those animals. You don't do you? I don't." > Dutch 6 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/53pjh > > As we can plainly see, Dutch doesn't believe that the > collateral deaths argument carries any weight against > vegans; he's merely trying to attack those he tried but > failed to aspire to. > > *Delusions:* > > Dutch is a self-confessed delusional who invents things all the > time. When first arriving here he did so while seemingly in > support for the proposition of animal rights, but that facade > was soon blown away, and now he tries to insist that the > genuine proponents of it here must be as deluded as he is. > > "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after > all who was it hurting?" > Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo > > and > > "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T > feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself. > Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 19 2002 http://tinyurl.com/7ndj6 > > and > > "Deluding myself felt good" > Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3 > > and > > "I do have some personal experience with cognitive > dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when > I finally consciously confronted the underlying > conflict I experienced a kind of physical discomfort > in the brain, a dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, > followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief and > elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to > punish you to stop you from threatening the existing > belief" > Dutch 29 Jul 2007 http://tinyurl.com/3ahp69 > > *Unethical Practices to Avoid:* > > Dutch lies about everything. Take a look at his categorical > statements regarding the use of unethical treatments and > how he lies his way out of standing by them by praying to > God for his failure. > > "I categorically refuse to use any treatment shown > to have been developed using human subjects > against their will." > Dutch Nov 26 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ppzvj > > and > > "If modern medicine were built on the use of > unwilling humans, I would certainly refuse it." > Dutch Nov 28 2002 http://tinyurl.com/sx9po > > But, after being told that most modern practices were > perfected using unethical means, he acknowledged this > fact by stating; > > "I know now that abuse of human subjects forms part of the > history of medical research, but I don't know when or how > much or which treatments were involved. I feel like I ought > to try to research the history of each treatment and medicine > before using it, surely that is the right thing to do is it not?" > Dutch Nov 28 2002 http://tinyurl.com/f5wgz > > To keep his integrity by avoiding these unethical practices > like he earlier promised, I told him he ought to write a list > of the treatments to avoid, but he collapsed instead and > simpered. > > [Me] > > Also, what efforts have you made to list the *on-going" > > unethical practices to avoid? > [Dutch] > None at all. I have already said, I can't face the task. > [end] > Dutch Nov 30 2002 http://tinyurl.com/m4a4e > > I pressed him further to make that list or risk being > labeled a hypocrite, but in desperation he opted to > beg God for forgiveness instead. > > [Me] > "You now know that humans were killed to perfect your > treatments. If you choose to believe that these violations > transcend to you as an accessory after the fact you must > avoid being hypocritical and stand by your ethical stance > by avoiding every treatment that was perfected using > human subjects against their will." > [Dutch] > "I don't have the strength. I choose to accept that some > humans may have been wronged in the development of > my treatments. If there is a god, I beg his forgiveness for > my frailty." > Dutch Nov 30 2002 http://tinyurl.com/fz9nl > > Dutch is an unethical liar with no backbone who makes > categorical statements only to then dismiss them when > pushed to stand by them. > > *His kids:* > > "The land goes back in my wife's family quite a few > generations and making something like this out of it > would be grand, **we have no kids** to leave it to." > Dutch Oct 22 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yk8qoh > > and > > "My wife and I had two kids .. " > Dutch Jun 30 2003 http://tinyurl.com/ssm99 > > and > > "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is > one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have > experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating > meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it." > Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a > > and > > "During my wife's pregnancies *I* ended up doing > most of the housework ..." > Dutch Jan 19 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yz4dsw > > and > > "No child is born into ideal circumstances. Were you? > I sure wasn't. My wife wasn't, neither were my kids." > Dutch Feb 20 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yb4dhz > > and > > "I don't want my kids seeing cancer surgery or videos > of assaults or anything that might cause them undue > emotional distress. They're children." > Dutch Jun 30 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ybu8kq > > and > > "I never forced my kids to be vegetarians, and they > weren't, [because I never had kids]. > Dutch Oct 17 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y9trhd > > and > > [start - Pearl to Dutch] > > Of course I DON'T believe you. No one does. How could we. > > You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. GLL! > [Dutch replied] > Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly > not to try to claim otherwise. > [end] > Dutch Oct 23 2006 http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7 > > *Abortion:* > > "In fact I have been a pro-choice activist, my former > wife was a nurse in an abortion clinic for a time with > Henry Morgentaler prior to Roe v Wade. She faced > charges for it. My current wife has had an abortion." > Dutch 7 May 2006 http://tinyurl.com/28oxdg > > But > > [start - A.M. to Dutch] > > Does your wife agree with your principles? What if > > she didn't? Would you divorce her if she aborted your > > child? If your wife mistakenly got pregnant and simply > > did not want to committ to the full term and subsequent > > child bearing, would you leave her? > [Dutch] > My wife would never kill a member of our family, not > before birth, not after. The idea is unthinkable. > [end] > Dutch 4 Dec 2002 http://tinyurl.com/3dz22p > > As we can plainly see, Dutch lies about every issue that gets raised > here and in other newsgroups, so don't fall for a single word he has > to say on anything. He's a self-confessed liar. *TOTALLY BUSTED* What's left here Derek? Dutch - a liar with no credibility, and Jonathan Ball - another liar with no credibility who tells people he's got a Ph.D in economics, and a simple-minded poor fool who tries to tries to justify cruelty by saying animals benefit from it. *LOL* There's not a credible anti left to argue with. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 04:56, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:08 pm, > 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. You believe something is bad and so you try to reduce your >> contribution to that bad thing. Vegans believe something is bad and so they try to reduce their >> contribution to that bad thing. You believe you're better than those who don't try to reduce their >> contribution to your bad thing and so you automatically think vegans believe they're better than >> those who don't try to reduce their contribution to their bad thing. You measure your virtue by >> comparing yourself to others and so you think vegans measure their virtue by comparing themselves to >> others as well. You're projecting your own faults onto vegans and trying to malign them for >> something only you do. *LOL* > > > That's pretty much how Gooberdoodle reacts to anything......by > projecting. He's a lying little fish too. "I know a lot about economics, but I didn't complete the degree, and it's important to me to be known as honest. Honesty compels me to admit that I didn't complete my Ph.D. " - Jonathan Ball http://tinyurl.com/7nkls7x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > So you're a drop-out Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA. Jonathan Ball http://tinyurl.com/yztzj7x *LOL* |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
Why did you remove all the newsgroups, Jonathan Ball? What are you afraid of?
On 25/03/2012 06:14, George Plimpton wrote: > On 3/24/2012 7:27 PM, Glen wrote: >> On 23/03/2012 17:44, George Plimpton wrote: >>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> 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." >> >> *BUSTED* >> >>> 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, >> >> It is. > > It could be, greggeorge. You don't know anything about the effects of recycling. More than 230,000 tons of waste sent for recycling by householders is being dumped in landfill sites every year, it is claimed. Councils say the waste is ' contaminated', and it is cheaper to bury it than to remove the unwanted elements. However, the policy risks bringing the entire council recycling regime into disrepute. http://tinyurl.com/cwe5gk The Eight Myths of Recycling By Daniel Benjamin Garbage is the unavoidable by-product of production and consumption. There are three ways to deal with it, all known and used since antiquity: dumping, burning, and recycling. For thousands of years it was commonplace to dump rubbish on site--on the floor, or out the window. Scavenging domestic animals, chiefly pigs and dogs, consumed the edible parts, and poor people salvaged what they could. The rest was covered and built upon. Eventually, humans began to use more elaborate methods of dealing with their rubbish. The first modern incinerator (called a "destructor") went into operation in Nottingham, England in 1874. After World War II, landfills became the accepted means of dealing with trash. The modern era of the recycling craze can be traced to 1987, when the garbage barge Mobro 4000 had to spend two months touring the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico before it found a home for its load. The Environmental Defense Fund, the National Solid Waste Management Association (whose members were anxious to line up new customers for their expanding landfill capacity), the press, and finally the Environmental Protection Agency, spun the story of a garbage crisis out of control. By 1995, the majority of Americans thought trash was our number one environmental problem--with 77 percent reporting that increased recycling of household rubbish was the solution. Yet these claims and fears were based on errors and misinformation, which I have compiled into the Eight Great Myths of Recycling. Myth 1: Our Garbage Will Bury Us Fact: Even though the United States is larger, more affluent, and producing more garbage, it now has more landfill capacity that ever before. The erroneous opposite impression comes from old studies that counted the number of landfills (which has declined) rather than landfill capacity (which has grown). There are a few places, like New Jersey, where capacity has shrunk. But the uneven distribution of landfill space is no more important than the uneven distribution of automobile manufacturing. Perhaps the most important fact is this: If we permitted our rubbish to grow to the height of New York City's famous Fresh Kills landfill (225 feet), a site only about 10 miles on a side could hold all of America's garbage for the next century. Myth 2: Our Garbage Will Poison Us Fact: Almost anything can pose a theoretical threat, but evidence of actual harm from landfills is almost non-existent, as the Environmental Protection Agency itself acknowledges. The EPA has concluded that landfills constructed according to agency regulations can be expected to cause a total of 5.7 cancer-related deaths over the next 300 years. It isn't household waste, but improperly or illegally dumped industrial wastes that can be harmful. Household recycling programs have no effect on those wastes, a fact ignored by messianic proponents of recycling. Myth 3: Our Packaging Is Immoral Fact: Many people argue that the best way to "save landfill space" is to reduce the amount of packaging Americans use, via mandatory controls. But packaging can actually reduce total garbage produced and total resources used. The average American family generates fully one third less trash than does the average Mexican household. The reason is that our intensive use of packaging yields less spoilage and breakage, thereby saving resources, and producing, on balance, less total rubbish. Careful packaging also reduces food poisoning and other health problems. Over the past 25 years, market incen-tives have already reduced the weights of individual packages by 30 to 70 percent. An average aluminium can weighed nearly 21 grams in 1972; in 2002, that same can weighs in at under 14 grams. A plastic grocery sack was 2.3 mils thick in 1976; by 2001, it was a mere 0.7 mils. By contrast, the environmentally sensitive New York Times has been growing. A year's worth of the newspaper now weighs 520 pounds and occupies more than 40 cubic feet in a landfill. This is equivalent in weight to 17,180 aluminum cans--nearly a century's worth of beer and soft drink consumption by one person. Clearly, people anxious to heal Mother Earth must forego the Times! Myth 4: We Must Achieve "Trash Independence" Fact: Garbage has become an inter-state business, with 47 states exporting the stuff and 45 importing it. Environ-mentalists contend that each state should dispose within its borders all the trash produced within its borders. But why? Transporting garbage across an arbitrary legal boundary has no effect on the envi-ronmental impact of the disposal of that material. Moving a ton of trash is no more hazardous than moving a ton of any other commodity. Myth 5: We're Squandering Irreplaceable Resources Fact: Thanks to numerous innovations, we now produce about twice as much output per unit of energy as we did 50 years ago, and five times as much as we did 200 years ago. Automobiles use only half as much metal as in 1970, and one optical fiber carries the same number of calls as 625 copper wires did 20 years ago. Bridges are built with less steel, because steel is stronger and engineering is improved. Automobile and truck engines consume less fuel per unit of work performed, and produce fewer emissions. To address the issue of paper, the most-promoted form of recycling: The amount of new growth that occurs each year in forests is more than 20 times the number of trees consumed by the world each year for wood and paper. Where loss of forest land is taking place, as in tropical rain forests, it can be traced directly to a lack of private property rights. Governments have used forests, especially the valuable tropical ones, as an easy way to raise quick cash. Wherever private property rights to forests are well-defined and enforced, forests are either stable or growing. More recycling of paper or cardboard would not eliminate tropical forest losses. Myth 6: Recycling Always Protects the Environment Fact: Recycling is a manufacturing process, and therefore it too has environ-mental impact. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment says that it is "not clear whether secondary manufacturing [i.e., recycling] produces less pollution per ton of material processed than primary manufacturing." Recycling merely changes the nature of pollution--sometimes decreasing it, and sometimes increasing it. This effect is particularly apparent in the case of curbside recycling, which is mandated or strongly encouraged by governments in many communities around the country. Curbside recycling requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount of waste materials. Instead of one truck picking up 40 pounds of garbage, one will pick up four pounds of recyclables and a second will collect 36 pounds of rubbish. Los Angeles has estimated that due to curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is twice as large as it otherwise would be--800 vs. 400 trucks. This means more iron ore and coal mining, more steel and rub-ber manufacturing, more petroleum extracted and refined for fuel--and of course all that extra air pollution in the Los Angeles basin as the 400 added trucks cruise the streets. Myth 7: Recycling Saves Resources Fact: Using less of one resource usually means using more of another. Curbside recycling is substantially more costly and uses far more resources than a program in which disposal is combined with a voluntary drop-off/buy-back option. The reason: Curbside recycling of household rubbish uses huge amounts of capital and labor per pound of material recycled. Overall, curbside recycling costs between 35 and 55 percent more than simply disposing of the item. It typically wastes resources. In the ordinary course of daily living, we already reuse most higher value items. The only things that intentionally end up in the trash are both low in value and costly to reuse or recycle. Yet these are the items that municipal recycling programs are targeting--the very things that consumers have already decided are too worthless or costly to deal with further. All of the profitable, socially productive opportunities for recycling were long ago co-opted by the private sector, because they pay back. The bulk of all curbside recycling programs simply waste resources. Myth 8: Without Forced Mandates, There Wouldn't Be Any Recycling Fact: Long before state or local governments had even contemplated the word recycling, the makers of steel, aluminum, and thousands of other products were recycling manufacturing scraps. Some operated post-consumer drop-off centers. As for the claim that the private sector promotes premature or excessive disposal, this ignores an enormous body of evidence to the contrary. Firms only survive in the marketplace if they take into account all costs. Fifty years ago, when labor was cheap compared to materials, goods were built to be repaired, so that the expensive materials could be used for a longer period of time. As the price of labor has risen and the cost of materials has fallen, manufacturers have responded by building items to be used until they break, and then discarded. There is no bias against recycling; there is merely a market-driven effort to conserve the most valuable resources. Informed, voluntary recycling con-serves resources and raises our wealth, enabling us to achieve valued ends that would otherwise be impossible. Mandatory programs, however, in which people are directly or indirectly compelled to do what they know is not sensible, routinely make society worse off. Such programs force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard. Except in a few rare cases, the free market is eminently capable of providing both disposal and recycling in an amount and mix that creates the greatest wealth for society. This makes possible the widest and most satisfying range of human endeavors. Simply put, market prices are sufficient to induce the trash-man to come, and to make his burden bearable, and neither he nor we can hope for any better than that. Daniel Benjamin is a professor at Clemson University and a senior associate at PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center http://tinyurl.com/pxbpj7 >>> 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. >> >> Vegans intuitively hold the belief that one is making a meaningful >> reduction in animal suffering merely by *not* putting animal parts in >> one's mouth. > > They're wrong, greggeorge. You've never been able to show it, Jonathan Ball (no Ph.D) >>>> 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. >> >> Better than who, the unethical scumbags who don't recycle? > > Better than I would be if I didn't recycle, nutless. And *better* than those who don't recycle. You admitted it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Derek" > wrote > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > [] >>Raising animals for food is not evil > > You believe it is. No, I don't. [snip elaborate fallacy] Wow, you must feel really threatened by me to have spent all that time quote mining. I must be doing something right. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote
> *LOL* Pure ad hominem. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 17:39, Dutch wrote:
> > > wrote >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, > wrote: >> >> [] >>> Raising animals for food is not evil >> >> You believe it is. > > No, I don't. *LOL* > [snip elaborate fallacy] *LOL* You're a totally busted liar. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 17:43, Dutch wrote:
> > wrote >> *LOL* > > Pure ad hominem. > Why do you think Jonathan Ball tried to pretend he had a Ph.D in economics little Ditch? Why did he lie. Why do *YOU* lie? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote
> And *better* than those who don't recycle. You admitted it. Vegans don't simply argue that avoiding animal products is "better" (by some quantitative measure), that is a probably reasonable claim, generally speaking. No, they believe in their hearts that the difference between being a vegan and consuming animal products is analogous to the difference between having paid employees and keeping slaves. They perceive a huge moral gulf between themselves and the "murderers" around them (their term, not mine) They believe that one must be a vegan to to be a truly moral person. This is the notion, fundamental to veganism, that has been thoroughly discredited over and over again on this newsgroup, and that is the reason that you vegans continue to hang around desperately hoping to *win* by getting in some last chance ad hominem attack. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 17:56, Dutch wrote:
> > wrote >> And *better* than those who don't recycle. You admitted it. > > Vegans *HA HA HA HA HA* You know what? I didn't read any of that liar? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote in message ...
> On 25/03/2012 17:39, Dutch wrote: >> >> > wrote >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>> [] >>>> Raising animals for food is not evil >>> >>> You believe it is. >> >> No, I don't. > > *LOL* I obviously don't, we're talking about MY opinion, and if I am the final arbiter of anything it is that. > >> [snip elaborate fallacy] > > *LOL* You're a totally busted liar. Nobody tells the truth all the time, nobody. Most people lie several times a day. You're just not aware of it. Do some reading on the subject. There is usually a perfectly sensible reason for it. In my case, I have referred to "my kids" without stipulating that they are hypothetical ("if"), because it would have added nothing to what I was saying. I was still simply giving my opinion. In any case, even if I believed that eating meat was evil at one point in time, I kind of did because I was a vegan, that does not mean I believe it now. In fact I don't, I WOKE UP. That's the fallacy I'm talking about. Derek fancies himself an authority on formal fallacies yet he regularly commits the most basic ones. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote
> On 25/03/2012 17:43, Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >>> *LOL* >> >> Pure ad hominem. >> > Why do you think Jonathan Ball tried to pretend he had a Ph.D in economics > little Ditch? "little Ditch" isn't that cute.. You're quite the little flame warrior now aren't you? LOL Why did he > lie. Why do *YOU* lie? There are many reasons to occasionally embellish or say something that is not quite factual, we all do it, quite frequently actually, that is a well know fact among sociologists. For example, if you try to deny it, you'll be lying. But this hasn't gotten you any closer to establishing the moral necessity of veganism, that's what you want to prove isn't it? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote in message ...
> On 25/03/2012 17:56, Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >>> And *better* than those who don't recycle. You admitted it. >> >> Vegans > > *HA HA HA HA HA* You know what? I didn't read any of that liar? That's typical of a vegan, so not surprising. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Derek" > wrote > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:56:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>"Glen" > wrote >>> And *better* than those who don't recycle. You admitted it. >> >>Vegans > > You don't get to criticise Yes I do, and you get to listen and writhe and gnash your teeth and attempt to silence me by compiling great elaborate loads of ad hominem nonsense, but its futile old chop, I'm here, I've got your number, and there's nothing you can do about it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Derek" > wrote
>>What's left here Derek? > > Not a lot. I'll grant you that. It was a colossal waste of effort, there isn't one person in the world who cares about any of that who doesn't already have blinders on anyway. > So who ARE you, Glen, and why did you copy and paste parts of my > private email to you here? Because he's an idiot, isn't that obvious? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 18:11, Dutch wrote:
> > wrote >> On 25/03/2012 17:43, Dutch wrote: >>> > wrote >>>> *LOL* >>> >>> Pure ad hominem. >>> >> Why do you think Jonathan Ball tried to pretend he had a Ph.D in economics >> little Ditch? > > "little Ditch" isn't that cute.. You're quite the little flame warrior now > aren't you? LOL Answer. Why did Jonathan Ball lie by pretending he has a PH.D in economics? > Why did he >> lie. Why do *YOU* lie? > > There are many reasons to occasionally embellish or say something that is > not quite factual You didn't /embellish/ something not quite factual. You lied --- about *EVERYTHING* countless times. >we all do it, quite frequently actually No. You sure do though. *LOL* |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 18:17, Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:16:33 +0100, > wrote: > >> On 25/03/2012 12:19, Derek wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>> [] >>>> Raising animals for food is not evil >>> >>> You believe it is. >>> >>> "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and >>> forcing them through this mass production >>> assembly line "concentration camp" process is >>> cruel. We put innocent farm animals through >>> processes of suffering and early death that we >>> wouldn't subject the most heinous human >>> criminal to." >>> Dutch Dec 27 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6wjl2o2 >>> >>> There's not a single issue raised here in all the years you've been >>> trying to bash those you've tried but failed to aspire to that you >>> haven't lied about. >>> >>> Note to Glen. >>> >>> Dutch lies about everything. Everything! He first came here claiming >>> to be an advocate for the proposition of animal rights. >>> >>> *Animal Rights.* >>> >>> "I am an animal rights believer." >>> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 >>> >>> and >>> >>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted >>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". >>> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our >>> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value >>> the animal or species." >>> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh >>> >>> But within just a few months he started writing >>> things like; >>> >>> "They have no rights because the very idea of >>> a world of animals with rights is a laugh." >>> Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I >>> find it irrational …." >>> Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 >>> >>> But then he switched back again, accepting the >>> proposition of animal rights and claiming to have >>> signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian >>> government. >>> >>> "I recently signed a petition online supporting >>> an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament." >>> Dutch 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn >>> >>> and later; >>> >>> "Rights for animals exist because human rights >>> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for >>> animals would not exist." >>> Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz >>> >>> and >>> >>> "If they are inherent in humans then why are >>> they not in some way inherent in all animals? >>> I think rights are a human invention which we >>> apply widely to humans and in specific ways in >>> certain situations to other animals." >>> ... >>> "There is no coherent reason why humans ought >>> to be prohibited from extending some form of >>> rights towards animals in their care." >>> ... >>> "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, >>> we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply >>> versions of them to certain animals in limited ways >>> within our sphere of influence." >>> Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb >>> >>> and >>> >>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist >>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must >>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who >>> would abuse them." >>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar >>> way as minor children or people in comas. >>> They can hold rights against us, but we can't >>> hold rights against them." >>> Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx >>> >>> and >>> >>> "I would hold in fact that this is so plausible that apes >>> should be granted basic rights." >>> Dutch 7 July 2007 http://tinyurl.com/328k8h >>> >>> And then back again, >>> >>> "I'm not an ARA." >>> Dutch 19 Jul 2007 http://tinyurl.com/253nlg >>> >>> And back again >>> >>> "I believe that it is defensible to say that an animal >>> that is protected by laws and morals from being >>> attacked in some way by a human holds a right >>> against humans." >>> Dutch 16 Oct 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3rdntg8 >>> >>> *His diet on factory-farmed meat:* >>> >>> In the year 2000 Dutch claimed to have become a >>> vegetarian 20 years ago. >>> >>> "i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy >>> diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health >>> problems by quitting meat 20 years ago." >>> Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x >>> >>> But then a year later he claimed to have been a >>> vegetarian for only 15 years when in fact according >>> to his earlier quote it should then have been 21 years. >>> >>> "I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for >>> health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree >>> with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK, >>> because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...." >>> "Dutch" 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq >>> >>> And then only a week later the forgetful liar claimed >>> to have been vegetarian for 17 years. >>> >>> "I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years .." >>> Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2 >>> >>> So it's certain that he's always lied about when and >>> for how long he was a vegetarian. Now let's look at >>> his reasons given for why he became a vegetarian. >>> >>> "I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in >>> commercial meat production that I refuse to >>> eat meat produced in this way. In fact for this >>> and health reasons I eat no meat at all." >>> Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Since I cannot in all good conscience tolerate >>> the treatment of animals in the mass meat >>> industry I choose not not eat it." >>> Dutch Dec 20 2000 http://tinyurl.com/9vc2o >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and >>> forcing them through this mass production >>> assembly line "concentration camp" process is >>> cruel. We put innocent farm animals through >>> processes of suffering and early death that we >>> wouldn't subject the most heinous human >>> criminal to." >>> Dutch Dec 27 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6wjl2o2 >>> >>> But those statements concerning his "good conscience" >>> were obvious lies because he DOES eat meat from >>> those factory farms he claimed to avoid. >>> >>> "I buy what is readily available, and I assume >>> a lot of it comes from factory farms." >>> [end] >>> Dutch Dec 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/8w25v >>> >>> [frlpwr to Dutch] >>> > Why do you buy factory-farmed pork products? >>> [Dutch] >>> The same reason vegans buy factory farmed veggies, >>> because they're there. >>> [end] >>> Dutch Jan 27 2004 http://tinyurl.com/8qhrf >>> >>> *Logic of the larder:* >>> >>> > > [start Dutch] >>> > > Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that >>> > > we create, breed and raise, giving them a life >>> > > as David (dh@) says, in exchange for the use of >>> > > their hides. We give them life. They give us their >>> > > lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial >>> > > contract, which I believe includes treating them >>> > > with respect. The only contract I have with mice >>> > > is you get out of my grain and I won't kill you. >>> > > Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe >>> > > we're not so different after all. >>> Dutch 20 Jan 2001 http://tinyurl.com/34jzhm9 >>> > [Polly] >>> > Although we know there's no literal "contract", I >>> > do like your way of stating the fact that both humans >>> > and animals benefit from the animals' domestication. >>> [Dutch] >>> Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David.. >>> who'da thunk??? >>> Dutch 21 Jan 2001 http://tinyurl.com/2jdml >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial >>> partnership." >>> Dutch http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Here's how I see it... >>> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places >>> us irrevocably in their debt. By treating them kindly and >>> killing them humanely we may only approach making it >>> a square deal, but we can never get there." >>> Dutch Feb 26 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jhcg8 >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The LoL is the belief that because by using animal >>> products we indirectly cause animals to come into >>> existence that we are entitled to use these animals' >>> existence (their lives) as a defence against critics of >>> the use of animal products. >>> …… >>> The LoL advocate can still claim to be doing something >>> morally admirable by eating a burger." >>> Dutch July 3 2010 http://tinyurl.com/387kk4u >>> >>> *Collateral Deaths:* >>> >>> "There is a whole different mindset between tolerating >>> collateral death in your life and seeking out direct >>> sacrifice for your subsistence." >>> Dutch Aug 26 2000 http://tinyurl.com/7dduf >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it >>> enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that >>> their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis >>> attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n >>> diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually >>> unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility. >>> It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the >>> v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." >>> Dutch Dec 13 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf >>> >>> and >>> >>> "It's not that easy banmilk. Nobody doubts that animals >>> die in agriculture except people in complete denial. What >>> you must do is somehow rationalize that 'fact' with your >>> philosophy. It's not hard to do really, just admit you don't >>> care much about those animals. You don't do you? I don't." >>> Dutch 6 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/53pjh >>> >>> As we can plainly see, Dutch doesn't believe that the >>> collateral deaths argument carries any weight against >>> vegans; he's merely trying to attack those he tried but >>> failed to aspire to. >>> >>> *Delusions:* >>> >>> Dutch is a self-confessed delusional who invents things all the >>> time. When first arriving here he did so while seemingly in >>> support for the proposition of animal rights, but that facade >>> was soon blown away, and now he tries to insist that the >>> genuine proponents of it here must be as deluded as he is. >>> >>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after >>> all who was it hurting?" >>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T >>> feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself. >>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 19 2002 http://tinyurl.com/7ndj6 >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Deluding myself felt good" >>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3 >>> >>> and >>> >>> "I do have some personal experience with cognitive >>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when >>> I finally consciously confronted the underlying >>> conflict I experienced a kind of physical discomfort >>> in the brain, a dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, >>> followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief and >>> elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to >>> punish you to stop you from threatening the existing >>> belief" >>> Dutch 29 Jul 2007 http://tinyurl.com/3ahp69 >>> >>> *Unethical Practices to Avoid:* >>> >>> Dutch lies about everything. Take a look at his categorical >>> statements regarding the use of unethical treatments and >>> how he lies his way out of standing by them by praying to >>> God for his failure. >>> >>> "I categorically refuse to use any treatment shown >>> to have been developed using human subjects >>> against their will." >>> Dutch Nov 26 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ppzvj >>> >>> and >>> >>> "If modern medicine were built on the use of >>> unwilling humans, I would certainly refuse it." >>> Dutch Nov 28 2002 http://tinyurl.com/sx9po >>> >>> But, after being told that most modern practices were >>> perfected using unethical means, he acknowledged this >>> fact by stating; >>> >>> "I know now that abuse of human subjects forms part of the >>> history of medical research, but I don't know when or how >>> much or which treatments were involved. I feel like I ought >>> to try to research the history of each treatment and medicine >>> before using it, surely that is the right thing to do is it not?" >>> Dutch Nov 28 2002 http://tinyurl.com/f5wgz >>> >>> To keep his integrity by avoiding these unethical practices >>> like he earlier promised, I told him he ought to write a list >>> of the treatments to avoid, but he collapsed instead and >>> simpered. >>> >>> [Me] >>> > Also, what efforts have you made to list the *on-going" >>> > unethical practices to avoid? >>> [Dutch] >>> None at all. I have already said, I can't face the task. >>> [end] >>> Dutch Nov 30 2002 http://tinyurl.com/m4a4e >>> >>> I pressed him further to make that list or risk being >>> labeled a hypocrite, but in desperation he opted to >>> beg God for forgiveness instead. >>> >>> [Me] >>> "You now know that humans were killed to perfect your >>> treatments. If you choose to believe that these violations >>> transcend to you as an accessory after the fact you must >>> avoid being hypocritical and stand by your ethical stance >>> by avoiding every treatment that was perfected using >>> human subjects against their will." >>> [Dutch] >>> "I don't have the strength. I choose to accept that some >>> humans may have been wronged in the development of >>> my treatments. If there is a god, I beg his forgiveness for >>> my frailty." >>> Dutch Nov 30 2002 http://tinyurl.com/fz9nl >>> >>> Dutch is an unethical liar with no backbone who makes >>> categorical statements only to then dismiss them when >>> pushed to stand by them. >>> >>> *His kids:* >>> >>> "The land goes back in my wife's family quite a few >>> generations and making something like this out of it >>> would be grand, **we have no kids** to leave it to." >>> Dutch Oct 22 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yk8qoh >>> >>> and >>> >>> "My wife and I had two kids .. " >>> Dutch Jun 30 2003 http://tinyurl.com/ssm99 >>> >>> and >>> >>> "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is >>> one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have >>> experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating >>> meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it." >>> Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a >>> >>> and >>> >>> "During my wife's pregnancies *I* ended up doing >>> most of the housework ..." >>> Dutch Jan 19 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yz4dsw >>> >>> and >>> >>> "No child is born into ideal circumstances. Were you? >>> I sure wasn't. My wife wasn't, neither were my kids." >>> Dutch Feb 20 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yb4dhz >>> >>> and >>> >>> "I don't want my kids seeing cancer surgery or videos >>> of assaults or anything that might cause them undue >>> emotional distress. They're children." >>> Dutch Jun 30 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ybu8kq >>> >>> and >>> >>> "I never forced my kids to be vegetarians, and they >>> weren't, [because I never had kids]. >>> Dutch Oct 17 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y9trhd >>> >>> and >>> >>> [start - Pearl to Dutch] >>> > Of course I DON'T believe you. No one does. How could we. >>> > You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. GLL! >>> [Dutch replied] >>> Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly >>> not to try to claim otherwise. >>> [end] >>> Dutch Oct 23 2006 http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7 >>> >>> *Abortion:* >>> >>> "In fact I have been a pro-choice activist, my former >>> wife was a nurse in an abortion clinic for a time with >>> Henry Morgentaler prior to Roe v Wade. She faced >>> charges for it. My current wife has had an abortion." >>> Dutch 7 May 2006 http://tinyurl.com/28oxdg >>> >>> But >>> >>> [start - A.M. to Dutch] >>> > Does your wife agree with your principles? What if >>> > she didn't? Would you divorce her if she aborted your >>> > child? If your wife mistakenly got pregnant and simply >>> > did not want to committ to the full term and subsequent >>> > child bearing, would you leave her? >>> [Dutch] >>> My wife would never kill a member of our family, not >>> before birth, not after. The idea is unthinkable. >>> [end] >>> Dutch 4 Dec 2002 http://tinyurl.com/3dz22p >>> >>> As we can plainly see, Dutch lies about every issue that gets raised >>> here and in other newsgroups, so don't fall for a single word he has >>> to say on anything. He's a self-confessed liar. >> >> *TOTALLY BUSTED* > > Absolutely. And all that written by someone who wrote, > > "You will never, ever catch me in a lie, because I don't." > Dutch Oct 16 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yxt76l > > and > > "All I want to do is get the respect that I feel I am due > from vegetarians." > Dutch 27 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/2vg4bq *LOL* >> What's left here Derek? > > Not a lot. I'll grant you that. > >> Dutch - a liar with no credibility, and Jonathan Ball - >> another liar with no credibility who tells people he's got a Ph.D in economics, and a simple-minded >> poor fool who tries to tries to justify cruelty by saying animals benefit from it. *LOL* There's not >> a credible anti left to argue with. > > So who ARE you, Glen, and why did you copy and paste parts of my > private email to you here? My sincere apologies Derek. I didn't mean any damage by it. Guess we got off to a bad start, eh? Sorry :-) |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 18:05, Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message ... >> On 25/03/2012 17:39, Dutch wrote: >>> >>> > wrote >>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, > wrote: >>>> >>>> [] >>>>> Raising animals for food is not evil >>>> >>>> You believe it is. >>> >>> No, I don't. >> >> *LOL* > > I obviously don't, You obviously do. They are you quotes. >>> [snip elaborate fallacy] >> >> *LOL* You're a totally busted liar. > > Nobody tells the truth all the time, nobody. *HA HA HA HA HA* Take the shame like a man, fat little Ditch boy. (snipped unread) |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 25/03/2012 18:58, Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:36:44 +0100, > wrote: > >> On 25/03/2012 18:17, Derek wrote: > [] >>> So who ARE you, Glen, and why did you copy and paste parts of my >>> private email to you here? >> >> My sincere apologies Derek. I didn't mean any damage by it. > > No harm no foul, I usually say, but there was a measure of intent in > there, I assume. > >> Guess we got off to a bad start, eh? > > I believe that "start" happened a few years ago, "Glen", so who are > you? > >> Sorry :-) > > I'd like to believe that. What do *YOU* have to say about this intelligent man you respect and admire so much lying about having a Ph.D in economics St. Derek? I don't recall a single comment from you about it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Derek" > wrote
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:05:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>"Glen" > wrote in message ... >>> On 25/03/2012 17:39, Dutch wrote: >>>> >>>> > wrote >>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [] >>>>>> Raising animals for food is not evil >>>>> >>>>> You believe it is. >>>> >>>> No, I don't. >>> >>> *LOL* >> >>I obviously don't, > > The quotes I provided show otherwise If you change your mind about something that does not mean that when you state your new position you're lying. How could you think anyone would accept such a nonsensical argument? Are you high? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Derek" > wrote in message
news:1qkum716obrlcokf4o3oe6s0bgmq0ifi85@Derek... > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:16:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:56:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Glen" > wrote > >>>>> And *better* than those who don't recycle. You admitted it. >>>> >>>>Vegans >>> >>> You don't get to criticise . >> >>Yes I do > > No, you don't, liar. Obviously I do, since I just did, and will continue to do so as long as I feel like. I hope you're not so delusional that you believe your elaborate load of manure has any influence or me, or anyone for that matter. It's kind of pathetic that you'd spend so much time on such on something like that. Vegans don't simply argue that avoiding animal products is "better" (by some quantitative measure), that is a probably reasonable claim, generally speaking. No, they believe in their hearts that the difference between being a vegan and consuming animal products is analogous to the difference between having paid employees and keeping slaves. They perceive a huge moral gulf between themselves and the "murderers" around them (their term, not mine) They believe that one must be a vegan to to be a truly moral person. This is the notion, fundamental to veganism, that has been thoroughly discredited over and over again on this newsgroup, and that is the reason that you vegans continue to hang around desperately hoping to *win* by getting in some last chance ad hominem attack. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote in message ...
> On 25/03/2012 18:11, Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >>> On 25/03/2012 17:43, Dutch wrote: >>>> > wrote >>>>> *LOL* >>>> >>>> Pure ad hominem. >>>> >>> Why do you think Jonathan Ball tried to pretend he had a Ph.D in >>> economics >>> little Ditch? >> >> "little Ditch" isn't that cute.. You're quite the little flame warrior >> now >> aren't you? LOL > > Answer. Why did Jonathan Ball lie by pretending he has a PH.D in > economics? I could take an educated guess, but I don't care, it has no importance to this topic. He has made statements of opinion which do not require a PhD nor do they require that he was always truthful about having one. You're focusing on it because you have no answer for those statements. >> Why did he >>> lie. Why do *YOU* lie? >> >> There are many reasons to occasionally embellish or say something that is >> not quite factual > > You didn't /embellish/ something not quite factual. You lied --- about > *EVERYTHING* countless times. That's completely false. And even if it were true, it doesn't help you prove that veganism is moral imperative, which I assume is your goal. >>we all do it, quite frequently actually > > No. Yes, do a little research, don't make me do it for you. > You sure do though. *LOL* Actually I lie quite infrequently, I'm not very good at it. Most of those mined quotes are over a decade old. Maybe it's time you demonstrated the relevance of it. Of you can't because it's pure ad hominem. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote in message ... > On 25/03/2012 18:05, Dutch wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ... >>> On 25/03/2012 17:39, Dutch wrote: >>>> >>>> > wrote >>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [] >>>>>> Raising animals for food is not evil >>>>> >>>>> You believe it is. >>>> >>>> No, I don't. >>> >>> *LOL* >> >> I obviously don't, > > You obviously do. They are you quotes. That's a fallacy, I explained why in another response, which you probably didn't read, nor would you have understood, even though it is really simple. >>>> [snip elaborate fallacy] >>> >>> *LOL* You're a totally busted liar. >> >> Nobody tells the truth all the time, nobody. > > *HA HA HA HA HA* Take the shame like a man, fat little Ditch boy. No shame at all, and you still can't prove your case. > (snipped unread) Derek and Glen, the blind leading the dumb. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
"Glen" > wrote in message ...
> On 25/03/2012 18:58, Derek wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:36:44 +0100, > wrote: >> >>> On 25/03/2012 18:17, Derek wrote: >> [] >>>> So who ARE you, Glen, and why did you copy and paste parts of my >>>> private email to you here? >>> >>> My sincere apologies Derek. I didn't mean any damage by it. >> >> No harm no foul, I usually say, but there was a measure of intent in >> there, I assume. >> >>> Guess we got off to a bad start, eh? >> >> I believe that "start" happened a few years ago, "Glen", so who are >> you? >> >>> Sorry :-) >> >> I'd like to believe that. > > What do *YOU* have to say about this intelligent man you respect and > admire so much lying about having a Ph.D in economics St. Derek? I don't > recall a single comment from you about it. People don't always tell the complete truth nitwit, not in daily life, certainly not on usenet. Plus it has no relevance to this newsgroup or this discussion. Both of you need to grow up. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/25/2012 3:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 25, 7:10 am, George > wrote: >> On 3/24/2012 6:55 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 25, 3:32 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/24/2012 6:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George > 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. >> >>>>> Do you believe that it is better to cause less suffering? >> >>>> Yes, but there's no reason to think being "vegan" necessarily does that. >>>> For some people, that move might increase animal suffering. >> >>> I have explained why I think it is reasonable to believe that that >>> would generally not be the case. >> >> It was bullshit - self-serving bullshit. >> >> The fact is, you *do* know that it could be the case, and there is >> *nothing* intrinsic to refraining from putting animal parts in your >> mouth that rules it out - but still, that's all you do. > > There are good reasons for thinking it would usually not be the case. But you can't rule out that it is the case, and clearly you aren't doing all you *reasonably* can do to prevent suffering. We have been over this too many times to count. If you *wanted* to - but you don't - you could find a better "vegan" diet than the one you follow, "better" meaning with respect to harming animals. That's the crux of the whole issue: merely by not consuming animal parts, you have no idea if you're following the best "vegan" diet possible, let alone the best of all possible diets. But refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth is the beginning and the end of your effort. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
