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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 04:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

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. Go try to waste the time of
someone else, you ****ing clueless urbanite pantywaist.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 04:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

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.


I don't think it's especially sensible not to believe
that going vegan is a good strategy for reducing the amount of animal
suffering one causes.


You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is
reducing suffering.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

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.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 08:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

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.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 09:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 4:56*pm, George Plimpton 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.


No, it hasn't.

Go try to waste the time of
someone else, you ****ing clueless urbanite pantywaist.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 09:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 4:57*pm, George Plimpton 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.

I don't think it's especially sensible not to believe
that going vegan is a good strategy for reducing the amount of animal
suffering one causes.


You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is
reducing suffering.


Absolute nonsense.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 09:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 8:31*pm, George Plimpton 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.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 11:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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.


No, it hasn't.


It has, of course, and you know it.


Go try to waste the time of
someone else, you ****ing clueless urbanite pantywaist.



  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 11:07 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/23/2012 1:31 PM, 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.


Did you decide to stop lying about it, or were you just too flummoxed to
think of a good lie?


I don't think it's especially sensible not to believe
that going vegan is a good strategy for reducing the amount of animal
suffering one causes.


You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is
reducing suffering.


Absolute nonsense.


Yes, it is absolute nonsense for you to think that *not* putting animal
parts in your pie-hole automatically means you're reducing suffering.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 11:07 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 11:03*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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.


No, it hasn't.


It has, of course, and you know it.


Of course, I don't. If I believed that, why would I still be vegan?


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 11:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

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.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 11:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/23/2012 3:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:03 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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.


No, it hasn't.


It has, of course, and you know it.


Of course, I don't.


You do, of course.


If I believed that, why would I still be vegan?


Irrational obstinacy.

  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 11:58 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 11:21*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 3:07 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 23, 11:03 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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.


No, it hasn't.


It has, of course, and you know it.


Of course, I don't.


You do, of course.

If I believed that, why would I still be vegan?


Irrational obstinacy.


You're a fool.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 11:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 11:07*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:31 PM, 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.


Did you decide to stop lying about it, or were you just too flummoxed to
think of a good lie?


Tell me more about how I don't think you're an idiot, Ball.

I don't think it's especially sensible not to believe
that going vegan is a good strategy for reducing the amount of animal
suffering one causes.


You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is
reducing suffering.


Absolute nonsense.


Yes, it is absolute nonsense for you to think that *not* putting animal
parts in your pie-hole automatically means you're reducing suffering.


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-03-2012, 01:20 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 9:57*am, George Plimpton 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.



How does he know that, Goober?



I don't think it's especially sensible not to believe
that going vegan is a good strategy for reducing the amount of animal
suffering one causes.


You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is
reducing suffering.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism George Plimpton Vegan 42 02-10-2013 09:23 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 21 29-07-2008 10:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 1 09-07-2008 04:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" [email protected] Vegan 1 01-07-2008 05:38 PM
A exceptionally stupid "vegan", "Michael Bluejay" Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 6 15-02-2008 01:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017