 |
|
| 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 3/25/2012 3:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 25, 7:12 am, George > 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. It's a statement of fact. Both have been proved. It has proved that merely by not putting animal parts in your mouth you have not demonstrated that you're making a significant reduction in animal suffering, and it has been proved that you are not doing all you reasonably can do to prevent animal suffering. You know this. >> >>>>>> 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, Actually, the fact that you stick with your position despite it having been unequivocally demonstrated to be unfounded indicates sheer irrational obstinacy on your part. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/25/2012 9:00 AM, Glen wrote:
> 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. No, that's not how I *measure* virtue, greggeorge. That just happens to be true. > >> 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. Perhaps in the UK. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/25/2012 9:37 AM, Glen wrote:
> Why did you remove all the newsgroups Nothing where you're concerned, greggeorge, you squat-to-**** little faggot. > 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. I do know about it, greggeorge. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/25/2012 10:58 AM, 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? My best guess was that it was "Zakhar", better known as "greggeorge", but not sure now. It's obviously a Brit. Whoever it is was here earlier and is too gutless to say what he was using for a name back then. Anyway, he's an asshole. > >> Sorry :-) > > I'd like to believe that. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/25/2012 12:29 PM, Glen wrote:
> 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. Derek knows that I never said to anyone here that I have a Ph.D. in economics. I have always said here that I withdrew from the program before obtaining my Ph.D. Derek also knows you're a lying asshole who has been here before but is too chickenshit to say who you are. He's pretty good at sussing that kind of stuff out, so I imagine he'll figure it out soon enough, "little fish." |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/25/2012 9:16 AM, Glen wrote:
> *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. As if you have any credibility...not! Your hands are dripping blood, killer - proved. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 25, 5:27*pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:24:44 +0100, Glen > wrote: > > [] > > >He's a lying little fish too. > > Who is, Jonathan Ball or Rudy Canoza. > > >"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 > > Yes, I can confirm that Google archives do indicate that Jonathan ball > wrote that. Honestly compelled him to tell the truth. Jonathan Ball > has never lied about his academic achievements here. > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------- > > > > So you're a drop-out > > >Nope. *Ph.D. in economics; UCLA. Jonathan Ball > >http://tinyurl.com/yztzj7x > > Yes, I can confirm that Google archives do indicate that Rudy Canoza > wrote that, not Jonathan Ball. I think you ought to correct your > misattribution to that last quote. Rudy and Jonathan are one and the same you stupid ****! |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 26, 12:12*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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, Yes, in general, you can rule out the possibility that that would be the case. > and clearly you aren't doing > all you *reasonably* can do to prevent suffering. > Why not? > 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. How do you know? > 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. It's not. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 26, 12:18*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 3:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 7:12 am, George > *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. > > It's a statement of fact. *Both have been proved. *It has proved that > merely by not putting animal parts in your mouth you have not > demonstrated that you're making a significant reduction in animal > suffering, and it has been proved that you are not doing all you > reasonably can do to prevent animal suffering. > You've changed your claim. First you said it's not *true* that I'm making a significant reduction in animal suffering, now you're merely saying it's not *demonstrated*. Anyway, I don't agree with you about what you say here. > You know this. > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 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, > > Actually, the fact that you stick with your position despite it having > been unequivocally demonstrated to be unfounded indicates sheer > irrational obstinacy on your part. You haven't demonstrated any such thing. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
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. 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* DING DING DING! we have a winner. -- "Most of the kookologists are as nutty as the kooks they poke, even if they keep it better hidden, but for you to expect any different when you come here is outright craziness." - Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries admits that she as as kooky as Emmet! |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/25/2012 4:55 PM, Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:28:00 -0700, George > > wrote: > >> On 3/25/2012 10:58 AM, 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? >> >> My best guess was that it was "Zakhar", better known as "greggeorge", >> but not sure now. It's obviously a Brit. Whoever it is was here >> earlier and is too gutless to say what he was using for a name back >> then. Anyway, he's an asshole. > > I'm leaning more and more towards blackmailing Ray Slater. He > threatened to print your address here a few times, and stalking people > via facebook wouldn't surprise me in the least. Doesn't write enough like Slater. Slater got weepy almost immediately. I think it's this douche: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...8?dmode=source I worked with that ****wit at Apple Computer back in the 1980s. He was a nice enough guy at the time, but he later came here and admitted he was just trying to get to bang "vegan" chicks. He's a dishonorable ****, too, because I "sold" him a nice futon with a hardwood frame, and he never paid up. I thought he was good for it, but he stiffed me, the ****. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:10:49 -0700, George Plimpton >
wrote: >On 3/25/2012 4:55 PM, Derek wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:28:00 -0700, George > >> wrote: >> >>> On 3/25/2012 10:58 AM, 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? >>> >>> My best guess was that it was "Zakhar", better known as "greggeorge", >>> but not sure now. It's obviously a Brit. Whoever it is was here >>> earlier and is too gutless to say what he was using for a name back >>> then. Anyway, he's an asshole. >> >> I'm leaning more and more towards blackmailing Ray Slater. He >> threatened to print your address here a few times, and stalking people >> via facebook wouldn't surprise me in the least. > >Doesn't write enough like Slater. Slater got weepy almost immediately. > >I think it's this douche: >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...8?dmode=source > >I worked with that ****wit at Apple Computer back in the 1980s. He was a >nice enough guy at the time, but he later came here and admitted he was >just trying to get to bang "vegan" chicks. He's a dishonorable ****, >too, because I "sold" him a nice futon with a hardwood frame, and he >never paid up. I thought he was good for it, but he stiffed me, the ****. Heh heh heh. He called you a "feeble excuse for a monkey's arse." I like him already. Anyway, I sussed it a while ago but didn't want to say until I'd got all my ducks in a row, so to speak. The veiled sarcasm in his use of the term St. Derek wasn't veiled enough: I saw straight through it. Anyway - those 11 ducks. 1) I sometimes used to use a nym on other Usenet groups with the email . 2) My middle name is Mark. 3) I had a friend called Glen who died mysteriously in his sleep aged about 13. 4) I use a period after St., omit the period after 'D' in Ph.D, and I spell honour with a 'u', just like Glen and Mark. 5) And there's this (below). [start] oh yes you did jonathan ball .................................................. ............................... .................................................. ... > What do you have? Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You? http://groups.google.com/group/misc....7726abf?dmode=... .................................................. ............................... .................................................. ..... > So you're a drop-out Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...ab479c7d4f0?hl... ource .................................................. ............................... .................................................. ... > You lied, as usual. no. you lied. [end] a ghost of Usenet past Apr 6 2011 http://tinyurl.com/cb56ycr 6) This person, a ghost of Usenet past, used the email and quotes the same way Glen does with lines of dots or dashes under each quote. 7) He uses and abuses periods the same way I do, and he includes the 'u' in honour, being British. 8) Mark, a ghost of Usenet past and Glen are the same person and have writing characteristics similar to mine. 9) There's only one person similar to me with a motive to embarrass me, and probably you, but with only half the ability to pull it off, and that's my twin. 10) I'm fairly certain he still 'monitors' this group and follows me around usenet, generally. [start - David] > >> >It sure is.... hehehhe [me- using a variation of the Reti opening to see if it was David] > >> P-QB3 [David's common response to a variation of the Reti opening (a school of thought in chess that demands control of the center from a safe distance instead of occupying the very center squares) is] > >P-KB4 hahahahaha [me, satisfied that it is David (he never tries to control anything from a distance, opting instead always to occupy it from the very center squares). Reckless, but he usually succeeds with it anyway.] > Okay, what do you want? [David] **** all. Just monitoring. [end] Father Onearly (David, my twin) Dec 11 2008 http://tinyurl.com/ycscfcq 11) He knows the arguments raised here nearly as well as I do and could probably hold his own as a vegan if he wanted to. I know he's been tempted to try. 12) More, nothing would satisfy him better than wrong-footing me and beating me at my own game, especially on my own board: a.a.e.v. More still, he wouldn't be able to resist leaving me a few clues to show how clever he'd been after I'd lost the game. Note to David. A half-decent opening. A lively but reckless middle. Poor end-game. Checkmate! |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/28/2012 4:14 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:10:49 -0700, George > > wrote: > >> On 3/25/2012 4:55 PM, Derek wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:28:00 -0700, George > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/25/2012 10:58 AM, 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? >>>> >>>> My best guess was that it was "Zakhar", better known as "greggeorge", >>>> but not sure now. It's obviously a Brit. Whoever it is was here >>>> earlier and is too gutless to say what he was using for a name back >>>> then. Anyway, he's an asshole. >>> >>> I'm leaning more and more towards blackmailing Ray Slater. He >>> threatened to print your address here a few times, and stalking people >>> via facebook wouldn't surprise me in the least. >> >> Doesn't write enough like Slater. Slater got weepy almost immediately. >> >> I think it's this douche: >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...8?dmode=source >> >> I worked with that ****wit at Apple Computer back in the 1980s. He was a >> nice enough guy at the time, but he later came here and admitted he was >> just trying to get to bang "vegan" chicks. He's a dishonorable ****, >> too, because I "sold" him a nice futon with a hardwood frame, and he >> never paid up. I thought he was good for it, but he stiffed me, the ****. > > Heh heh heh. He called you a "feeble excuse for a monkey's arse." > I like him already. > > Anyway, I sussed it a while ago but didn't want to say until I'd got > all my ducks in a row, so to speak. The veiled sarcasm in his use of > the term St. Derek wasn't veiled enough: I saw straight through it. > > Anyway - those 11 ducks. > > 1) I sometimes used to use a nym on other Usenet groups with the email > . > > 2) My middle name is Mark. > > 3) I had a friend called Glen who died mysteriously in his sleep aged > about 13. > > 4) I use a period after St., omit the period after 'D' in Ph.D, and I > spell honour with a 'u', just like Glen and Mark. > > 5) And there's this (below). > > [start] > oh yes you did jonathan ball > > .................................................. .............................. > .................................................. ... > > > What do you have? > > Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You? > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc....7726abf?dmode=... > > > .................................................. .............................. > .................................................. ..... > > > So you're a drop-out > > Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA. > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...ab479c7d4f0?hl... > ource > > > .................................................. .............................. > .................................................. ... > > > You lied, as usual. > > no. you lied. > [end] > a ghost of Usenet past Apr 6 2011 http://tinyurl.com/cb56ycr > > 6) This person, a ghost of Usenet past, used the email and > quotes the same way Glen does with lines of dots or dashes under each > quote. > > 7) He uses and abuses periods the same way I do, and he includes the > 'u' in honour, being British. > > 8) Mark, a ghost of Usenet past and Glen are the same person and have > writing characteristics similar to mine. > > 9) There's only one person similar to me with a motive to embarrass > me, and probably you, but with only half the ability to pull it off, > and that's my twin. That was one of my guesses, but I don't have a strong enough background in all his tics to spot him for certain. > 10) I'm fairly certain he still 'monitors' this group and follows me > around usenet, generally. > > [start - David] > > >> >It sure is.... hehehhe > [me- using a variation of the Reti opening to see if it was David] > > >> P-QB3 > [David's common response to a variation of the Reti opening (a school > of thought in chess that demands control of the center from a safe > distance instead of occupying the very center squares) is] > > >P-KB4 hahahahaha > [me, satisfied that it is David (he never tries to control anything > from a distance, opting instead always to occupy it from the very > center squares). Reckless, but he usually succeeds with it anyway.] > > Okay, what do you want? > [David] > **** all. Just monitoring. > [end] > Father Onearly (David, my twin) > Dec 11 2008 http://tinyurl.com/ycscfcq > > 11) He knows the arguments raised here nearly as well as I do and > could probably hold his own as a vegan if he wanted to. I know he's > been tempted to try. > > 12) More, nothing would satisfy him better than wrong-footing me and > beating me at my own game, especially on my own board: a.a.e.v. More > still, he wouldn't be able to resist leaving me a few clues to show > how clever he'd been after I'd lost the game. > > Note to David. > > A half-decent opening. A lively but reckless middle. Poor end-game. > Checkmate! |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/28/2012 4:14 AM, Derek wrote:
> [solid analysis that points toward your twin] So, back in that thread in alt.christnet that ****wit caused to be crossposted to a.a.e.v., when someone named "Lesley" showed up and started threatening to reveal personal information (street address, etc.) information about me, "Mark" exhorted "her" not to do it, and subsequently claimed to know "Lesley". I think they're the same; their "conversation" was a sham. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:05:05 -0700, George Plimpton >
wrote: >On 3/28/2012 4:14 AM, Derek wrote: > >> [solid analysis that points toward your twin] > >So, back in that thread in alt.christnet that ****wit caused to be >crossposted to a.a.e.v., when someone named "Lesley" showed up and >started threatening to reveal personal information (street address, >etc.) information about me, "Mark" exhorted "her" not to do it, and >subsequently claimed to know "Lesley". I think they're the same; their >"conversation" was a sham. Lesley would never post here using her real name, but I can't fathom what David would get out of pretending to be both her and someone who knows her just to threaten exposing your whereabouts. He screwed up there or changed his plans to infiltrate the pro-animal rights side. I've been looking at Glen's, Mark's and Lesley's post for similarities and discrepancies for a couple of days now, and I'm certain they're all David. Has his conscience finally got the better of him, I wonder, and made him turn to a vegetarian lifestyle? One thing's for certain; if he has he will no doubt reject any responsibility for the collateral deaths associated with his new diet. Being my identical mirror twin we have a lot in common, and our sense of moral responsibility is identical even if our views on animal rights used to be different. That view may have changed now, as it sometimes does, and there's no looking back once that view changes. I've put my email address back in the headers today now I'm certain who it was. I'm not going to change what I do because of his game-playing. I'll just have to be more careful, that's all. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 25, 7:15*am, 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. > > > 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. Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce their food, and no animal agriculture at all. So less suffering takes place in order to produce their food. It's not rocket science. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 31, 2:39*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 7:15*am, 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. > > > > You believe something is bad and so > > > you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > *Everything* is rocket science to the Gooberdoodle. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>> 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. > > Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > their food, Not necessarily. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 2, 10:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > *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. > > >>> 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. > > > Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > > their food, > > Not necessarily. How would that work out? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>> 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. >> >>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>> their food, >> >> Not necessarily. > > How would that work out? Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 3, 6:22*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * *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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 3, 6:22*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * *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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>> their food, >> >>>> Not necessarily. >> >>> How would that work out? >> >> Some ... >> > > We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction > by going vegan. No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>> their food, >> >>>> Not necessarily. >> >>> How would that work out? >> >> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > Yes, some. QED |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 3, 10:11*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * *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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 3, 10:11*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * *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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>> Some ... >> >>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>> by going vegan. >> >> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. > > But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in harm. The answer is no, you need more information. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>> Yes, some. >> >> QED > > Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 3, 10:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * *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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 3, 10:23*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * *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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>> QED >> >>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > reducing the amount of harm you cause. It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. > > If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a > larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end > up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan > might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. All that needed to be shown. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 4, 9:59*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * *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. > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>> QED > > >>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > > For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > > reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that takes place to produce the food they eat? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 4, 10:03*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * *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. > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>> Some ... > > >>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction > >>>>> by going vegan. > > >>>> No, we weren't. *I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal > >>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and > >>>> that is a true statement. *Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually > >>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. > > >>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. > > >> No, our discussion shows no such thing. *The issue has *always* been > >> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in > >> harm. *The answer is no, you need more information. > > > If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a > > larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end > > up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan > > might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. > > All that needed to be shown. I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount of harm they were causing by going vegan. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>> QED >> >>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > takes place to produce the food they eat? It's bullshit - they haven't. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. >> >>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a >>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end >>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan >>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. >> >> All that needed to be shown. > > I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially > interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is > any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount > of harm they were causing by going vegan. It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 5, 8:12*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * *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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>>>> QED > > >>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > >>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > >>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > >> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > > What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > > rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > > takes place to produce the food they eat? > > It's bullshit - they haven't. What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 5, 8:13*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * *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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>> Some ... > > >>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction > >>>>>>> by going vegan. > > >>>>>> No, we weren't. *I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal > >>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and > >>>>>> that is a true statement. *Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually > >>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. > > >>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. > > >>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. *The issue has *always* been > >>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in > >>>> harm. *The answer is no, you need more information. > > >>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a > >>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end > >>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan > >>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. > > >> All that needed to be shown. > > > I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially > > interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is > > any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount > > of harm they were causing by going vegan. > > It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth > doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. It really is quite ludicrous that anyone could take such nonsense seriously. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >> It's bullshit - they haven't. > > What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? Been over all that with you already. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>>>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >>>>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. >> >>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a >>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end >>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan >>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. >> >>>> All that needed to be shown. >> >>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially >>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is >>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount >>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. >> >> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth >> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. > > That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. It isn't. It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. *Everyone* apart from "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, which is exactly what they are. They're also clueless urbanites, as well as animal rights passivists. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
