Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 03:44 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 23/03/2012 17:20, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George wrote:


The
belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering
merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
demonstrated to be illogical and false.


Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
[garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."

I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to stop
recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
think you're better than them because you recycle?


He *does* think he's better. Read his post. He thinks he's better than others who don't recycle. He
measures his virtue by comparing his garbage bin to others' garbage bins. He looks down from his
moral pedestal at others who don't recycle and thinks he's better than they are because he's
reducing something he believes is bad that others don't.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 04:08 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George
wrote:

On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George wrote:
A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply
better people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259

All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he says he
doesn't.

What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it?

Because you know that bragging that your character is better
than that
of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and
contentious topic as
not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to generate
a lot of
well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to defend
yourself
against the charge of placing yourself on a moral pedestal,
so you just
lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than those who
use
animal products.

You say that I am aware that the critcism would be
"well-founded".

No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because bragging
about
being better, even if an objective case can be made that one is
better,
is still disparaged.

It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or not.
You *do*
know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you lie and
claim
not to believe what you obviously *do* believe.

If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't
this lead
me to critically re-examine the belief?

The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit.
You know this.

The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat
eaters
based on what you don't put in your mouth.

I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say that one
person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of the
school
of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You can't
meaningfully compare two different people.

That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time - say,
robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't,
then I am
better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt.

Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, yes, and I
never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, other
things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of suffering
required to produce your food is morally better than not doing so.

The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded belief that
you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts in your
mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan shuffle"
argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you aren't
"doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering merely by not
putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude you're
doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, relative to
someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of animal
parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one causes are
false.

What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?

We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting shitbag. The
belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering
merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
demonstrated to be illogical and false.

Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
[garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."

I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. What it
does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you
consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you live) a
form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of
pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total
pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that certainly
creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution caused
by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater
than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make
stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but I don't
know.

I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to stop
recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
think you're better than them because you recycle?

In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping material
out of landfills.

There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite right.
Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal in my
backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one thinks of
that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think human
use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either
because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering that
crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from
consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only
think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement that
keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not sure
that it is.

I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out
of landfills. Make up your mind.

I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation.


And you believe that doing it makes you better.


I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling
makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it.


And better than others who don't. You believe something is bad and so you try to reduce your
contribution to that bad thing. Vegans believe something is bad and so they try to reduce their
contribution to that bad thing. You believe you're better than those who don't try to reduce their
contribution to your bad thing and so you automatically think vegans believe they're better than
those who don't try to reduce their contribution to their bad thing. You measure your virtue by
comparing yourself to others and so you think vegans measure their virtue by comparing themselves to
others as well. You're projecting your own faults onto vegans and trying to malign them for
something only you do. *LOL*
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 04:56 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 24, 9:08*pm, Glen wrote:
On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote:





On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George * wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George * * wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote:


On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George
wrote:


On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George * * wrote:
On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George * * wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George * * wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George * * wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George * * wrote:
A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply
better people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259


All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he says he
doesn't.


What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it?


Because you know that bragging that your character is better
than that
of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and
contentious topic as
not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to generate
a lot of
well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to defend
yourself
against the charge of placing yourself on a moral pedestal,
so you just
lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than those who
use
animal products.


You say that I am aware that the critcism would be
"well-founded".


No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because bragging
about
being better, even if an objective case can be made that one is
better,
is still disparaged.


It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or not.
You *do*
know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you lie and
claim
not to believe what you obviously *do* believe.


If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't
this lead
me to critically re-examine the belief?


The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit.

  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 06:10 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/24/2012 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.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 06:12 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/24/2012 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 25, 3:37 am, George wrote:
On 3/24/2012 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George wrote:
On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George wrote:
A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply better people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259


All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he says he doesn't.


What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it?


Because you know that bragging that your character is better than that
of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and contentious topic as
not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to generate a lot of
well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to defend yourself
against the charge of placing yourself on a moral pedestal, so you just
lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than those who use
animal products.


You say that I am aware that the critcism would be "well-founded".


No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because bragging about
being better, even if an objective case can be made that one is better,
is still disparaged.


It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or not. You *do*
know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you lie and claim
not to believe what you obviously *do* believe.


If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't this lead
me to critically re-examine the belief?


The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. You know this.


The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat eaters
based on what you don't put in your mouth.


You obviously want to believe that what's in it for me to be a vegan
is to be able to view myself as a "better" person, as opposed to
trying to do something about animal suffering.


It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the
amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain
"vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. As there is no objective
moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in
your self-esteem. You think you're "better" than meat eaters.


* you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not
"doing the best you can".


I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal
suffering required to produce my food.


You can't conclude anything about it. There is no /a priori/ reason to
believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal
suffering of all of humanity. *Nothing* about merely not putting animal
parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal
suffering than anyone else.


That is a fact, and you know it.


No, I don't.


You *do* know it. You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts
in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal
suffering than anyone. You *know* that. Stop lying.


Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount
of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount
of suffering required to produce your food?


That's the wrong question.


It would be great if you could answer it, nevertheless.


Of course it's rational to believe that the amount of suffering caused by
- *not* "required" by - your diet might exceed that caused by mine. You
don't know what I eat, apart from some meat, and you don't know how much
meat I eat or the provenance of it. Simply *not* eating meat doesn't
say anything about the amount of suffering you cause relative to what I
cause.


I don't think it's rational to believe that at all,


It is absolutely rational to believe that it could be the case.


The proper question is, why would you
*possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you
are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering?


That's changing the topic. Your original claim was that I might be
causing more animal suffering than anyone.


And you might well be.



You evidently think that you are doing all you need to do by doing
nothing at all, so I don't see how you can object if I claim that I am
doing all that I need to do.


I'm not the one claiming there is a moral imperative not to harm
animals, and I'm not the one making some ****witted claim about the
level of harm caused by my diet.

You're going around in circles, as usual. You want to claim you're
making a significant reduction in harm merely by *not* consuming meat,
and you also want to pretend you're doing as much as you reasonably can
be expected to do, and neither is true. It's all about your ego and vanity.


You say that neither is true,


Neither is true. Your conclusion is unwarranted.


You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes
meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone.


No. I don't know that.


Yes, you do know it. You know that it *could* mean that.

You just
can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute
to animal suffering.


I can make some conclusions,


You cannot make any reasonable conclusion. The fact you stick with this
utterly illogical and unfounded position proves your irrationality and
bad faith.


I do not agree.


Pure irrational obstinacy.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 06:14 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/24/2012 7:27 PM, Glen wrote:
On 23/03/2012 17:44, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George
wrote:


The
belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering
merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
demonstrated to be illogical and false.

Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
[garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."


*BUSTED*

I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. What it
does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you
consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you live) a
form of pollution,


It is.


It could be, greggeorge.


then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of
pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total
pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that certainly
creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution caused
by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater
than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make
stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but I
don't know.


Vegans intuitively hold the belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in animal suffering merely by *not* putting animal parts in
one's mouth.


They're wrong, greggeorge.


I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to stop
recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
think you're better than them because you recycle?


In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping material
out of landfills.


Better than who, the unethical scumbags who don't recycle?


Better than I would be if I didn't recycle, nutless.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 06:15 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/24/2012 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.
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 10:22 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

"Glen" wrote in message ...
On 23/03/2012 17:44, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George
wrote:


The
belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering
merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
demonstrated to be illogical and false.

Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
[garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."


*BUSTED*

I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. What it
does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you
consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you live) a
form of pollution,


It is. You know it is. Dumping garbage is pollution.

then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of
pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total
pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that certainly
creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution caused
by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater
than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make
stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but I
don't know.


Vegans intuitively hold the belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in animal suffering merely by *not* putting animal parts in
one's mouth. But they're not entitled to believe they're better, according
to your rules. You intuitively hold the belief that one is making a
meaningful reduction in pollution merely by *not* putting garbage in one's
garbage bin. But you're fully entitled to believe you're better, according
to the different rules you follow. It obvious that you have one rule for
vegans while following a different rule. You measure your virtue by
comparing your garbage bin to other's garbage bins, but you don't allow
vegans to measure their virtue by comparing their shopping cart to other's
shopping carts. St. Derek reveals your double standard here and proves
that is you who is arrogant and egotistical, not the vegans you're too
keen to malign.

I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to stop
recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
think you're better than them because you recycle?


In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping material
out of landfills.


Better than who, the unethical scumbags who don't recycle? So that's your
game is it? You *DO* think you're more virtuous, *better* than others by
comparing your efforts to reduce something you believe is bad to the
efforts, or lack of, of others. You're a hypocrite. An arrogant and
egotistical hypocrite. Start believing in your own bullshit before telling
others to live by it.


Simply doing something in a way that you think may be better than another
way is not the same as shouting from the rooftops, or even thinking, that
those who don't follow your lead are akin to barbarians or murderers.
Raising animals for food is not evil, if you think so you and you don't keep
your twisted view to yourself then you deserve all the verbal abuse you get.





  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 11:00 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 25, 7:10*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 6:55 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 25, 3:32 am, George *wrote:
On 3/24/2012 6:04 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote:


On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George
wrote:


On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George * * * *wrote:
A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply
better people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259


All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he says he
doesn't.


What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it?


Because you know that bragging that your character is better
than that
of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and
contentious topic as
not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to generate
a lot of
well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to defend
yourself
against the charge of placing yourself on a moral pedestal,
so you just
lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than those who
use
animal products.


You say that I am aware that the critcism would be
"well-founded".


No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because bragging
about
being better, even if an objective case can be made that one is
better,
is still disparaged.


It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or not.
You *do*
know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you lie and
claim
not to believe what you obviously *do* believe.


If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't
this lead
me to critically re-examine the belief?


The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit.
You know this.


The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat
eaters
based on what you don't put in your mouth.


I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say that one
person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of the
school
of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You can't
meaningfully compare two different people.


That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time - say,
robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't,
then I am
better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt.


Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, yes, and I
never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, other
things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of suffering
required to produce your food is morally better than not doing so.


The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded belief that
you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts in your
mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan shuffle"
argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you aren't
"doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering merely by not
putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude you're
doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, relative to
someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of animal
parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one causes are
false.


What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?


We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting shitbag. The
belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering
merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
demonstrated to be illogical and false.


Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
[garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."


I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. What it
does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you
consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you live) a
form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of
pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total
pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that certainly
creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution caused
by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater
than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make
stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but I don't
know.


I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to stop
recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
think you're better than them because you recycle?


In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping material
out of landfills.


There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite right.
Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal in my
backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one thinks of
that as a moral issue /per se/. *However, the AR/AL crowd do think human
use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either
because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering that
crosses some moral threshold. *"aras" think that refraining from
consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only
think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement that
keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not sure
that it is.


I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out
of landfills. Make up your mind.


I do think it's good to do. *I don't think it's a moral obligation.


And you believe that doing it makes you better.


I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling
makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it.


Do you believe that it is better to cause less suffering?


Yes, but there's no reason to think being "vegan" necessarily does that.

  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 11:06 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 25, 7:12*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 25, 3:37 am, George *wrote:
On 3/24/2012 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 24, 8:18 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George * * * * * * * *wrote:
A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply better people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259


All "vegans" believe that. *Woopert is lying when he says he doesn't.


What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it?


Because you know that bragging that your character is better than that
of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and contentious topic as
not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to generate a lot of
well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to defend yourself
against the charge of placing yourself on a moral pedestal, so you just
lie. *But you *do* think you're "simply better" than those who use
animal products.


You say that I am aware that the critcism would be "well-founded".


No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because bragging about
being better, even if an objective case can be made that one is better,
is still disparaged.


It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or not. *You *do*
know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you lie and claim
not to believe what you obviously *do* believe.


If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't this lead
me to critically re-examine the belief?


The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. *You know this.


The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat eaters
based on what you don't put in your mouth.


You obviously want to believe that what's in it for me to be a vegan
is to be able to view myself as a "better" person, as opposed to
trying to do something about animal suffering.


It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the
amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain
"vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. *As there is no objective
moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in
your self-esteem. *You think you're "better" than meat eaters.


* you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not
"doing the best you can".


I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal
suffering required to produce my food.


You can't conclude anything about it. *There is no /a priori/ reason to
believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal
suffering of all of humanity. **Nothing* about merely not putting animal
parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal
suffering than anyone else.


That is a fact, and you know it.


No, I don't.


You *do* know it. *You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts
in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal
suffering than anyone. *You *know* that. *Stop lying.


Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount
of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount
of suffering required to produce your food?


That's the wrong question.


It would be great if you could answer it, nevertheless.


Of course it's rational to believe that the amount of suffering caused by
- *not* "required" by - your diet might exceed that caused by mine. *You
don't know what I eat, apart from some meat, and you don't know how much
meat I eat or the provenance of it. *Simply *not* eating meat doesn't
say anything about the amount of suffering you cause relative to what I
cause.


I don't think it's rational to believe that at all,


It is absolutely rational to believe that it could be the case.


Well, I think it's very irrational to believe that. It gets boring to
repeat the reasons why endlessly.









The proper question is, why would you
*possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you
are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering?


That's changing the topic. Your original claim was that I might be
causing more animal suffering than anyone.


And you might well be.


You evidently think that you are doing all you need to do by doing
nothing at all, so I don't see how you can object if I claim that I am
doing all that I need to do.


I'm not the one claiming there is a moral imperative not to harm
animals, and I'm not the one making some ****witted claim about the
level of harm caused by my diet.


You're going around in circles, as usual. *You want to claim you're
making a significant reduction in harm merely by *not* consuming meat,
and you also want to pretend you're doing as much as you reasonably can
be expected to do, and neither is true. *It's all about your ego and vanity.


You say that neither is true,


Neither is true. *Your conclusion is unwarranted.


That's an assertion, not an argument.









You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes
meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone.


No. I don't know that.


Yes, you do know it. *You know that it *could* mean that.


You just
can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute
to animal suffering.


I can make some conclusions,


You cannot make any reasonable conclusion. *The fact you stick with this
utterly illogical and unfounded position proves your irrationality and
bad faith.


I do not agree.


Pure irrational obstinacy.


Actually, I think you'll find it's because you haven't offered the
least reason in support of your position.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 05:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 25/03/2012 06:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote:
On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George
wrote:

On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George wrote:
A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply
better
people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259

All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he
says he
doesn't.

What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it?

Because you know that bragging that your character is
better
than that
of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and
contentious topic as
not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to
generate
a lot of
well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to
defend
yourself
against the charge of placing yourself on a moral
pedestal,
so you just
lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than
those who
use
animal products.

You say that I am aware that the critcism would be
"well-founded".

No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because
bragging
about
being better, even if an objective case can be made that
one is
better,
is still disparaged.

It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or
not.
You *do*
know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you
lie and
claim
not to believe what you obviously *do* believe.

If I know that the criticism would be well-founded,
wouldn't
this lead
me to critically re-examine the belief?

The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit.
You know this.

The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat
eaters
based on what you don't put in your mouth.

I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say
that one
person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of
the
school
of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You
can't
meaningfully compare two different people.

That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time
- say,
robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't,
then I am
better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt.

Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension,
yes, and I
never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that,
other
things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of
suffering
required to produce your food is morally better than not
doing so.

The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded
belief that
you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts
in your
mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan
shuffle"
argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you
aren't
"doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering
merely by not
putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude
you're
doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts,
relative to
someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of
animal
parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one
causes are
false.

What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?

We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting
shitbag. The
belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal
suffering
merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
demonstrated to be illogical and false.

Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
[garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."

I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution.
What it
does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you
consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you
live) a
form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of
pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total
pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that
certainly
creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution
caused
by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater
than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make
stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but
I don't
know.

I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to
stop
recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
think you're better than them because you recycle?

In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping
material
out of landfills.

There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite
right.
Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal
in my
backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one
thinks of
that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think
human
use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either
because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering
that
crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from
consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only
think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement
that
keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not
sure
that it is.

I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out
of landfills. Make up your mind.

I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation.

And you believe that doing it makes you better.

I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling
makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it.


And better than others who don't.


Quite likely, greggeorge.


Candid admission that you measure your virtue by comparing it to others' virtue. Thank you. You've
said that that's a disgusting vegan trait but it turns out that it's your own.

You believe something is bad and so
you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing.


My action unequivocally is a reduction.


No it isn't.

More than 230,000 tons of waste sent for recycling by householders is being dumped in landfill sites
every year, it is claimed. Councils say the waste is ' contaminated', and it is cheaper to bury it
than to remove the unwanted elements.

However, the policy risks bringing the entire council recycling regime into disrepute.
http://tinyurl.com/cwe5gk

The Eight Myths of Recycling
By Daniel Benjamin

Garbage is the unavoidable by-product of production and consumption. There are three ways to deal
with it, all known and used since antiquity: dumping, burning, and recycling. For thousands of years
it was commonplace to dump rubbish on site--on the floor, or out the window. Scavenging domestic
animals, chiefly pigs and dogs, consumed the edible parts, and poor people salvaged what they could.
The rest was covered and built upon.

Eventually, humans began to use more elaborate methods of dealing with their rubbish. The first
modern incinerator (called a "destructor") went into operation in Nottingham, England in 1874. After
World War II, landfills became the accepted means of dealing with trash. The modern era of the
recycling craze can be traced to 1987, when the garbage barge Mobro 4000 had to spend two months
touring the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico before it found a home for its load. The Environmental
Defense Fund, the National Solid Waste Management Association (whose members were anxious to line up
new customers for their expanding landfill capacity), the press, and finally the Environmental
Protection Agency, spun the story of a garbage crisis out of control. By 1995, the majority of
Americans thought trash was our number one environmental problem--with 77 percent reporting that
increased recycling of household rubbish was the solution. Yet these claims and fears were based on
errors and misinformation, which I have compiled into the Eight Great Myths of Recycling.

Myth 1: Our Garbage Will Bury Us

Fact: Even though the United States is larger, more affluent, and producing more garbage, it now has
more landfill capacity that ever before. The erroneous opposite impression comes from old studies
that counted the number of landfills (which has declined) rather than landfill capacity (which has
grown). There are a few places, like New Jersey, where capacity has shrunk. But the uneven
distribution of landfill space is no more important than the uneven distribution of automobile
manufacturing. Perhaps the most important fact is this: If we permitted our rubbish to grow to the
height of New York City's famous Fresh Kills landfill (225 feet), a site only about 10 miles on a
side could hold all of America's garbage for the next century.

Myth 2: Our Garbage Will Poison Us

Fact: Almost anything can pose a theoretical threat, but evidence of actual harm from landfills is
almost non-existent, as the Environmental Protection Agency itself acknowledges. The EPA has
concluded that landfills constructed according to agency regulations can be expected to cause a
total of 5.7 cancer-related deaths over the next 300 years. It isn't household waste, but improperly
or illegally dumped industrial wastes that can be harmful. Household recycling programs have no
effect on those wastes, a fact ignored by messianic proponents of recycling.

Myth 3: Our Packaging Is Immoral

Fact: Many people argue that the best way to "save landfill space" is to reduce the amount of
packaging Americans use, via mandatory controls. But packaging can actually reduce total garbage
produced and total resources used. The average American family generates fully one third less trash
than does the average Mexican household. The reason is that our intensive use of packaging yields
less spoilage and breakage, thereby saving resources, and producing, on balance, less total rubbish.
Careful packaging also reduces food poisoning and other health problems.

Over the past 25 years, market incen-tives have already reduced the weights of individual packages
by 30 to 70 percent. An average aluminium can weighed nearly 21 grams in 1972; in 2002, that same
can weighs in at under 14 grams. A plastic grocery sack was 2.3 mils thick in 1976; by 2001, it was
a mere 0.7 mils.

By contrast, the environmentally sensitive New York Times has been growing. A year's worth of the
newspaper now weighs 520 pounds and occupies more than 40 cubic feet in a landfill. This is
equivalent in weight to 17,180 aluminum cans--nearly a century's worth of beer and soft drink
consumption by one person. Clearly, people anxious to heal Mother Earth must forego the Times!

Myth 4: We Must Achieve "Trash Independence"

Fact: Garbage has become an inter-state business, with 47 states exporting the stuff and 45
importing it. Environ-mentalists contend that each state should dispose within its borders all the
trash produced within its borders. But why? Transporting garbage across an arbitrary legal boundary
has no effect on the envi-ronmental impact of the disposal of that material. Moving a ton of trash
is no more hazardous than moving a ton of any other commodity.

Myth 5: We're Squandering Irreplaceable Resources

Fact: Thanks to numerous innovations, we now produce about twice as much output per unit of energy
as we did 50 years ago, and five times as much as we did 200 years ago. Automobiles use only half as
much metal as in 1970, and one optical fiber carries the same number of calls as 625 copper wires
did 20 years ago. Bridges are built with less steel, because steel is stronger and engineering is
improved. Automobile and truck engines consume less fuel per unit of work performed, and produce
fewer emissions.

To address the issue of paper, the most-promoted form of recycling: The amount of new growth that
occurs each year in forests is more than 20 times the number of trees consumed by the world each
year for wood and paper. Where loss of forest land is taking place, as in tropical rain forests, it
can be traced directly to a lack of private property rights. Governments have used forests,
especially the valuable tropical ones, as an easy way to raise quick cash. Wherever private property
rights to forests are well-defined and enforced, forests are either stable or growing. More
recycling of paper or cardboard would not eliminate tropical forest losses.

Myth 6: Recycling Always Protects the Environment

Fact: Recycling is a manufacturing process, and therefore it too has environ-mental impact. The U.S.
Office of Technology Assessment says that it is "not clear whether secondary manufacturing [i.e.,
recycling] produces less pollution per ton of material processed than primary manufacturing."
Recycling merely changes the nature of pollution--sometimes decreasing it, and sometimes increasing it.

This effect is particularly apparent in the case of curbside recycling, which is mandated or
strongly encouraged by governments in many communities around the country. Curbside recycling
requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount of waste materials. Instead of one
truck picking up 40 pounds of garbage, one will pick up four pounds of recyclables and a second will
collect 36 pounds of rubbish.

Los Angeles has estimated that due to curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is twice as large as
it otherwise would be--800 vs. 400 trucks. This means more iron ore and coal mining, more steel and
rub-ber manufacturing, more petroleum extracted and refined for fuel--and of course all that extra
air pollution in the Los Angeles basin as the 400 added trucks cruise the streets.

Myth 7: Recycling Saves Resources

Fact: Using less of one resource usually means using more of another. Curbside recycling is
substantially more costly and uses far more resources than a program in which disposal is combined
with a voluntary drop-off/buy-back option. The reason: Curbside recycling of household rubbish uses
huge amounts of capital and labor per pound of material recycled. Overall, curbside recycling costs
between 35 and 55 percent more than simply disposing of the item. It typically wastes resources.

In the ordinary course of daily living, we already reuse most higher value items. The only things
that intentionally end up in the trash are both low in value and costly to reuse or recycle. Yet
these are the items that municipal recycling programs are targeting--the very things that consumers
have already decided are too worthless or costly to deal with further. All of the profitable,
socially productive opportunities for recycling were long ago co-opted by the private sector,
because they pay back. The bulk of all curbside recycling programs simply waste resources.

Myth 8: Without Forced Mandates, There Wouldn't Be Any Recycling

Fact: Long before state or local governments had even contemplated the word recycling, the makers of
steel, aluminum, and thousands of other products were recycling manufacturing scraps. Some operated
post-consumer drop-off centers. As for the claim that the private sector promotes premature or
excessive disposal, this ignores an enormous body of evidence to the contrary. Firms only survive in
the marketplace if they take into account all costs. Fifty years ago, when labor was cheap compared
to materials, goods were built to be repaired, so that the expensive materials could be used for a
longer period of time. As the price of labor has risen and the cost of materials has fallen,
manufacturers have responded by building items to be used until they break, and then discarded.
There is no bias against recycling; there is merely a market-driven effort to conserve the most
valuable resources.

Informed, voluntary recycling con-serves resources and raises our wealth, enabling us to achieve
valued ends that would otherwise be impossible. Mandatory programs, however, in which people are
directly or indirectly compelled to do what they know is not sensible, routinely make society worse
off. Such programs force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they
would sensibly discard.

Except in a few rare cases, the free market is eminently capable of providing both disposal and
recycling in an amount and mix that creates the greatest wealth for society. This makes possible the
widest and most satisfying range of human endeavors. Simply put, market prices are sufficient to
induce the trash-man to come, and to make his burden bearable, and neither he nor we can hope for
any better than that.

Daniel Benjamin is a professor at Clemson University and a senior associate at PERC, the Property
and Environment Research Center
http://tinyurl.com/pxbpj7

Modern properly maintained landfills are good for the environment.

SAN FRANCISCO--The newly built Sierra Point Radisson Hotel puts a positive spin on the word "dump."

Built on a garbage landfill in San Francisco because of a lack of land, the 210-room property with a
view of the San Francisco Bay opened July 26 after 13 months of construction and 18 months of planning.

General contractor Dave Zurbin of Webcor Builders said that with everybody wanting property with a
view of the water, landfills are becoming a common building site for commercial businesses, golf
courses and now hotels.

"There is nowhere left to build," he said. "Everybody wants to live and work on the peninsula, so
they have to start building on landfills."

Although San Francisco's barriers to entry gave developers little choice but to build on the
landfill, the eight-story hotel couldn't be at a better location--100 feet from the water, said
Navin Dimond, owner of the Sierra Point Radisson and principal of Stonebridge Cos. in Aurora, Colo.

"You would never be able to tell it used to be landfill. It's a nice area right on the bay," Dimond
said.

A special foundation

Although the 50-acre landfill was filled and sealed several years before Stonebridge Cos. bought the
land, Pahl-Pahl-Pahl Architects/Planners and Webcor had to design and create a solid foundation for
the hotel. In addition, they had to develop and install a mechanism to prevent toxic methane gas
from the landfill from leaking into the hotel.

First, a 4-foot-thick clay cap was laid over the already-covered landfill. Then, because the
subsurface conditions were unsuitable for supporting the weight of the hotel, concrete piles were
driven into the ground, some as far as 150 feet. Finally, the piles were capped with an additional
layer of concrete to ensure that there were no openings for methane to get through.

Harvey Hwang, assistant project manager at Webcor, said driving the piles into the concrete and
landfill was a challenge, especially because the piles could hit garbage buried within the landfill
and break. By the time the foundation had been sealed, 50 of 387 piles had broken.

"We were always at risk of hitting something as we were on our way down [through the landfill], and
then we would have to start over," he said.

From there, a methane-gas-collecting system was incorporated into the structure. Under regulation
from the Environmental Protection Agency and the county, the designers and contractors had to make
sure that even if methane gas escaped from the landfill, it would not leak into the hotel.

The collecting system operates by capturing and holding leaked methane gas within tubes installed
under the floor slab. The gas then is released from the tubes into the air via a chimney-like
structure, away from the hotel.

However, the chances that methane gas could escape a sealed landfill are slim, Zurbin said.

"The slab of clay is pretty much impermeable," he said.

In anticipation of possible movement of the building, the structural design also required
incorporating hinged slabs at all the building's entrances.

Proper precautions

Steve Wall, solid waste management engineer for the EPA in San Francisco, said building on a
landfill is safe, as long as proper procedures are followed. In the United States, regulation of
landfills is delegated to the state, and then, in cases such as California, delegated to the county.

Wall said the Sierra Point designers and builders have taken the proper precautions, but suggested
installing a gas-monitoring system in the hotel just to be safe.

"Although it may seem redundant, a gas-monitoring system on the lower floors would be good in case
gas leaks," he said.

Generally, a hotel of this type and size costs about $17 million, but building on a landfill
requires an additional $500,000 to $1 million, according to Hwang. He would not reveal the cost of
the Sierra Point Radisson, but said it was more than $17 million.

The cost, however, was well worth it because the hotel is on the water, Dimond said. Even better,
Joe Pahl, architect for Pahl-Pahl-Pahl, said guests will never feel like or even know that they are
staying on a landfill because of the transformation of the site.

"There is no way you can tell that it used to be a landfill. There is landscaping, pools and parking
lots," Pahl said.

Hwang said building the Sierra Point Radisson on a landfill was a good use of land.

"Why leave it as a dump when you could make it into beautiful land for people to use?" he said



RELATED ARTICLE: Landfill building musts

1. A 4-foot-thick clay cap should be laid over the covered landfill.

2. Concrete piles should be driven into the landfill through the clay cap to ensure a solid foundation.

3. Special venting should be designed and incorporated into the construction of the hotel to capture
methane gas from the landfill.
http://tinyurl.com/okd4ce

Vegans believe
something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that
bad thing.


Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction.


Yours certainly doesn't, so get off your moral pedestal and stop believing you're more virtuous than
others by comparing your garbage *LOL* with theirs hypocrite. Start believing in your own bullshit
before telling others to live by it.
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 05:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 25/03/2012 12:19, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, wrote:

[]
Raising animals for food is not evil


You believe it is.

"Because farm animals are sentient beings, and
forcing them through this mass production
assembly line "concentration camp" process is
cruel. We put innocent farm animals through
processes of suffering and early death that we
wouldn't subject the most heinous human
criminal to."
Dutch Dec 27 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6wjl2o2

There's not a single issue raised here in all the years you've been
trying to bash those you've tried but failed to aspire to that you
haven't lied about.

Note to Glen.

Dutch lies about everything. Everything! He first came here claiming
to be an advocate for the proposition of animal rights.

*Animal Rights.*

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

But within just a few months he started writing
things like;

"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

and

"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational ."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4

But then he switched back again, accepting the
proposition of animal rights and claiming to have
signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian
government.

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and later;

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

and

"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

and

"Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar
way as minor children or people in comas.
They can hold rights against us, but we can't
hold rights against them."
Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx

and

"I would hold in fact that this is so plausible that apes
should be granted basic rights."
Dutch 7 July 2007 http://tinyurl.com/328k8h

And then back again,

"I'm not an ARA."
Dutch 19 Jul 2007 http://tinyurl.com/253nlg

And back again

"I believe that it is defensible to say that an animal
that is protected by laws and morals from being
attacked in some way by a human holds a right
against humans."
Dutch 16 Oct 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3rdntg8

*His diet on factory-farmed meat:*

In the year 2000 Dutch claimed to have become a
vegetarian 20 years ago.

"i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x

But then a year later he claimed to have been a
vegetarian for only 15 years when in fact according
to his earlier quote it should then have been 21 years.

"I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
"Dutch" 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq

And then only a week later the forgetful liar claimed
to have been vegetarian for 17 years.

"I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years .."
Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2

So it's certain that he's always lied about when and
for how long he was a vegetarian. Now let's look at
his reasons given for why he became a vegetarian.

"I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in
commercial meat production that I refuse to
eat meat produced in this way. In fact for this
and health reasons I eat no meat at all."
Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa

and

"Since I cannot in all good conscience tolerate
the treatment of animals in the mass meat
industry I choose not not eat it."
Dutch Dec 20 2000 http://tinyurl.com/9vc2o

and

"Because farm animals are sentient beings, and
forcing them through this mass production
assembly line "concentration camp" process is
cruel. We put innocent farm animals through
processes of suffering and early death that we
wouldn't subject the most heinous human
criminal to."
Dutch Dec 27 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6wjl2o2

But those statements concerning his "good conscience"
were obvious lies because he DOES eat meat from
those factory farms he claimed to avoid.

"I buy what is readily available, and I assume
a lot of it comes from factory farms."
[end]
Dutch Dec 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/8w25v

[frlpwr to Dutch]
Why do you buy factory-farmed pork products?

[Dutch]
The same reason vegans buy factory farmed veggies,
because they're there.
[end]
Dutch Jan 27 2004 http://tinyurl.com/8qhrf

*Logic of the larder:*

[start Dutch]
Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
we create, breed and raise, giving them a life
as David ([email protected]) says, in exchange for the use of
their hides. We give them life. They give us their
lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial
contract, which I believe includes treating them
with respect. The only contract I have with mice
is you get out of my grain and I won't kill you.
Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe
we're not so different after all.

Dutch 20 Jan 2001 http://tinyurl.com/34jzhm9
[Polly]
Although we know there's no literal "contract", I
do like your way of stating the fact that both humans
and animals benefit from the animals' domestication.

[Dutch]
Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David..
who'da thunk???
Dutch 21 Jan 2001 http://tinyurl.com/2jdml

and

"The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial
partnership."
Dutch http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8

and

"Here's how I see it...
The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places
us irrevocably in their debt. By treating them kindly and
killing them humanely we may only approach making it
a square deal, but we can never get there."
Dutch Feb 26 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jhcg8

and

"The LoL is the belief that because by using animal
products we indirectly cause animals to come into
existence that we are entitled to use these animals'
existence (their lives) as a defence against critics of
the use of animal products.

The LoL advocate can still claim to be doing something
morally admirable by eating a burger."
Dutch July 3 2010 http://tinyurl.com/387kk4u

*Collateral Deaths:*

"There is a whole different mindset between tolerating
collateral death in your life and seeking out direct
sacrifice for your subsistence."
Dutch Aug 26 2000 http://tinyurl.com/7dduf

and

"The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it
enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that
their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis
attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n
diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually
unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility.
It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the
v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
Dutch Dec 13 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

and

"It's not that easy banmilk. Nobody doubts that animals
die in agriculture except people in complete denial. What
you must do is somehow rationalize that 'fact' with your
philosophy. It's not hard to do really, just admit you don't
care much about those animals. You don't do you? I don't."
Dutch 6 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/53pjh

As we can plainly see, Dutch doesn't believe that the
collateral deaths argument carries any weight against
vegans; he's merely trying to attack those he tried but
failed to aspire to.

*Delusions:*

Dutch is a self-confessed delusional who invents things all the
time. When first arriving here he did so while seemingly in
support for the proposition of animal rights, but that facade
was soon blown away, and now he tries to insist that the
genuine proponents of it here must be as deluded as he is.

"I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
all who was it hurting?"
Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo

and

"The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T
feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself.
Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 19 2002 http://tinyurl.com/7ndj6

and

"Deluding myself felt good"
Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3

and

"I do have some personal experience with cognitive
dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when
I finally consciously confronted the underlying
conflict I experienced a kind of physical discomfort
in the brain, a dizziness and a buzzing in my ears,
followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief and
elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to
punish you to stop you from threatening the existing
belief"
Dutch 29 Jul 2007 http://tinyurl.com/3ahp69

*Unethical Practices to Avoid:*

Dutch lies about everything. Take a look at his categorical
statements regarding the use of unethical treatments and
how he lies his way out of standing by them by praying to
God for his failure.

"I categorically refuse to use any treatment shown
to have been developed using human subjects
against their will."
Dutch Nov 26 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ppzvj

and

"If modern medicine were built on the use of
unwilling humans, I would certainly refuse it."
Dutch Nov 28 2002 http://tinyurl.com/sx9po

But, after being told that most modern practices were
perfected using unethical means, he acknowledged this
fact by stating;

"I know now that abuse of human subjects forms part of the
history of medical research, but I don't know when or how
much or which treatments were involved. I feel like I ought
to try to research the history of each treatment and medicine
before using it, surely that is the right thing to do is it not?"
Dutch Nov 28 2002 http://tinyurl.com/f5wgz

To keep his integrity by avoiding these unethical practices
like he earlier promised, I told him he ought to write a list
of the treatments to avoid, but he collapsed instead and
simpered.

[Me]
Also, what efforts have you made to list the *on-going"
unethical practices to avoid?

[Dutch]
None at all. I have already said, I can't face the task.
[end]
Dutch Nov 30 2002 http://tinyurl.com/m4a4e

I pressed him further to make that list or risk being
labeled a hypocrite, but in desperation he opted to
beg God for forgiveness instead.

[Me]
"You now know that humans were killed to perfect your
treatments. If you choose to believe that these violations
transcend to you as an accessory after the fact you must
avoid being hypocritical and stand by your ethical stance
by avoiding every treatment that was perfected using
human subjects against their will."
[Dutch]
"I don't have the strength. I choose to accept that some
humans may have been wronged in the development of
my treatments. If there is a god, I beg his forgiveness for
my frailty."
Dutch Nov 30 2002 http://tinyurl.com/fz9nl

Dutch is an unethical liar with no backbone who makes
categorical statements only to then dismiss them when
pushed to stand by them.

*His kids:*

"The land goes back in my wife's family quite a few
generations and making something like this out of it
would be grand, **we have no kids** to leave it to."
Dutch Oct 22 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yk8qoh

and

"My wife and I had two kids .. "
Dutch Jun 30 2003 http://tinyurl.com/ssm99

and

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

and

"During my wife's pregnancies *I* ended up doing
most of the housework ..."
Dutch Jan 19 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yz4dsw

and

"No child is born into ideal circumstances. Were you?
I sure wasn't. My wife wasn't, neither were my kids."
Dutch Feb 20 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yb4dhz

and

"I don't want my kids seeing cancer surgery or videos
of assaults or anything that might cause them undue
emotional distress. They're children."
Dutch Jun 30 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ybu8kq

and

"I never forced my kids to be vegetarians, and they
weren't, [because I never had kids].
Dutch Oct 17 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y9trhd

and

[start - Pearl to Dutch]
Of course I DON'T believe you. No one does. How could we.
You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. GLL!

[Dutch replied]
Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly
not to try to claim otherwise.
[end]
Dutch Oct 23 2006 http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7

*Abortion:*

"In fact I have been a pro-choice activist, my former
wife was a nurse in an abortion clinic for a time with
Henry Morgentaler prior to Roe v Wade. She faced
charges for it. My current wife has had an abortion."
Dutch 7 May 2006 http://tinyurl.com/28oxdg

But

[start - A.M. to Dutch]
Does your wife agree with your principles? What if
she didn't? Would you divorce her if she aborted your
child? If your wife mistakenly got pregnant and simply
did not want to committ to the full term and subsequent
child bearing, would you leave her?

[Dutch]
My wife would never kill a member of our family, not
before birth, not after. The idea is unthinkable.
[end]
Dutch 4 Dec 2002 http://tinyurl.com/3dz22p

As we can plainly see, Dutch lies about every issue that gets raised
here and in other newsgroups, so don't fall for a single word he has
to say on anything. He's a self-confessed liar.


*TOTALLY BUSTED* What's left here Derek? Dutch - a liar with no credibility, and Jonathan Ball -
another liar with no credibility who tells people he's got a Ph.D in economics, and a simple-minded
poor fool who tries to tries to justify cruelty by saying animals benefit from it. *LOL* There's not
a credible anti left to argue with.
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 05:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 25/03/2012 04:56, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:08 pm, wrote:
On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote:





On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote:


On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George
wrote:


On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George wrote:
A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply
better people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259


All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he says he
doesn't.


What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it?


Because you know that bragging that your character is better
than that
of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and
contentious topic as
not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to generate
a lot of
well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to defend
yourself
against the charge of placing yourself on a moral pedestal,
so you just
lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than those who
use
animal products.


You say that I am aware that the critcism would be
"well-founded".


No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because bragging
about
being better, even if an objective case can be made that one is
better,
is still disparaged.


It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or not.
You *do*
know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you lie and
claim
not to believe what you obviously *do* believe.


If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't
this lead
me to critically re-examine the belief?


The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit.
You know this.


The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat
eaters
based on what you don't put in your mouth.


I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say that one
person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of the
school
of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You can't
meaningfully compare two different people.


That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time - say,
robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't,
then I am
better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt.


Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, yes, and I
never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, other
things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of suffering
required to produce your food is morally better than not doing so.


The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded belief that
you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts in your
mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan shuffle"
argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you aren't
"doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering merely by not
putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude you're
doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, relative to
someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of animal
parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one causes are
false.


What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?


We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting shitbag. The
belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering
merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
demonstrated to be illogical and false.


Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
[garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."


I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. What it
does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you
consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you live) a
form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of
pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total
pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that certainly
creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution caused
by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater
than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make
stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but I don't
know.


I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to stop
recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
think you're better than them because you recycle?


In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping material
out of landfills.


There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite right.
Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal in my
backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one thinks of
that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think human
use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either
because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering that
crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from
consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only
think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement that
keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not sure
that it is.


I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out
of landfills. Make up your mind.


I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation.


And you believe that doing it makes you better.


I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling
makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it.


And better than others who don't. You believe something is bad and so you try to reduce your
contribution to that bad thing. Vegans believe something is bad and so they try to reduce their
contribution to that bad thing. You believe you're better than those who don't try to reduce their
contribution to your bad thing and so you automatically think vegans believe they're better than
those who don't try to reduce their contribution to their bad thing. You measure your virtue by
comparing yourself to others and so you think vegans measure their virtue by comparing themselves to
others as well. You're projecting your own faults onto vegans and trying to malign them for
something only you do. *LOL*



That's pretty much how Gooberdoodle reacts to anything......by
projecting.


He's a lying little fish too.

"I know a lot about economics, but I didn't complete the degree, and it's important to me to be
known as honest. Honesty compels me to admit that I didn't complete my Ph.D. " - Jonathan Ball
http://tinyurl.com/7nkls7x
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you're a drop-out


Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA. Jonathan Ball
http://tinyurl.com/yztzj7x

*LOL*
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 05:37 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

Why did you remove all the newsgroups, Jonathan Ball? What are you afraid of?

On 25/03/2012 06:14, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 7:27 PM, Glen wrote:
On 23/03/2012 17:44, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George
wrote:


The
belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal suffering
merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been
demonstrated to be illogical and false.

Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's
[garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false."


*BUSTED*

I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. What it
does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you
consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you live) a
form of pollution,


It is.


It could be, greggeorge.


You don't know anything about the effects of recycling.

More than 230,000 tons of waste sent for recycling by householders is being dumped in landfill sites
every year, it is claimed. Councils say the waste is ' contaminated', and it is cheaper to bury it
than to remove the unwanted elements.

However, the policy risks bringing the entire council recycling regime into disrepute.
http://tinyurl.com/cwe5gk

The Eight Myths of Recycling
By Daniel Benjamin

Garbage is the unavoidable by-product of production and consumption. There are three ways to deal
with it, all known and used since antiquity: dumping, burning, and recycling. For thousands of years
it was commonplace to dump rubbish on site--on the floor, or out the window. Scavenging domestic
animals, chiefly pigs and dogs, consumed the edible parts, and poor people salvaged what they could.
The rest was covered and built upon.

Eventually, humans began to use more elaborate methods of dealing with their rubbish. The first
modern incinerator (called a "destructor") went into operation in Nottingham, England in 1874. After
World War II, landfills became the accepted means of dealing with trash. The modern era of the
recycling craze can be traced to 1987, when the garbage barge Mobro 4000 had to spend two months
touring the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico before it found a home for its load. The Environmental
Defense Fund, the National Solid Waste Management Association (whose members were anxious to line up
new customers for their expanding landfill capacity), the press, and finally the Environmental
Protection Agency, spun the story of a garbage crisis out of control. By 1995, the majority of
Americans thought trash was our number one environmental problem--with 77 percent reporting that
increased recycling of household rubbish was the solution. Yet these claims and fears were based on
errors and misinformation, which I have compiled into the Eight Great Myths of Recycling.

Myth 1: Our Garbage Will Bury Us

Fact: Even though the United States is larger, more affluent, and producing more garbage, it now has
more landfill capacity that ever before. The erroneous opposite impression comes from old studies
that counted the number of landfills (which has declined) rather than landfill capacity (which has
grown). There are a few places, like New Jersey, where capacity has shrunk. But the uneven
distribution of landfill space is no more important than the uneven distribution of automobile
manufacturing. Perhaps the most important fact is this: If we permitted our rubbish to grow to the
height of New York City's famous Fresh Kills landfill (225 feet), a site only about 10 miles on a
side could hold all of America's garbage for the next century.

Myth 2: Our Garbage Will Poison Us

Fact: Almost anything can pose a theoretical threat, but evidence of actual harm from landfills is
almost non-existent, as the Environmental Protection Agency itself acknowledges. The EPA has
concluded that landfills constructed according to agency regulations can be expected to cause a
total of 5.7 cancer-related deaths over the next 300 years. It isn't household waste, but improperly
or illegally dumped industrial wastes that can be harmful. Household recycling programs have no
effect on those wastes, a fact ignored by messianic proponents of recycling.

Myth 3: Our Packaging Is Immoral

Fact: Many people argue that the best way to "save landfill space" is to reduce the amount of
packaging Americans use, via mandatory controls. But packaging can actually reduce total garbage
produced and total resources used. The average American family generates fully one third less trash
than does the average Mexican household. The reason is that our intensive use of packaging yields
less spoilage and breakage, thereby saving resources, and producing, on balance, less total rubbish.
Careful packaging also reduces food poisoning and other health problems.

Over the past 25 years, market incen-tives have already reduced the weights of individual packages
by 30 to 70 percent. An average aluminium can weighed nearly 21 grams in 1972; in 2002, that same
can weighs in at under 14 grams. A plastic grocery sack was 2.3 mils thick in 1976; by 2001, it was
a mere 0.7 mils.

By contrast, the environmentally sensitive New York Times has been growing. A year's worth of the
newspaper now weighs 520 pounds and occupies more than 40 cubic feet in a landfill. This is
equivalent in weight to 17,180 aluminum cans--nearly a century's worth of beer and soft drink
consumption by one person. Clearly, people anxious to heal Mother Earth must forego the Times!

Myth 4: We Must Achieve "Trash Independence"

Fact: Garbage has become an inter-state business, with 47 states exporting the stuff and 45
importing it. Environ-mentalists contend that each state should dispose within its borders all the
trash produced within its borders. But why? Transporting garbage across an arbitrary legal boundary
has no effect on the envi-ronmental impact of the disposal of that material. Moving a ton of trash
is no more hazardous than moving a ton of any other commodity.

Myth 5: We're Squandering Irreplaceable Resources

Fact: Thanks to numerous innovations, we now produce about twice as much output per unit of energy
as we did 50 years ago, and five times as much as we did 200 years ago. Automobiles use only half as
much metal as in 1970, and one optical fiber carries the same number of calls as 625 copper wires
did 20 years ago. Bridges are built with less steel, because steel is stronger and engineering is
improved. Automobile and truck engines consume less fuel per unit of work performed, and produce
fewer emissions.

To address the issue of paper, the most-promoted form of recycling: The amount of new growth that
occurs each year in forests is more than 20 times the number of trees consumed by the world each
year for wood and paper. Where loss of forest land is taking place, as in tropical rain forests, it
can be traced directly to a lack of private property rights. Governments have used forests,
especially the valuable tropical ones, as an easy way to raise quick cash. Wherever private property
rights to forests are well-defined and enforced, forests are either stable or growing. More
recycling of paper or cardboard would not eliminate tropical forest losses.

Myth 6: Recycling Always Protects the Environment

Fact: Recycling is a manufacturing process, and therefore it too has environ-mental impact. The U.S.
Office of Technology Assessment says that it is "not clear whether secondary manufacturing [i.e.,
recycling] produces less pollution per ton of material processed than primary manufacturing."
Recycling merely changes the nature of pollution--sometimes decreasing it, and sometimes increasing it.

This effect is particularly apparent in the case of curbside recycling, which is mandated or
strongly encouraged by governments in many communities around the country. Curbside recycling
requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount of waste materials. Instead of one
truck picking up 40 pounds of garbage, one will pick up four pounds of recyclables and a second will
collect 36 pounds of rubbish.

Los Angeles has estimated that due to curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is twice as large as
it otherwise would be--800 vs. 400 trucks. This means more iron ore and coal mining, more steel and
rub-ber manufacturing, more petroleum extracted and refined for fuel--and of course all that extra
air pollution in the Los Angeles basin as the 400 added trucks cruise the streets.

Myth 7: Recycling Saves Resources

Fact: Using less of one resource usually means using more of another. Curbside recycling is
substantially more costly and uses far more resources than a program in which disposal is combined
with a voluntary drop-off/buy-back option. The reason: Curbside recycling of household rubbish uses
huge amounts of capital and labor per pound of material recycled. Overall, curbside recycling costs
between 35 and 55 percent more than simply disposing of the item. It typically wastes resources.

In the ordinary course of daily living, we already reuse most higher value items. The only things
that intentionally end up in the trash are both low in value and costly to reuse or recycle. Yet
these are the items that municipal recycling programs are targeting--the very things that consumers
have already decided are too worthless or costly to deal with further. All of the profitable,
socially productive opportunities for recycling were long ago co-opted by the private sector,
because they pay back. The bulk of all curbside recycling programs simply waste resources.

Myth 8: Without Forced Mandates, There Wouldn't Be Any Recycling

Fact: Long before state or local governments had even contemplated the word recycling, the makers of
steel, aluminum, and thousands of other products were recycling manufacturing scraps. Some operated
post-consumer drop-off centers. As for the claim that the private sector promotes premature or
excessive disposal, this ignores an enormous body of evidence to the contrary. Firms only survive in
the marketplace if they take into account all costs. Fifty years ago, when labor was cheap compared
to materials, goods were built to be repaired, so that the expensive materials could be used for a
longer period of time. As the price of labor has risen and the cost of materials has fallen,
manufacturers have responded by building items to be used until they break, and then discarded.
There is no bias against recycling; there is merely a market-driven effort to conserve the most
valuable resources.

Informed, voluntary recycling con-serves resources and raises our wealth, enabling us to achieve
valued ends that would otherwise be impossible. Mandatory programs, however, in which people are
directly or indirectly compelled to do what they know is not sensible, routinely make society worse
off. Such programs force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they
would sensibly discard.

Except in a few rare cases, the free market is eminently capable of providing both disposal and
recycling in an amount and mix that creates the greatest wealth for society. This makes possible the
widest and most satisfying range of human endeavors. Simply put, market prices are sufficient to
induce the trash-man to come, and to make his burden bearable, and neither he nor we can hope for
any better than that.

Daniel Benjamin is a professor at Clemson University and a senior associate at PERC, the Property
and Environment Research Center
http://tinyurl.com/pxbpj7

then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of
pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total
pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that certainly
creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution caused
by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater
than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make
stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but I
don't know.


Vegans intuitively hold the belief that one is making a meaningful
reduction in animal suffering merely by *not* putting animal parts in
one's mouth.


They're wrong, greggeorge.


You've never been able to show it, Jonathan Ball (no Ph.D)

I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to stop
recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you
think you're better than them because you recycle?

In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping material
out of landfills.


Better than who, the unethical scumbags who don't recycle?


Better than I would be if I didn't recycle, nutless.


And *better* than those who don't recycle. You admitted it.
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-03-2012, 05:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism


"Derek" wrote
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:22:30 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[]
Raising animals for food is not evil


You believe it is.


No, I don't.

[snip elaborate fallacy]

Wow, you must feel really threatened by me to have spent all that time quote
mining.

I must be doing something right.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017