 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 5, 9:33*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>>>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>>>>>> QED > > >>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >>>>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >>>>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > >>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > >>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > >>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > >>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > >>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > >>> takes place to produce the food they eat? > > >> It's bullshit - they haven't. > > > What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? > > Been over all that with you already. I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that conclusion. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >> Been over all that with you already. > > I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that > conclusion. I do recall it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 5, 9:38*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>> Some ... > > >>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction > >>>>>>>>> by going vegan. > > >>>>>>>> No, we weren't. *I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal > >>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and > >>>>>>>> that is a true statement. *Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually > >>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. > > >>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. > > >>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. *The issue has *always* been > >>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in > >>>>>> harm. *The answer is no, you need more information. > > >>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a > >>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end > >>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan > >>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. > > >>>> All that needed to be shown. > > >>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially > >>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is > >>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount > >>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. > > >> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth > >> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. > > > That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. > > It isn't. *It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to > establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores > that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. **Everyone* apart from > "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, > which is exactly what they are. *They're also clueless urbanites, as > well as animal rights passivists. You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too silly to comment on. People who go vegan usually do so because they want to do something to reduce the amount of suffering required in order to produce their food. This is a rational strategy for achieving that goal. End of story. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 5, 9:56*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth.. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>>>>>>>> QED > > >>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >>>>>>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >>>>>>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > >>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > >>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > >>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > >>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > >>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > >>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? > > >>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. > > >>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? > > >> Been over all that with you already. > > > I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that > > conclusion. > > I do recall it. That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >>>>>>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. >> >>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a >>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end >>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan >>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. >> >>>>>> All that needed to be shown. >> >>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially >>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is >>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount >>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. >> >>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth >>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. >> >>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. >> >> It isn't. It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to >> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores >> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. *Everyone* apart from >> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, >> which is exactly what they are. They're also clueless urbanites, as >> well as animal rights passivists. > > You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- > including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism > would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it > follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful > by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too > silly to comment on. It isn't. You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you *do* eat. The rank hypocrisy of being concerned only with not eating animal bits, but not caring in the least about the death toll caused by what you *do* eat, completely queers the whole proposition. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>> conclusion. >> >> I do recall it. > > That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. Oh, well... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 5, 11:16*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can.. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing.. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> QED > > >>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >>>>>>>>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > >>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > >>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > >>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > >>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > >>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > >>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? > > >>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. > > >>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? > > >>>> Been over all that with you already. > > >>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that > >>> conclusion. > > >> I do recall it. > > > That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. > > Oh, well... You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of the conclusion, but in fact you have not. The conclusion is correct. Veganism is a rational strategy with respect to the goal of suffering reduction. It's not necessarily the only rational strategy, but it's one rational strategy, given the kind of starting-point which just about everyone starts from. If you started from a point where you were only eating animal products from entirely pasture-fed animals (which is pretty much no-one), then it *might* not be rational to go vegan from the point of view of suffering reduction, although actually Gaverick Matheny's calculations indicate that it would be, and you've never shown what's wrong with those calculations. But just about everyone starts from a point where they are eating animal products which require a lot more plant-based agriculture to produce them than would be required if they were eating the plant food directly. For those people, which is just about everyone, going vegan is a rational strategy. Also, most vegans are not in a position to make a substantial further improvement in the area of suffering reduction, without taking extreme measures like becoming fully self-sufficient in food. Because there just isn't that much room for further improvement to be made, and there isn't that much information available about the harm caused by the different plant foods. That's not to say that the research wouldn't be worth doing, but there's no good reason why any specific individual vegan has to say "Oh well, I suppose I'd better come up with the funding for the research project myself", because there might very well be other uses their time and money could be put to that would relieve suffering more effectively. For just about everyone, veganism is a rational strategy with respect to suffering reduction, and furthermore most vegans are at the point where they're not in a position to make substantial further improvements. You've never said anything to cast doubt on any of this. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>>>> conclusion. >> >>>> I do recall it. >> >>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. >> >> Oh, well... > > You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of > the conclusion, but in fact you have not. In fact, I have, numerous times. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 5:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 5, 11:14*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth.. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Some ... > > >>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction > >>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. > > >>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. *I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal > >>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and > >>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. *Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually > >>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. > > >>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. > > >>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. *The issue has *always* been > >>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in > >>>>>>>> harm. *The answer is no, you need more information. > > >>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a > >>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end > >>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan > >>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. > > >>>>>> All that needed to be shown. > > >>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially > >>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is > >>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount > >>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. > > >>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth > >>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. > > >>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. > > >> It isn't. *It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to > >> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores > >> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. **Everyone* apart from > >> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, > >> which is exactly what they are. *They're also clueless urbanites, as > >> well as animal rights passivists. > > > You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- > > including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism > > would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it > > follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful > > by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too > > silly to comment on. > > It isn't. Of course it is. >*You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you > *do* eat. > No, I don't know because the data is not available. I have looked at Gaverick Matheny's article which gives a rough estimate, based on Steven Davis' estimates which you said were "reliable". > The rank hypocrisy of being concerned only with not eating animal bits, > but not caring in the least about the death toll caused by what you *do* > eat, completely queers the whole proposition. But you have no rational grounds for thinking that I or any other vegan does not "care in the least". It is just that there are not very many options for doing anything about it. There might be some things you could do about it but if suffering reduction is your goal then your time and resources would probably be better invested addressing other problems. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>>>>>> conclusion. >> >>>>>> I do recall it. >> >>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. >> >>>> Oh, well... >> >>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of >>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. >> >> In fact, I have, numerous times. > > You cannot show me where you have done this. You already know where I've done this. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>>>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >>>>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >>>>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >>>>>>>>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. >> >>>>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a >>>>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end >>>>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan >>>>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. >> >>>>>>>> All that needed to be shown. >> >>>>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially >>>>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is >>>>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount >>>>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. >> >>>>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth >>>>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. >> >>>>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. >> >>>> It isn't. It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to >>>> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores >>>> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. *Everyone* apart from >>>> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, >>>> which is exactly what they are. They're also clueless urbanites, as >>>> well as animal rights passivists. >> >>> You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- >>> including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism >>> would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it >>> follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful >>> by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too >>> silly to comment on. >> >> It isn't. > > Of course it is. It's not, of course. >> You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you >> *do* eat. >> > > No, I don't know because the data is not available. And you don't have any interest in finding it. That's the whole problem. You've put yourself into a position in which you imagine - nothing more - that you're "better" than omnivores, and that was the goal. You don't *CARE* how much suffering and death your meals cause, as long as they don't cause a particular kind. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 3:57*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 4:23*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can.. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing.. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some ... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction > >>>>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. *I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal > >>>>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and > >>>>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. *Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually > >>>>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. > > >>>>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. > > >>>>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. *The issue has *always* been > >>>>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in > >>>>>>>>>> harm. *The answer is no, you need more information. > > >>>>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a > >>>>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end > >>>>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan > >>>>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. > > >>>>>>>> All that needed to be shown. > > >>>>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially > >>>>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is > >>>>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount > >>>>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. > > >>>>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth > >>>>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. > > >>>>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. > > >>>> It isn't. *It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to > >>>> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores > >>>> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. **Everyone* apart from > >>>> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, > >>>> which is exactly what they are. *They're also clueless urbanites, as > >>>> well as animal rights passivists. > > >>> You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- > >>> including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism > >>> would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it > >>> follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful > >>> by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too > >>> silly to comment on. > > >> It isn't. > > > Of course it is. > > It's not, of course. > > >> * You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you > >> *do* eat. > > > No, I don't know because the data is not available. > > And you don't have any interest in finding it. *That's the whole > problem. That is false. I have made efforts to find it. > You've put yourself into a position in which you imagine - > nothing more - that you're "better" than omnivores, No, I don't think that. > and that was the > goal. *You don't *CARE* how much suffering and death your meals cause, > as long as they don't cause a particular kind. You're an idiot. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>>>>>>>> conclusion. >> >>>>>>>> I do recall it. >> >>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. >> >>>>>> Oh, well... >> >>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of >>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. >> >>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. >> >>> You cannot show me where you have done this. >> >> You already know where I've done this. > > No, I do not, You do. You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 7:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 4:23 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >>>>>>>>>>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. >> >>>>>>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a >>>>>>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end >>>>>>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan >>>>>>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. >> >>>>>>>>>> All that needed to be shown. >> >>>>>>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially >>>>>>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is >>>>>>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount >>>>>>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth >>>>>>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. >> >>>>>>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. >> >>>>>> It isn't. It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to >>>>>> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores >>>>>> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. *Everyone* apart from >>>>>> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, >>>>>> which is exactly what they are. They're also clueless urbanites, as >>>>>> well as animal rights passivists. >> >>>>> You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- >>>>> including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism >>>>> would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it >>>>> follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful >>>>> by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too >>>>> silly to comment on. >> >>>> It isn't. >> >>> Of course it is. >> >> It's not, of course. >> >>>> You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you >>>> *do* eat. >> >>> No, I don't know because the data is not available. >> >> And you don't have any interest in finding it. That's the whole >> problem. > > That is false. I have made efforts to find it. No, you haven't. Cut the bullshit. >> You've put yourself into a position in which you imagine - >> nothing more - that you're "better" than omnivores, > > No, I don't think that. Yes, you certainly and obviously do. >> and that was the >> goal. You don't *CARE* how much suffering and death your meals cause, >> as long as they don't cause a particular kind. > > You're an idiot. You're an arrogant, smug, time-wasting cocksucker. You really do just reek of sanctimony and smug arrogance. You're a moral fraud. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 5:16*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 5:18*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 7:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 4:23 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >> >>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. >> >>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. >> >>>>>>>> Oh, well... >> >>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of >>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. >> >>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. >> >>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. >> >>>> You already know where I've done this. >> >>> No, I do not, >> >> You do. You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. > > You have never offered good reasons I have. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:18 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/6/2012 7:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 4:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a >>>>>>>>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end >>>>>>>>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> All that needed to be shown. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially >>>>>>>>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is >>>>>>>>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount >>>>>>>>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth >>>>>>>>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. >> >>>>>>>>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. >> >>>>>>>> It isn't. It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to >>>>>>>> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores >>>>>>>> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. *Everyone* apart from >>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, >>>>>>>> which is exactly what they are. They're also clueless urbanites, as >>>>>>>> well as animal rights passivists. >> >>>>>>> You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- >>>>>>> including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism >>>>>>> would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it >>>>>>> follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful >>>>>>> by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too >>>>>>> silly to comment on. >> >>>>>> It isn't. >> >>>>> Of course it is. >> >>>> It's not, of course. >> >>>>>> You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you >>>>>> *do* eat. >> >>>>> No, I don't know because the data is not available. >> >>>> And you don't have any interest in finding it. That's the whole >>>> problem. >> >>> That is false. I have made efforts to find it. >> >> No, you haven't. Cut the bullshit. >> > > As usual As usual, I'm right, and you are wrong and simply trying to waste my time. >>>> You've put yourself into a position in which you imagine - >>>> nothing more - that you're "better" than omnivores, >> >>> No, I don't think that. >> >> Yes, you certainly and obviously do. >> > > No, I do not. You do, of course. >>>> and that was the >>>> goal. You don't *CARE* how much suffering and death your meals cause, >>>> as long as they don't cause a particular kind. >> >>> You're an idiot. >> >> You're an arrogant, smug, time-wasting cocksucker. You really do just >> reek of sanctimony and smug arrogance. You're a moral fraud. > > Well, George, I've never known you to say anything so hurtful. You should be used to it by now, Woopert - I've said it before. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 5:46*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi..org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that > >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. > > >>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. > > >>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. > > >>>>>>>> Oh, well... > > >>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of > >>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. > > >>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. > > >>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. > > >>>> You already know where I've done this. > > >>> No, I do not, > > >> You do. *You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. > > > You have never offered good reasons > > I have. So what's wrong with offering them now? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 5:47*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 5:18 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/6/2012 7:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 6, 4:23 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. >> >>>>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. >> >>>>>>>>>> Oh, well... >> >>>>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of >>>>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. >> >>>>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. >> >>>>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. >> >>>>>> You already know where I've done this. >> >>>>> No, I do not, >> >>>> You do. You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. >> >>> You have never offered good reasons >> >> I have. > > So what's wrong with offering them now? You already know what they are. You're just trying to waste my time. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:47 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/6/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 5:18 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/6/2012 7:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 6, 4:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that needed to be shown. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially >>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is >>>>>>>>>>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount >>>>>>>>>>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. >> >>>>>>>>>>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. >> >>>>>>>>>> It isn't. It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to >>>>>>>>>> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores >>>>>>>>>> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. *Everyone* apart from >>>>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, >>>>>>>>>> which is exactly what they are. They're also clueless urbanites, as >>>>>>>>>> well as animal rights passivists. >> >>>>>>>>> You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- >>>>>>>>> including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism >>>>>>>>> would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it >>>>>>>>> follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful >>>>>>>>> by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too >>>>>>>>> silly to comment on. >> >>>>>>>> It isn't. >> >>>>>>> Of course it is. >> >>>>>> It's not, of course. >> >>>>>>>> You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you >>>>>>>> *do* eat. >> >>>>>>> No, I don't know because the data is not available. >> >>>>>> And you don't have any interest in finding it. That's the whole >>>>>> problem. >> >>>>> That is false. I have made efforts to find it. >> >>>> No, you haven't. Cut the bullshit. >> >>> As usual >> >> As usual, I'm right, and you are wrong and simply trying to waste my time. >> > > So you appear I know. >>>>>> You've put yourself into a position in which you imagine - >>>>>> nothing more - that you're "better" than omnivores, >> >>>>> No, I don't think that. >> >>>> Yes, you certainly and obviously do. >> >>> No, I do not. >> >> You do, of course. >> > > Why are you always so convinced that you know what other people > believe Because you reveal it. >>>>>> and that was the >>>>>> goal. You don't *CARE* how much suffering and death your meals cause, >>>>>> as long as they don't cause a particular kind. >> >>>>> You're an idiot. >> >>>> You're an arrogant, smug, time-wasting cocksucker. You really do just >>>> reek of sanctimony and smug arrogance. You're a moral fraud. >> >>> Well, George, I've never known you to say anything so hurtful. >> >> You should be used to it by now, Woopert - I've said it before. > > Quite. Yes. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 6:11*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that.. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. > > >>>>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. > > >>>>>>>>>> Oh, well... > > >>>>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of > >>>>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. > > >>>>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. > > >>>>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. > > >>>>>> You already know where I've done this. > > >>>>> No, I do not, > > >>>> You do. *You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. > > >>> You have never offered good reasons > > >> I have. > > > So what's wrong with offering them now? > > You already know what they are. *You're just trying to waste my time. How would you define "delusion"? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 6:12*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 5:47 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/6/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 6, 5:18 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/6/2012 7:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 6, 4:23 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 9:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/6/2012 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well... >> >>>>>>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of >>>>>>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. >> >>>>>>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. >> >>>>>>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. >> >>>>>>>> You already know where I've done this. >> >>>>>>> No, I do not, >> >>>>>> You do. You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. >> >>>>> You have never offered good reasons >> >>>> I have. >> >>> So what's wrong with offering them now? >> >> You already know what they are. You're just trying to waste my time. > > How would you define "delusion"? By example. Here's an example: most "vegans" believe their diets are "cruelty free", when they aren't. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 9:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:12 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/6/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 5:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/6/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 6, 5:18 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 7:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 4:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:14 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:38 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 10:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 8:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were arguing about whether the typical vegan achieves a reduction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we weren't. I said, "Their action [refraining from putting animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits in their mouths] does not necessarily achieve a reduction", and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is a true statement. Some people who "go 'vegan'" might actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase their animal harm level as a result of not eating any animal parts. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as our discussion shows, that is extremely unlikely. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, our discussion shows no such thing. The issue has *always* been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not "going 'vegan'", /ipso facto/, leads to a reduction in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm. The answer is no, you need more information. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you follow a meat-including diet in which the animals are not fed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger amount of plant protein than the amount of protein that you end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up consuming from the animal, then it's conceivable that going vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might not represent any additional reduction in harm for you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that needed to be shown. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've always conceded this point. It doesn't strike me as especially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting, and it doesn't lend credence to your claim that there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any significant likelihood that someone might be increasing the amount >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of harm they were causing by going vegan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It proves that merely refraining from putting animal bits in your mouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't allow you to conclude you've done anything meaningful. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is quite obviously absolute nonsense. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't. It is *so* brutally obvious that "vegans" are trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> establish their virtue by means of an invalid comparison with omnivores >>>>>>>>>>>> that few people take the "lifestyle" seriously. *Everyone* apart from >>>>>>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves views them as conceited, sanctimonious shitbags, >>>>>>>>>>>> which is exactly what they are. They're also clueless urbanites, as >>>>>>>>>>>> well as animal rights passivists. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You made the claim that from the fact that there might be some meat- >>>>>>>>>>> including diets such that making the transition from them to veganism >>>>>>>>>>> would not be an improvement in terms of reducing animal suffering, it >>>>>>>>>>> follows that one can't conclude that one has done anything meaningful >>>>>>>>>>> by going vegan. This is so obviously absolute nonsense that it's too >>>>>>>>>>> silly to comment on. >> >>>>>>>>>> It isn't. >> >>>>>>>>> Of course it is. >> >>>>>>>> It's not, of course. >> >>>>>>>>>> You just don't know what the death toll is of the things you >>>>>>>>>> *do* eat. >> >>>>>>>>> No, I don't know because the data is not available. >> >>>>>>>> And you don't have any interest in finding it. That's the whole >>>>>>>> problem. >> >>>>>>> That is false. I have made efforts to find it. >> >>>>>> No, you haven't. Cut the bullshit. >> >>>>> As usual >> >>>> As usual, I'm right, and you are wrong and simply trying to waste my time. >> >>> So you appear >> >> I know. >> > > As I said elsewhere, how would you define "delusion"? See elsewhere, where I defined it by example. >>>>>>>> You've put yourself into a position in which you imagine - >>>>>>>> nothing more - that you're "better" than omnivores, >> >>>>>>> No, I don't think that. >> >>>>>> Yes, you certainly and obviously do. >> >>>>> No, I do not. >> >>>> You do, of course. >> >>> Why are you always so convinced that you know what other people >>> believe >> >> Because you reveal it. >> > > In what way? In your writing. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 7:05*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 9:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/6/2012 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well... > > >>>>>>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of > >>>>>>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. > > >>>>>>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. > > >>>>>>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. > > >>>>>>>> You already know where I've done this. > > >>>>>>> No, I do not, > > >>>>>> You do. *You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. > > >>>>> You have never offered good reasons > > >>>> I have. > > >>> So what's wrong with offering them now? > > >> You already know what they are. *You're just trying to waste my time.. > > > How would you define "delusion"? > > By example. *Here's an example: *most "vegans" believe their diets are > "cruelty free", when they aren't. You think that's a delusion as opposed to just a mistaken belief? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 10:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 7:05 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/6/2012 9:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/6/2012 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. >> >>>>>>>>>> You already know where I've done this. >> >>>>>>>>> No, I do not, >> >>>>>>>> You do. You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. >> >>>>>>> You have never offered good reasons >> >>>>>> I have. >> >>>>> So what's wrong with offering them now? >> >>>> You already know what they are. You're just trying to waste my time. >> >>> How would you define "delusion"? >> >> By example. Here's an example: most "vegans" believe their diets are >> "cruelty free", when they aren't. > > You think that's a delusion as opposed to just a mistaken belief? It's a delusion when they persist in it, when irrefutable evidence that it's wrong is presented to them. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Apr 6, 8:08*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 10:21 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 7:05 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/6/2012 9:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/6/2012 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > people."http://forums..randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > says he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > doesn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Because you know that bragging that your character is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > contentious topic as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > generate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > a lot of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > defend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > yourself > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > against the charge of placing yourself on a moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > pedestal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > so you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > those who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > animal products. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-founded". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bragging > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better, even if an objective case can be made that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still disparaged. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this lead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to critically re-examine the belief? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eaters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on what you don't put in your mouth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution.. Whether or not the pollution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. *As a matter of fact and as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. *And as has been noted many times, refraining from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. *Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. > > >>>>>>>>>> You already know where I've done this. > > >>>>>>>>> No, I do not, > > >>>>>>>> You do. *You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. > > >>>>>>> You have never offered good reasons > > >>>>>> I have. > > >>>>> So what's wrong with offering them now? > > >>>> You already know what they are. *You're just trying to waste my time. > > >>> How would you define "delusion"? > > >> By example. *Here's an example: *most "vegans" believe their diets are > >> "cruelty free", when they aren't. > > > You think that's a delusion as opposed to just a mistaken belief? > > It's a delusion when they persist in it, when irrefutable evidence that > it's wrong is presented to them. In the case of your belief that I already know what good reasons you have offered for thinking that vegans have not adopted a rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that takes place to produce the food they eat, that belief is unfalsifiable really. If you insist on believing that I know it then there is not a lot that I can do to prove to you that I don't know it. If someone clings steadfastly to an unfalsifiable belief in the absence of the least scintilla of evidence in its favour, is it reasonable to call that a delusion? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 4/6/2012 12:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 8:08 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/6/2012 10:21 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 7:05 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/6/2012 9:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/6/2012 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 8:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 7:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 3:57 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 5:53 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 1:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 9:33 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 12:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:12 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2012 4:44 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 9:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 7:57 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2012 18:18, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 6:24 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:42 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 8:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:44 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 10:20 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:09 -0700, George > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:03 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> All "vegans" believe that. Woopert is lying when he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> says he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> doesn't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Because you know that bragging that your character is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > contentious topic as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > generate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > against the charge of placing yourself on a moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > pedestal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > so you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > lie. But you *do* think you're "simply better" than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > animal products. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> You say that I am aware that the critcism would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> "well-founded". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > bragging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > being better, even if an objective case can be made that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > is still disparaged. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You *do* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > lie and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> this lead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> me to critically re-examine the belief? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You know this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > eaters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > based on what you don't put in your mouth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really think, in general, it is meaningful to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is "better" than another. I'm with the followers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy on this one. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningfully compare two different people. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit. If I focus on one wrong behavior at a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - say, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbing liquor stores - and you commit the crime and I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than you in that one dimension - not in doubt. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, your behaviour is morally better in that dimension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never denied that. I've always agreed that I believe that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things equal, making some effort to reduce the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to produce your food is morally better than not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is *all* you have left is a shaky, ill-founded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're "making an effort" merely by not putting animal parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth. All the piercing criticisms elaborated in the "vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shuffle" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument continue to hold. You aren't "minimizing" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "doing the best you can" in regard to reducing suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal parts in your mouth. You just can't conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing anything meaningful by *not* consuming animal parts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who does. Your beliefs about what the consumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts mean with regard to the *amount* of suffering one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons do you have for thinking they are false? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through that countless times, you time-wasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shitbag. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that one is making a meaningful reduction in animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely by *not* putting animal parts in one's mouth has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated to be illogical and false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, to paraphrase, "The belief that one is making a meaningful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in [pollution] merely by *not* putting [garbage] in one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [garbage bin] has been demonstrated to be illogical and false." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, unquestionably, is change the destination of the waste. If you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider putting waste into a landfill (rubbish tip where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of pollution, then necessarily recycling reduces that kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution. Now, I can't say with assurance that it reduces total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pollution, because when the materials are reprocessed, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates more industrial pollution. Whether or not the pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by reprocessing the recyclables is less than, the same as or greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the pollution caused by processing virgin raw materials to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff, I can't say. Intuitively, I think it's probably less, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you're a keen on recycling what you can. Are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recycling now? Do you think that maybe your neighbours believe you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you're better than them because you recycle? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own beliefs, I believe I *am* better for keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of landfills. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's another difference that makes your comparison not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollution /per se/ isn't a moral issue; if I ignite some charcoal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backyard barbecue and send a little smoke into the air, no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as a moral issue /per se/. However, the AR/AL crowd do think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of animals as an immoral act right from the beginning, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it violates their "rights" or because it imposes suffering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crosses some moral threshold. "aras" think that refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits in and of itself is a moral improvement; I only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think recycling is a moral improvement if there is some agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping waste out of landfills is a moral obligation, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you believed you were better for keeping waste out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of landfills. Make up your mind. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think it's good to do. I don't think it's a moral obligation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you believe that doing it makes you better. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is better to put less waste in landfills, so recycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me better than I would be if I didn't do it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And better than others who don't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite likely, greggeorge. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe something is bad and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to reduce your contribution to that bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My action unequivocally is a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegans believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is bad and so they try to reduce their contribution to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their food, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that work out? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some meat-including diets have no plant-based agriculture behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal protein part, and because the person following the diet consumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some animal protein, he's consuming less plant material. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your original statement [blah blah blah bullshit] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop with the time-wasting bullshit. As a matter of fact and as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of logic, you lose. Refraining from putting animal parts in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouth does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to a reduction in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harm you cause. And as has been noted many times, refraining from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting animal bits in your mouth does not mean you're doing the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can. Some "vegans" necessarily cause less harm than others, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none* of them is interested in the least in expending any effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever at choosing a lower-harm "vegan" diet - once they stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming animal bits, that's the end for nearly all of them. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For most people, going vegan would be one rational strategy for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the amount of harm you cause. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply does not lead to the conclusion they wish to make. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the conclusion they want to make is that they've adopted a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes place to produce the food they eat? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bullshit - they haven't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What reasons can you offer in favour of this conclusion? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been over all that with you already. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall you offering any good reasons in favour of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do recall it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awesome, but it doesn't help me very much. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may think that you recall having offered good reasons in favour of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conclusion, but in fact you have not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I have, numerous times. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot show me where you have done this. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You already know where I've done this. >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I do not, >> >>>>>>>>>> You do. You're just trying to waste my time; go **** off. >> >>>>>>>>> You have never offered good reasons >> >>>>>>>> I have. >> >>>>>>> So what's wrong with offering them now? >> >>>>>> You already know what they are. You're just trying to waste my time. >> >>>>> How would you define "delusion"? >> >>>> By example. Here's an example: most "vegans" believe their diets are >>>> "cruelty free", when they aren't. >> >>> You think that's a delusion as opposed to just a mistaken belief? >> >> It's a delusion when they persist in it, when irrefutable evidence that >> it's wrong is presented to them. > > In the case of your belief that I already know what good reasons you > have offered for thinking that vegans have not adopted a rational > strategy for trying to reduce the amount of suffering that takes place > to produce the food they eat, That's too long for a dependent clause. Don't do that. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
