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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 08:10 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/25/2012 4:55 PM, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:28:00 -0700, George
wrote:

On 3/25/2012 10:58 AM, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:36:44 +0100, wrote:

On 25/03/2012 18:17, Derek wrote:
[]
So who ARE you, Glen, and why did you copy and paste parts of my
private email to you here?

My sincere apologies Derek. I didn't mean any damage by it.

No harm no foul, I usually say, but there was a measure of intent in
there, I assume.

Guess we got off to a bad start, eh?

I believe that "start" happened a few years ago, "Glen", so who are
you?


My best guess was that it was "Zakhar", better known as "greggeorge",
but not sure now. It's obviously a Brit. Whoever it is was here
earlier and is too gutless to say what he was using for a name back
then. Anyway, he's an asshole.


I'm leaning more and more towards blackmailing Ray Slater. He
threatened to print your address here a few times, and stalking people
via facebook wouldn't surprise me in the least.


Doesn't write enough like Slater. Slater got weepy almost immediately.

I think it's this douche:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...8?dmode=source

I worked with that ****wit at Apple Computer back in the 1980s. He was a
nice enough guy at the time, but he later came here and admitted he was
just trying to get to bang "vegan" chicks. He's a dishonorable ****,
too, because I "sold" him a nice futon with a hardwood frame, and he
never paid up. I thought he was good for it, but he stiffed me, the ****.


  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 12:14 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:10:49 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 3/25/2012 4:55 PM, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:28:00 -0700, George
wrote:

On 3/25/2012 10:58 AM, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:36:44 +0100, wrote:

On 25/03/2012 18:17, Derek wrote:
[]
So who ARE you, Glen, and why did you copy and paste parts of my
private email to you here?

My sincere apologies Derek. I didn't mean any damage by it.

No harm no foul, I usually say, but there was a measure of intent in
there, I assume.

Guess we got off to a bad start, eh?

I believe that "start" happened a few years ago, "Glen", so who are
you?

My best guess was that it was "Zakhar", better known as "greggeorge",
but not sure now. It's obviously a Brit. Whoever it is was here
earlier and is too gutless to say what he was using for a name back
then. Anyway, he's an asshole.


I'm leaning more and more towards blackmailing Ray Slater. He
threatened to print your address here a few times, and stalking people
via facebook wouldn't surprise me in the least.


Doesn't write enough like Slater. Slater got weepy almost immediately.

I think it's this douche:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...8?dmode=source

I worked with that ****wit at Apple Computer back in the 1980s. He was a
nice enough guy at the time, but he later came here and admitted he was
just trying to get to bang "vegan" chicks. He's a dishonorable ****,
too, because I "sold" him a nice futon with a hardwood frame, and he
never paid up. I thought he was good for it, but he stiffed me, the ****.


Heh heh heh. He called you a "feeble excuse for a monkey's arse."
I like him already.

Anyway, I sussed it a while ago but didn't want to say until I'd got
all my ducks in a row, so to speak. The veiled sarcasm in his use of
the term St. Derek wasn't veiled enough: I saw straight through it.

Anyway - those 11 ducks.

1) I sometimes used to use a nym on other Usenet groups with the email
.

2) My middle name is Mark.

3) I had a friend called Glen who died mysteriously in his sleep aged
about 13.

4) I use a period after St., omit the period after 'D' in Ph.D, and I
spell honour with a 'u', just like Glen and Mark.

5) And there's this (below).

[start]
oh yes you did jonathan ball

.................................................. ...............................
.................................................. ...

What do you have?


Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You?

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....7726abf?dmode=...


.................................................. ...............................
.................................................. .....

So you're a drop-out


Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...ab479c7d4f0?hl...
ource


.................................................. ...............................
.................................................. ...

You lied, as usual.


no. you lied.
[end]
a ghost of Usenet past Apr 6 2011 http://tinyurl.com/cb56ycr

6) This person, a ghost of Usenet past, used the email and
quotes the same way Glen does with lines of dots or dashes under each
quote.

7) He uses and abuses periods the same way I do, and he includes the
'u' in honour, being British.

8) Mark, a ghost of Usenet past and Glen are the same person and have
writing characteristics similar to mine.

9) There's only one person similar to me with a motive to embarrass
me, and probably you, but with only half the ability to pull it off,
and that's my twin.

10) I'm fairly certain he still 'monitors' this group and follows me
around usenet, generally.

[start - David]
It sure is.... hehehhe

[me- using a variation of the Reti opening to see if it was David]
P-QB3

[David's common response to a variation of the Reti opening (a school
of thought in chess that demands control of the center from a safe
distance instead of occupying the very center squares) is]
P-KB4 hahahahaha

[me, satisfied that it is David (he never tries to control anything
from a distance, opting instead always to occupy it from the very
center squares). Reckless, but he usually succeeds with it anyway.]
Okay, what do you want?

[David]
**** all. Just monitoring.
[end]
Father Onearly (David, my twin)
Dec 11 2008
http://tinyurl.com/ycscfcq

11) He knows the arguments raised here nearly as well as I do and
could probably hold his own as a vegan if he wanted to. I know he's
been tempted to try.

12) More, nothing would satisfy him better than wrong-footing me and
beating me at my own game, especially on my own board: a.a.e.v. More
still, he wouldn't be able to resist leaving me a few clues to show
how clever he'd been after I'd lost the game.

Note to David.

A half-decent opening. A lively but reckless middle. Poor end-game.
Checkmate!
  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 04:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/28/2012 4:14 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:10:49 -0700, George
wrote:

On 3/25/2012 4:55 PM, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:28:00 -0700, George
wrote:

On 3/25/2012 10:58 AM, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:36:44 +0100, wrote:

On 25/03/2012 18:17, Derek wrote:
[]
So who ARE you, Glen, and why did you copy and paste parts of my
private email to you here?

My sincere apologies Derek. I didn't mean any damage by it.

No harm no foul, I usually say, but there was a measure of intent in
there, I assume.

Guess we got off to a bad start, eh?

I believe that "start" happened a few years ago, "Glen", so who are
you?

My best guess was that it was "Zakhar", better known as "greggeorge",
but not sure now. It's obviously a Brit. Whoever it is was here
earlier and is too gutless to say what he was using for a name back
then. Anyway, he's an asshole.

I'm leaning more and more towards blackmailing Ray Slater. He
threatened to print your address here a few times, and stalking people
via facebook wouldn't surprise me in the least.


Doesn't write enough like Slater. Slater got weepy almost immediately.

I think it's this douche:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...8?dmode=source

I worked with that ****wit at Apple Computer back in the 1980s. He was a
nice enough guy at the time, but he later came here and admitted he was
just trying to get to bang "vegan" chicks. He's a dishonorable ****,
too, because I "sold" him a nice futon with a hardwood frame, and he
never paid up. I thought he was good for it, but he stiffed me, the ****.


Heh heh heh. He called you a "feeble excuse for a monkey's arse."
I like him already.

Anyway, I sussed it a while ago but didn't want to say until I'd got
all my ducks in a row, so to speak. The veiled sarcasm in his use of
the term St. Derek wasn't veiled enough: I saw straight through it.

Anyway - those 11 ducks.

1) I sometimes used to use a nym on other Usenet groups with the email
.

2) My middle name is Mark.

3) I had a friend called Glen who died mysteriously in his sleep aged
about 13.

4) I use a period after St., omit the period after 'D' in Ph.D, and I
spell honour with a 'u', just like Glen and Mark.

5) And there's this (below).

[start]
oh yes you did jonathan ball

.................................................. ..............................
.................................................. ...

What do you have?


Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You?

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....7726abf?dmode=...


.................................................. ..............................
.................................................. .....

So you're a drop-out


Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...ab479c7d4f0?hl...
ource


.................................................. ..............................
.................................................. ...

You lied, as usual.


no. you lied.
[end]
a ghost of Usenet past Apr 6 2011 http://tinyurl.com/cb56ycr

6) This person, a ghost of Usenet past, used the email and
quotes the same way Glen does with lines of dots or dashes under each
quote.

7) He uses and abuses periods the same way I do, and he includes the
'u' in honour, being British.

8) Mark, a ghost of Usenet past and Glen are the same person and have
writing characteristics similar to mine.

9) There's only one person similar to me with a motive to embarrass
me, and probably you, but with only half the ability to pull it off,
and that's my twin.


That was one of my guesses, but I don't have a strong enough background
in all his tics to spot him for certain.



10) I'm fairly certain he still 'monitors' this group and follows me
around usenet, generally.

[start - David]
It sure is.... hehehhe

[me- using a variation of the Reti opening to see if it was David]
P-QB3

[David's common response to a variation of the Reti opening (a school
of thought in chess that demands control of the center from a safe
distance instead of occupying the very center squares) is]
P-KB4 hahahahaha

[me, satisfied that it is David (he never tries to control anything
from a distance, opting instead always to occupy it from the very
center squares). Reckless, but he usually succeeds with it anyway.]
Okay, what do you want?

[David]
**** all. Just monitoring.
[end]
Father Onearly (David, my twin)
Dec 11 2008
http://tinyurl.com/ycscfcq

11) He knows the arguments raised here nearly as well as I do and
could probably hold his own as a vegan if he wanted to. I know he's
been tempted to try.

12) More, nothing would satisfy him better than wrong-footing me and
beating me at my own game, especially on my own board: a.a.e.v. More
still, he wouldn't be able to resist leaving me a few clues to show
how clever he'd been after I'd lost the game.

Note to David.

A half-decent opening. A lively but reckless middle. Poor end-game.
Checkmate!


  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 06:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/28/2012 4:14 AM, Derek wrote:

[solid analysis that points toward your twin]


So, back in that thread in alt.christnet that ****wit caused to be
crossposted to a.a.e.v., when someone named "Lesley" showed up and
started threatening to reveal personal information (street address,
etc.) information about me, "Mark" exhorted "her" not to do it, and
subsequently claimed to know "Lesley". I think they're the same; their
"conversation" was a sham.
  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 06:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:05:05 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 3/28/2012 4:14 AM, Derek wrote:

[solid analysis that points toward your twin]


So, back in that thread in alt.christnet that ****wit caused to be
crossposted to a.a.e.v., when someone named "Lesley" showed up and
started threatening to reveal personal information (street address,
etc.) information about me, "Mark" exhorted "her" not to do it, and
subsequently claimed to know "Lesley". I think they're the same; their
"conversation" was a sham.


Lesley would never post here using her real name, but I can't fathom
what David would get out of pretending to be both her and someone who
knows her just to threaten exposing your whereabouts. He screwed up
there or changed his plans to infiltrate the pro-animal rights side.

I've been looking at Glen's, Mark's and Lesley's post for similarities
and discrepancies for a couple of days now, and I'm certain they're
all David. Has his conscience finally got the better of him, I wonder,
and made him turn to a vegetarian lifestyle? One thing's for certain;
if he has he will no doubt reject any responsibility for the
collateral deaths associated with his new diet. Being my identical
mirror twin we have a lot in common, and our sense of moral
responsibility is identical even if our views on animal rights used to
be different. That view may have changed now, as it sometimes does,
and there's no looking back once that view changes.

I've put my email address back in the headers today now I'm certain
who it was. I'm not going to change what I do because of his
game-playing. I'll just have to be more careful, that's all.


  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-03-2012, 09:39 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 25, 7:15*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote:









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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


And you believe that doing it makes you better.


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


And better than others who don't.


Quite likely, greggeorge.

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


My action unequivocally is a reduction.

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


Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction.


Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce
their food, and no animal agriculture at all. So less suffering takes
place in order to produce their food. It's not rocket science.
  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-04-2012, 01:25 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 31, 2:39*am, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 25, 7:15*am, George Plimpton wrote:





On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


And you believe that doing it makes you better.


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


And better than others who don't.


Quite likely, greggeorge.


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




*Everything* is rocket science to the Gooberdoodle.
  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/31/2012 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.
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:24 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Apr 2, 10:45*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George *wrote:
On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


And you believe that doing it makes you better.


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


And better than others who don't.


Quite likely, greggeorge.


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


My action unequivocally is a reduction.


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


Their action does not necessarily achieve a reduction.


Why not? Less plant-based agriculture takes place in order to produce
their food,


Not necessarily.


How would that work out?
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 05:22 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 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.


  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:46 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Apr 3, 6:22*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Apr 3, 6:22*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 09:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 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.
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 09:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 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
  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 09:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Apr 3, 10:11*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/3/2012 11:46 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:24 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 25, 7:15 am, George * * *wrote:
On 3/24/2012 8:08 PM, Glen wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


What reasons do you have for thinking they are false?


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


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


I never claimed that recycling necessarily reduces pollution.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017