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
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-04-2012, 08:54 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 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.

  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-04-2012, 08:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 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.
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-04-2012, 08:57 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 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.
  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-04-2012, 09:32 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 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.
  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:14 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 4/5/2012 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.


  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:16 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 4/5/2012 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...
  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 04:27 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 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.
  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 04:53 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 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.
  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 06:20 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 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.

  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 07:14 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 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.


  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 02:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 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.
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 03:23 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 4/5/2012 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.
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 03:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 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.

  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 03:45 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 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.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-04-2012, 04:16 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 4/6/2012 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.


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 04:50 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017