Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 23, 2:33*am, George Plimpton > 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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 23, 6:55*am, George Plimpton > 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". If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't this lead me to critically re-examine the belief? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 23, 7:25*am, George Plimpton > 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. You can compare specific behaviours in various respects: you can say, for example, that one behaviour is less conducive towards more suffering taking place than another. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 23, 7:25*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> A typical "vegan" tries to argue "Why vegans are simply better people."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226259 > > >>>> All "vegans" believe that. *Woopert is lying when he says he doesn't. > > >>> What do you suppose would motivate me to lie about it? > > >> Because you know that bragging that your character is better than that > >> of others, particularly on such an inflammatory and contentious topic as > >> not putting animal parts in your mouth, is going to generate a lot of > >> well-founded criticism, and you don't want to have to defend yourself > >> against the charge of placing yourself on a moral pedestal, so you just > >> lie. *But you *do* think you're "simply better" than those who use > >> animal products. > > > You say that I am aware that the critcism would be "well-founded". > > No, I say it is well-founded, and it would be, because bragging about > being better, even if an objective case can be made that one is better, > is still disparaged. > > It doesn't matter if you know it would be well-founded or not. *You *do* > know that the criticism would ensue, so to avoid it you lie and claim > not to believe what you obviously *do* believe. > > > If I know that the criticism would be well-founded, wouldn't this lead > > me to critically re-examine the belief? > > The criticism would be for the bragging, you stupid ****wit. *You know this. > > The simple fact is, you do believe you're "better" than meat eaters > based on what you don't put in your mouth. You obviously want to believe that what's in it for me to be a vegan is to be able to view myself as a "better" person, as opposed to trying to do something about animal suffering. But the reality is that I don't think about the world in that way, in terms of one person being "better" than another. You obviously do because you have explicitly said in the past that you are "better" than me, and you obviously get something out of thinking that you are "better" than me. You are projecting. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|