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.