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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 01:33 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

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.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 05:27 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 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?
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 05:55 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/22/2012 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.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:04 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 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?
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:25 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/22/2012 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.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:31 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 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.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:47 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 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.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:52 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/22/2012 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.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:55 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/22/2012 11:47 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.


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.


It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the
amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain
"vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. As there is no objective
moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in
your self-esteem. You think you're "better" than meat eaters.

* you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not
"doing the best you can".
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 07:03 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 7:52*am, George Plimpton 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.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 07:09 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 7:55*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:47 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.


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.


It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the
amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain
"vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. *As there is no objective
moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in
your self-esteem. *You think you're "better" than meat eaters.

* you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not
"doing the best you can".


I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal
suffering required to produce my food. Specifically, I can conclude
that I've become acquainted with information about how animals are
treated on modern farms and on that basis have decided to go vegan in
an effort to reduce the amount of suffering required to produce my
food, and it's reasonable to believe that I succeeded in that goal.
Furthermore, I've made some effort to investigate whether there are
any other practical steps I could take to further reduce the amount of
suffering required to produce my food, short of extreme measures like
quitting my job, and I'm not aware of any such practical steps I could
take. On the whole I think it's pretty reasonable to say that I am
"doing the best I can", or perhaps "making every reasonable effort".

Of course I continue to remain vegan, because I think that is a good
strategy for reducing the amount of suffering required to produce my
food. And, yes, I do think that it is good to take some steps to try
to reduce the amount of suffering required to produce your food. There
is an objective moral gain, specifically, less suffering is required
in order to produce the food. And when I take the step of changing my
diet in this way the expected amount of suffering that actually takes
place is reduced. That's the goal, to reduce the amount of suffering
that takes place. That's the gain. What it does for my self-esteem is
irrelevant. I do not think I am "better" than meat-eaters. I do not
spend my time thinking that I am "better" than this person or that
person. I simply don't think like that. You do, you have explicitly
said that you are "better" than me and you obviously get something out
of thinking that. But I don't think like that. For me, the question of
whether it makes me a better person is completely irrelevant. What I
am interested in is the effect it will have on the amount of suffering
that takes place.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 03:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/23/2012 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.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 03:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:47 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.


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.


It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the
amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain
"vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. As there is no objective
moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in
your self-esteem. You think you're "better" than meat eaters.

* you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not
"doing the best you can".


I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal
suffering required to produce my food.


You can't conclude anything about it. There is no /a priori/ reason to
believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal
suffering of all of humanity. *Nothing* about merely not putting animal
parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal
suffering than anyone else.

That is a fact, and you know it.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 03:46 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "vegan" arrogance and egotism

On Mar 23, 4:00*pm, George Plimpton 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?
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 03:48 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 Mar 23, 4:01*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/23/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 23, 7:55 am, George *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:47 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.


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.


It has been shown that you can't conclude anything meaningful about the
amount of animal suffering you cause*, yet you continue to remain
"vegan" and you think it is *good* to do that. *As there is no objective
moral gain from it, the only thing left is a personal gain to you in
your self-esteem. *You think you're "better" than meat eaters.


* you aren't living "cruelty free", you're not "minimizing", you're not
"doing the best you can".


I can conclude something meaningful about the amount of animal
suffering required to produce my food.


You can't conclude anything about it. *There is no /a priori/ reason to
believe that some "vegan", somewhere, is causing the *most* animal
suffering of all of humanity. **Nothing* about merely not putting animal
parts in one's mouth rules out that one might be causing more animal
suffering than anyone else.

That is a fact, and you know it.


No, I don't. I don't think it's especially sensible not to believe
that going vegan is a good strategy for reducing the amount of animal
suffering one causes.


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 12:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017