 |
|
| 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
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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". |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
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. Go try to waste the time of someone else, you ****ing clueless urbanite pantywaist. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > 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. You *do* know it. You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal suffering than anyone. You *know* that. Stop lying. > 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. You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is reducing suffering. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 4:56*pm, George Plimpton > 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. No, it hasn't. > Go try to waste the time of > someone else, you ****ing clueless urbanite pantywaist. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 4:57*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > *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. > > You *do* know it. *You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts > in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal > suffering than anyone. *You *know* that. *Stop lying. > > > 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. > > You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is > reducing suffering. Absolute nonsense. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 8:31*pm, George Plimpton > 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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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. > > No, it hasn't. It has, of course, and you know it. >> Go try to waste the time of >> someone else, you ****ing clueless urbanite pantywaist. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/23/2012 1:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > 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. >> >> You *do* know it. You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts >> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal >> suffering than anyone. You *know* that. Stop lying. Did you decide to stop lying about it, or were you just too flummoxed to think of a good lie? >>> 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. >> >> You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is >> reducing suffering. > > Absolute nonsense. Yes, it is absolute nonsense for you to think that *not* putting animal parts in your pie-hole automatically means you're reducing suffering. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 11:03*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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. > > > No, it hasn't. > > It has, of course, and you know it. > Of course, I don't. If I believed that, why would I still be vegan? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/23/2012 3:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:03 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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. >> >>> No, it hasn't. >> >> It has, of course, and you know it. >> > > Of course, I don't. You do, of course. > If I believed that, why would I still be vegan? Irrational obstinacy. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 11:21*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 3:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:03 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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. > > >>> No, it hasn't. > > >> It has, of course, and you know it. > > > Of course, I don't. > > You do, of course. > > > If I believed that, why would I still be vegan? > > Irrational obstinacy. You're a fool. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 11:07*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 1:31 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > * *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. > > >> You *do* know it. *You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts > >> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal > >> suffering than anyone. *You *know* that. *Stop lying. > > Did you decide to stop lying about it, or were you just too flummoxed to > think of a good lie? > Tell me more about how I don't think you're an idiot, Ball. > >>> 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. > > >> You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is > >> reducing suffering. > > > Absolute nonsense. > > Yes, it is absolute nonsense for you to think that *not* putting animal > parts in your pie-hole automatically means you're reducing suffering. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 9:57*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > *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. > > You *do* know it. *You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts > in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal > suffering than anyone. *You *know* that. *Stop lying. How does he know that, Goober? > > > 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. > > You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is > reducing suffering. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/23/2012 3:58 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:21 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 3:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 11:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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. >> >>>>> No, it hasn't. >> >>>> It has, of course, and you know it. >> >>> Of course, I don't. >> >> You do, of course. >> >>> If I believed that, why would I still be vegan? >> >> Irrational obstinacy. > > You're a fool. Your an arrogant, egotistical and stubborn shitworm. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/23/2012 3:59 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:07 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 1:31 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > 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. >> >>>> You *do* know it. You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts >>>> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal >>>> suffering than anyone. You *know* that. Stop lying. >> >> Did you decide to stop lying about it, or were you just too flummoxed to >> think of a good lie? >> > > Tell me more about how I don't think you're an idiot, George. Go finish your "vegan breakfast", shitworm. > >>>>> 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. >> >>>> You *know* that it is no basis whatever for concluding that one is >>>> reducing suffering. >> >>> Absolute nonsense. >> >> Yes, it is absolute nonsense for you to think that *not* putting animal >> parts in your pie-hole automatically means you're reducing suffering. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 9:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 3:58 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:21 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/23/2012 3:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 23, 11:03 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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. > > >>>>> No, it hasn't. > > >>>> It has, of course, and you know it. > > >>> Of course, I don't. > > >> You do, of course. > > >>> If I believed that, why would I still be vegan? > > >> Irrational obstinacy. > > > You're a fool. > Your an arrogant, egotistical and stubborn shitworm. "Your" is possessive. You should have said, "you're". See Goo, you're too stupid to be a net nanny.....so stop it! |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/23/2012 8:14 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 23, 9:00 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 3:58 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 11:21 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/23/2012 3:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 23, 11:03 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/23/2012 1:30 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 4:56 pm, 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. >> >>>>>>> No, it hasn't. >> >>>>>> It has, of course, and you know it. >> >>>>> Of course, I don't. >> >>>> You do, of course. >> >>>>> If I believed that, why would I still be vegan? >> >>>> Irrational obstinacy. >> >>> You're a fool. > >> Your an arrogant, egotistical and stubborn shitworm. > > > "Your" is possessive. You should have said, "you're". See Goo, you're > too stupid to be a net nanny.....so stop it! You're right. You get a "gold star" for the day. Your mommy will be proud. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 4:57*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > *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. > > You *do* know it. *You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts > in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal > suffering than anyone. *You *know* that. *Stop lying. > Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount of suffering required to produce your food? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 23, 11:19*pm, George Plimpton > 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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > 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. >> >> You *do* know it. You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts >> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal >> suffering than anyone. You *know* that. Stop lying. >> > > Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount > of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount > of suffering required to produce your food? That's the wrong question. The proper question is, why would you *possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering? You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone. You just can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute to animal suffering. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 24, 8:18*pm, 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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vegan" arrogance and egotism
On Mar 24, 8:18*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 5:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:57 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/23/2012 8:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 23, 4:01 pm, George > * *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. > > >> You *do* know it. *You *know* that refraining from putting animal parts > >> in your mouth does not rule out that you might be causing more animal > >> suffering than anyone. *You *know* that. *Stop lying. > > > Do you seriously think that it is rational to believe that the amount > > of suffering required to produce my food migth be more than the amount > > of suffering required to produce your food? > > That's the wrong question. It would be great if you could answer it, nevertheless. > The proper question is, why would you > *possibly* think that not putting animal parts in your mouth means you > are doing all you need to do to eliminate or reduce animal suffering? > That's changing the topic. Your original claim was that I might be causing more animal suffering than anyone. You evidently think that you are doing all you need to do by doing nothing at all, so I don't see how you can object if I claim that I am doing all that I need to do. > You *know* that moving from a meat-including diet to one that excludes > meat *could* mean that you cause more suffering than anyone. No. I don't know that. > You just > can't conclude anything with certainty about the how much you contribute > to animal suffering. I can make some conclusions, along lines I have already indicated elsewhere. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
