Vegetarian Discussion: "vegan" Arrogance And Egotism

"vegan" Arrogance And Egotism
Posts: 39

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2012-03-22 21:33:08 EST
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.

Rupert
2012-03-23 01:27:10 EST
On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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?

George Plimpton
2012-03-23 01:55:27 EST
On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> 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.

Rupert
2012-03-23 02:04:06 EST
On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  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?

George Plimpton
2012-03-23 02:25:08 EST
On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> 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 fuckwit. 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.

Rupert
2012-03-23 02:31:45 EST
On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    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 fuckwit.  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.

Rupert
2012-03-23 02:47:44 EST
On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    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 fuckwit.  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.

George Plimpton
2012-03-23 02:52:38 EST
On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> 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 fuckwit. 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.

George Plimpton
2012-03-23 02:55:38 EST
On 3/22/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> 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 fuckwit. 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".

Rupert
2012-03-23 03:03:15 EST
On Mar 23, 7:52 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 11:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 11:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 23, 6:55 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 23, 2:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>      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 fuckwit.  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.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron