9567bfb0   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
   From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com   
      
   On Oct 18, 7:50 am, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   > On 10/16/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   > >> On 10/16/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:   
   >   
   > >>> On Oct 16, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   > >>>> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:   
   >   
   > >>>>> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   > >>>>>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:   
   >   
   > >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos    
   wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, geo...@si.not]   
   > >>>>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,   
   > >>>>>>>>>> :   
   > >>>>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites   
   whether   
   > >>>>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see   
   if they   
   > >>>>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless   
   the   
   > >>>>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way   
   responsible   
   > >>>>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the   
   case.   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more   
   than   
   > >>>>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.   
   >   
   > >>>>>>> True.   
   >   
   > >>>>>> So your hypocrisy is established.   
   >   
   > >>>>> No, it's not.   
   >   
   > >>>> Yes, it is.  You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of   
   > >>>> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.   
   >   
   > >>> I didn't make any such claim in this thread.   
   >   
   > >> Not in *this* thread, maybe, but you have in other threads, and you've   
   > >> never recanted it.   
   >   
   > > Yes I have. I just did, in this thread. I told you I currently am   
   > > fairly skeptical that there are any moral truths. So I've obviously   
   > > changed my position.   
   >   
   > Are you feeling a little more wobbly right now?  That's a serious   
   > question.  In the past, you've exuded absolute moral certitude regarding   
   > the allegedly principled underpinnings of "ar" (or whatever you prefer   
   > to call it; es macht nichts.)   
      
   What's your evidence for that? It was just a view I held, I was open   
   to the possibility that I might be mistaken.   
      
   >  Suddenly, you've done a complete   
   > volte-face (that's French - put your German aside for a moment) and   
   > begun spewing extreme doubt on your earlier position.   
      
   It's a very different position now, no doubt. It didn't happen   
   overnight; it's been a while since I expressed any moral views around   
   here.   
      
   It's a result of reading and reflecting on various writings in meta-   
   ethics.   
      
   > Yet, you're still   
   > "vegan", with all the moral rigidity that always entails.  So, you now   
   > claim not to believe in moral truths, yet you're still clinging to a   
   > behavior that is *absolutely* predicated on a belief in moral truths.   
      
   Why do you think that it is "absolutely" so predicated?   
      
   > To me, that indicates a *HUGE* potential for rapidly increasing wobbliness.   
      
   Perhaps you should entertain the possibility that your opinions about   
   such matters are not especially reliable or well-founded.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)