If you believe that something is absolutely morally
wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
believe it to be absolutely wrong.

If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
you may not morally participate in any activity or
process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
absolutely wrong.

Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong,
then you're going to have a very difficult time
explaining in what way it is relatively wrong. In
particular, you're going to have an all but impossible
task to explain why the amount in which you engage or
indirectly participate is in any sense "better" than
what someone else does.

In article . net,
Jay Santos wrote:

If you believe that something is absolutely morally
wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
believe it to be absolutely wrong.

If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
you may not morally participate in any activity or
process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
absolutely wrong.

Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong,
then you're going to have a very difficult time
explaining in what way it is relatively wrong. In
particular, you're going to have an all but impossible
task to explain why the amount in which you engage or
indirectly participate is in any sense "better" than
what someone else does.

that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.

And you're gonna gripe to her a bout doing a doobie and eating a plate
of veggies.

Ron wrote:

In article . net,
Jay Santos wrote:


If you believe that something is absolutely morally
wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
believe it to be absolutely wrong.

If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
you may not morally participate in any activity or
process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
absolutely wrong.

Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong,
then you're going to have a very difficult time
explaining in what way it is relatively wrong. In
particular, you're going to have an all but impossible
task to explain why the amount in which you engage or
indirectly participate is in any sense "better" than
what someone else does.


that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.

Nope. I don't do any of those, and I do not
participate in any process that leads to any as an
intrinsic part of the process.

You're just ****ed, sophomore.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
8
that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.

Morality is such a subjective issue - some people seem to think that their
religion justifies meat eating, and how can you argue with that logically?

John

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:50:10 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:

If you believe that something is absolutely morally
wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
believe it to be absolutely wrong.

Then why do you continue to buy meat, coal, coffee,
chocolate and other such items while knowing of the
harms and deaths they cause to humans, often under
slave-like conditions?

[According to the National Safety Council, agriculture
and mining are the two most hazardous occupations in
the country. In 1996, 21 accidental deaths occurred per
100,000 agricultural workers, compared with a national
average of 4 deaths per 100,000 workers for all industries.
A recent survey of 2,000 Kentucky farmers found that
each year one of every eight farm families experiences
an accident requiring medical attention.]
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/he282.htm

According to your logic, people who don't seek out zero-
human death foods are guilty of showing a contempt for
their belief in human rights. How much coal are you
directly and indirectly responsible for, Jon? And there's
the meat packers to consider as well. The harms accrued
in this industry are a direct result of your diet, yet you do
nothing to stop them. In fact, you reward the meat packing
industry for the harms you intentionally cause.

[In 1999, more than one-quarter of America's nearly
150,000 meat packing workers suffered a job-related
injury or illness. The meat packing industry not only has
the highest injury rate, but also has by far the highest
rate of serious injury-more than five times the national
average, as measured in lost workdays.]
http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/...atpacking.html

Those numbers might be even greater than those given
in that example, but if you go to this link
http://146.142.4.24/labjava/outside.jsp?survey=sh
and add up all the injuries in the meat, poultry and dairy
trades you'll find that the numbers of human collateral
harms in the meat trade exceed all others.

Being that you hold all vegans responsible, in fact causal
to the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food, it is only reasonable to insist that you take full
responsibility for the collateral harms you cause to humans
by your diet and conclude that you are showing a contempt
for the rights of humans. How much coffee and chocolate
do you buy from child slave labour?

If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
you may not morally participate in any activity or
process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
absolutely wrong.

So when are you going to stop buying products which are
known to kill and violate the rights of humans? If your rule
is to be consistent, you cannot even use certain bridges
and buildings if humans were killed during their construction.

Jay Santos wrote:

If you believe that something is absolutely morally
wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
believe it to be absolutely wrong.

My wife asks, "Honey, which of these blouses are more black?"
"Neither of them are black."
"Yes, I know that but I have to wear black tonight and these are all I
have. So which is more black?"

In other words, despite the fact that one may consider something
absolutely morally wrong, there are degrees.

If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
you may not morally participate in any activity or
process that kills animals.

If you also believe that it is absolutely wrong to end your own life,
then you are forced to pick the lesser of evils. After all, you pretty
much cannot sustain yourself without killing some animals, so you kill
as few as you can.

John Coleman wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
8

that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.


Morality is such a subjective issue - some people seem to think that their
religion justifies meat eating

"vegans" abstain from meat based on weird, incoherent
religious beliefs.

"Reynard" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

John

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:49:52 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:


"Reynard" wrote in message ...

Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

It isn't in their interest to "get it", especially and because
it ruins their argument here. They're determined to remain
ignorant.

Jay Santos wrote:
If you believe that something is absolutely morally wrong, then the ONLY
coherently explicable amount of it you may do, and remain consistent
with your belief, is zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
believe it to be absolutely wrong.

True.

If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to kill animals other
than in provable self defense, then you may not morally participate in
any activity or process that kills animals.

I can live with that: I do not believe it would be wrong to kill animals
other than in self defense. For example I think it is absolutely correct
to kill the animals I want to eat :-)

Indeed there are countless other cases in which it is acceptable to kill
animals - for example to kill them when they are going to eat the
vegetables I want to eat - or when they are damaging my property otherwise.

It's as well allright to kill them to produce leather.

As well for scientific purposes animals may be killed - I've done animal
experiments in the past ...

If you do so participate,
then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be absolutely wrong.

True.

Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong, then you're going
to have a very difficult time explaining in what way it is relatively
wrong.

Not at all. There are two reasons for me not to kill animals:

1) I need them, because later I need their meat, leather, whatever, need
them for my experiments or need them to carry me (a horse I might want
to ride) or as guardian (watchdogs), or I want them because I like
seeing or hearing them - birds, for example. In that case it's pure
self-interest to have them alive.

2) I'm following the Rede. I'm doing harm only if necessary. As you
might have seen above I'm willing to do harm to animals if their
interests are in conflict with mine. But I'm not going to harm them if
this conflict does not exist.

In particular, you're going to have an all but impossible task
to explain why the amount in which you engage or indirectly participate
is in any sense "better" than what someone else does.

Where's the problem?

"John Coleman" wrote

"Reynard" wrote

Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd. The
fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky ground
vegans are on.

We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals) Once legislation
was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted. This is called
"mitigation". People are still harmed, as in any situation where humans,
chemicals and machinery collide, it is inevitable, but the danger is
"mitigated" to a degree that makes the consumption of those products no
longer a complicity in immoral acts. In other words, it was the failure to
provide safety measures (mitigation) that made people boycott the products.

When you kill another person in an auto accident, one looks at to what
degree you mitigated to prevent the accident. Did you drive in accordance
with the laws? Did you use all due care and attention? If so, then you did
nothing wrong, even though you killed someone.

No such mitigation exists in the vast majority of agriculture, in fact the
very purpose of chemical sprays is to kill, and it is implausible to think
you can protect all field animals from harm by machinery.

"Reynard" wrote ...
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:49:52 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:


"Reynard" wrote

Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

It isn't in their interest to "get it", especially and because
it ruins their argument here. They're determined to remain
ignorant.

The analogy is bogus.

Dutch wrote:

"John Coleman" wrote

"Reynard" wrote

Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?


It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd. The
fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky ground
vegans are on.

We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals)

That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It
was garden-variety wage-based labor strife. The
original (1960s) boycott occurred because the workers
were non-union, and the unions wanted a piece of the
action. Alleged environmental risks for the workers
was only the pretext.

Once legislation
was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.

No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a
contract with Cesar Chavez's UFW.

Dutch wrote:

"John Coleman" wrote

"Reynard" wrote

Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?


It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd. The
fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky ground
vegans are on.

We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals)

That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It
was garden-variety wage-based labor strife. The
original (1960s) boycott occurred because the workers
were non-union, and the unions wanted a piece of the
action. Alleged environmental risks for the workers
was only the pretext.

Once legislation
was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.

No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a
contract with Cesar Chavez's UFW.

Jay Santos wrote:
Thanks for the support Retard, I have been pointing this fallacy out
for
weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is
absurd. The fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what
shaky ground vegans are on.

We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to
unsafe levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals)

That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It was
garden-variety wage-based labor strife.

It still IS. The UFW boycott against grapes continues:
http://www.ufw.org/GB.html

The original (1960s) boycott
occurred because the workers were non-union, and the unions wanted a
piece of the action. Alleged environmental risks for the workers was
only the pretext.

It wasn't even a major pretext:
It was in response to these deteriorating [economic and work]
conditions, along with the discovery that toxic pesticides
sprayed on grapes threaten farm workers and their children, that
in 1984, Cesar Chavez called on consumers to return to the
boycott of all non-UFW California table grapes-including
"organic" grapes.

Once legislation was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level
of safety was raised to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.

No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a contract with
Cesar Chavez's UFW.

They're still trying to shake-down farmers.