"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:55 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:tg21s3pemkbjtnksd6anbjesdf3dm1nto7@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>>>>>>>>>>false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>>>>>>>>>>fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>>>>>>>>>> To that, "jones" said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>>>>>>>>>>the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>>>>>>>>>>things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>>>>>>>>>>serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
>>>>>>>>reality none of us actually are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
>>>>>>> and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
>>>>>>the best we can, in reality we aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would've helped. What's being asked for here
>>>>> is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
>>>>> abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
>>>>> crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.
>>>>>
>>>>> [What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
>>>>> omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
>>>>> its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
>>>>> It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
>>>>> a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
>>>>> specified moral rules that place determinate moral
>>>>> obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
>>>>> of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
>>>>> the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
>>>>> Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
>>>>> Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
>>>>> so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
>>>>> from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
>>>>> be demanded of every member of the community.
>>>>>
>>>>> An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
>>>>> moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
>>>>> must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
>>>>> and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
>>>>> kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
>>>>> Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
>>>>> innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
>>>>> overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
>>>>> It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
>>>>> Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
>>>>> medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
>>>>> do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
>>>>> against killing to apply to omissions would make living
>>>>> in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
>>>>> heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
>>>>> morally decent person.]
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
>>>>> I find this one agreeable.
>>>>
>>>>I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral
>>>>heroism
>>>>and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?
>>>
>>> Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
>>> do you continue to eat meat?
>>
>>I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during
>>the
>>winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body
>>into
>>a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large
>>amounts
>>of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym?
>>When
>>you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
>>carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring
>>at
>>first but you soon get used to it.
>
> Then, against your better judgment you let vanity decide your
> moral principles? You want to look good, not just be happy
> with being healthy, and in order to do it you throw whatever
> moral principles you have regarding animals into the waste
> basket. Sorry, Jones, but "I don't buy that."

Did I say that I'm a vegan? No. Did I say I have a moral principle not to eat
animals? No. I'm the first to congratulate them for standing by their principles but
I don't share them.