View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
Mr. Smartypants Mr. Smartypants is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)

On Feb 23, 3:07*pm, "Jones" > wrote:
> "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.-



and with *that* statement you just sent Goobs over the edge. He will
now respond with sheer hysterics.