|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
|
|
|
"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn'tbe hard to make up)
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
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> 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
But they don't.
|