Scented Nectar wrote:
>>No good. This is where the more shocking example of
>>sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
>>You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
>>sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
>>because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
>>every other day.
>
>
> I've told you before that I will not discuss with you

your appalling lack of moral consistency and
followthrough. Yes, you have clearly told me that
before. It's regrettable.

>
>>Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
>>others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
>>merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
>>causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
>>wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
>>claim to be doing "better".
>
>
> Nonsense.

No, moral consistency.

> I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
> better or not.

No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.

> Note that I said better, not best.
> You'd have an argument if I had said best and
> not better, but I didn't so you don't.

You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
position being incoherent.

>
>
>>>How many times must I remind you of
>>>this?
>>
>>How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
>>NOT "doing better"?
>
>
> I am too

You are NOT. You are still causing animals to die,
even though you claim causing animals to die is wrong.
You are not doing "better" until you STOP causing
animals to die. A child sodomizer is not "doing
better" merely by doing less of it; he must STOP doing
it, altogether.