View Single Post
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 07:38 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

"Jay Santos" wrote in message
k.net...

Scented Nectar wrote:

Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?


Careful with this one Ron.


Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?



You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
to meat eating.


The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
to do any of it.

Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
as acceptable?



It's like pollution...


No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
utilitarian standpoint.



You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
something that makes us all worse off than we would be
if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
better off for having attained the reduction.



Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not?


It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.


But ethical values are different; they're not
utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
absolutely wrong.



First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child.


Why not? You could, and apparently you still would
feel good about yourself, just so long as you were
abusing a child less often than someone else, or
perhaps less often than you did last year.

That was the whole point of the example.