"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>> >> rebut it.
>> >>
>> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
>> >
>> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>>
>> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
>> than you are doing.
>
> Thank you for repeating yourself...

You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..

> If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> about sexually broomed children.

Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with abuse
of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be OK
if I did, but I am not obliged.

> If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> more about the death of humans

Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals who
they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers when
they purchase consumer goods.

> If you really thought it was wrong....
>
> Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.

You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?

Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
study from.

>> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
>> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
>> because
>> of the TASTE!
>>
>> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
>> false moral significance to it is a mistake.