In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> > Let's test your's and Jay's theory....
> >> >
> >> > What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
> >> > speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
> >> > an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
> >> > the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.
> >> >
> >> > Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but
> >> > I
> >> > hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.
> >> >
> >> > the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
> >> > to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the
> >> > killing
> >> > of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
> >> > is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
> >> > you.
> >>
> >> Ouch! Poor attempt Ron. First of all, killing a human is not absolutely
> >> wrong, it's wrong by default, but there are several exceptions.
> >
> > Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.
>
> You left your Thinking Cap over there as well.
>
> > Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
> > thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
> > readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.
>
> Why? You know exactly which instances, since by a strange coincidence they
> are the same as yours.
>
> Go figure.
>
> >> Arguably
> >> nothing is *absolutely* wrong, but that's another debate. More
> >> importantly,
> >> you are confusing passive and active rights. We are not morally obliged
> >> under rights theory to seek out every injustice everywhere and attempt to
> >> stamp them all out. We are not supermen. What we are morally obliged to
> >> do
> >> is refrain from any deliberate act that leads to a rights violation.
> >
> > Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
> > hypocritical on your part.
>
> Hold on, you must have skipped over the last sentence.
>
> "What we are morally obliged to do is refrain from any deliberate act that
> leads to a rights violation."
>
> Since she believes in some incoherent way that animals have rights, and
> commercial agriculture involves deliberate and also unmitigated accidental
> killing of animals, then she is obligated by her own standards to avoid
> deliberate involvement with commercial agriculture. She does not, she does
> not even have the intestinal fortitude after many vears of vegetarianism to
> go completely vegan, even though her misguided morality informs her that is
> imperative that she do so. Her "animal morality" is a joke.
>
> >> This leads us to the case of vegans, they begin by postulating that
> >> animals
> >> possess the same basic right to life as humans. They try to come into
> >> accord
> >> with this idea by attempting (usually ineptly) to remove "animal
> >> products"
> >> from their lives. But if animals truly have a "basic right to life", then
> >> they must go further, because the food they buy in the markets and most
> >> every product that benefits them entails the violation of many of these
> >> alleged rights, and they are deliberately subsizing it all.
> >
> > And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
>
> And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much further.
>
> > (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
> > double standards that are involved.)
>
> I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it ought to
> be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.

I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
but still allow us to do them. It's called justification. Such
justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.

> > So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
> > right.
>
> Yes, and no.