View Single Post
  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Let me rephrase that.

>>
>>No. It's plainly weaseling.

>
>
> No, it's me being more specific so that you know
> what I mean.


It's weaseling. You're trying to weasel out of
something, and you can't. Your lack of awareness of
which farmers is laughable. You have to assume ALL of
them kill animals.

>
>
>>>I have no way of knowing
>>>WHICH farmers do what.

>>
>>Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
>>buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
>>you can.

>
>
> I am too.


You are not. You could easily do better, if you really
cared. You just don't care.

> When are you just going to accept that?


I'm not.

> Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
> that you always like to mention.


Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.

Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
STILL are in the same position as someone who has
reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
doing ANY of it, in your view.

> What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?


Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
you're in the clear - on food, anyway.

>
>
>>>Short of starving
>>>myself, eating vegan provides the least
>>>accidental deaths.

>>
>>That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
>>your view, just as broom-****ing children is
>>ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
>>absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
>>stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.

>
>
> Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
> out there.


No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't.

> You can't buy anything from anyone
> because they may or may not be child abusers.


No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
money you give him. We're talking about your
acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
behind what he produces.

>
>>>My responsibility stops where I no longer have
>>>control.

>>
>>You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
>>to buy anything from anyone.

>
>
> Well, I guess I could just walk around the city eating
> maple trees.


No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
yourself, you can enlist all the other
self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
collective.

>>No, you are NOT. You could EASILY do better.

>
>
> Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
> identify which products are from bad farmers.


Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.

>
>
>>>Who put it there?

>>
>>You. It's based on YOUR belief that killing animals is
>>absolutely wrong, just as you believe broom-****ing
>>children is absolutely wrong.

>
>
> You know you really should read that thread
> about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
> of good points.


He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
doesn't convince anyone.

>
>
>>>Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
>>>called these things 'implied'.

>>
>>The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
>>you say.

>
>
> Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
> those things.


They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.

>
>
>>>You put it there.

>>
>>No, YOU put it there. You put it there, and now you
>>don't like the implications of what you've done.

>
>
> When did I put it there?


The whole time you've been posting here.