Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>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.
>
>
> Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
> any animals myself,

I never said you were killing any yourself.

> but not knowing
> which farmers out there kill animals during
> farming practices.

It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.


>
>>>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.
>
>
> I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,

You have to assume they all are, until you do some
research. The choice facing you is clear: grow all
your own food, so you don't have to waste time checking
out other farmres; or, IMMEDIATELY find some who don't
kill animals, and only buy from them.

You claim to have some intelligence. See if you can
figure it out on your own.

> just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
> you support engage in child abuse.

You and that idiot Ron keep trying to make the consumer
responsible for what the producer does with the money
AFTER the consumer pays for the products, and it just
won't fly. I only deal with producers in their
capacity as producers. I am only responsible for any
moral taint in the PRODUCTS I buy, not in what the
producer does with the money after I give it to him.


>>>>>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.
>
>
> There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> again.

No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
absolute.

> Killing animals is wrong.

Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

> I don't say absolutely.

You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.

> If an alligator attacked me and my
> only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
> obviously I would kill it.

I already made the self-defense exemption explicit.
We're very clearly talking ONLY about non-self-defense
killing, for example, what the producers of the rice
you eat do to animals in rice paddies.

>>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.
>
>
> Just as I don't kill any animals myself (except that
> pesky alligator!). It isn't my responsibility personally
> to stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
> participate myself. I don't.

Yes, you DO: through your fully aware market activity
with the hands-on killers. You KNOW they kill in the
course of producing the food you eat, and you buy from
them anyway. That makes you morally complicit.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> I don't acquire that responsibility.

Yes, you do. You most certainly do, exactly as meat
eaters acquire responsibility for the deaths of the
animals they eat. Remember: meat eaters
overwhelmingly do not personally kill the animals whose
bodies they eat. If not being the hands-on killer is
enough to get you off the hook - it isn't - then it
would have to be enough to get meat eaters off the
hook, too.



> As such, my
> reduction in cds is good enough for me.

No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
wrong. Absolutely wrong.

> so of course, doing the best
> one can is quite good.

You are NOT doing the best you can. You could easily
do better...if you cared to do good at all, which you
plainly don't. You just want to think well of
yourself, the cheaper the better.

>
>
>>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.
>
>
> You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
> of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
> possible for me.

Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.


>
>>>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.
>
>
> Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
> without answering my questions. I thought it was
> supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
> and which are the low ones.

It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
responsibility to find out.

>
>>>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.
>
>
> Actually, he makes a lot of sense

He makes zero sense. He's a ****-ant pretend
philosopher, and a sophist. I realize you don't know
what sophist means; look it up.

>
>
>>>Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
>>>those things.
>>
>>They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.
>
>
> The voices in your head are not in mine.

No voices. I read what you write. What you write
says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
participate, through your purchases, in processes that
lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
you have no basis for your contentment.

>
>>>When did I put it there?
>>
>>The whole time you've been posting here.