Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.
>>
>>They're ABSOLUTELY wrong, in your view. They have to be.
>
>
> They don't have to be.
They DO have to be, in your view:
Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
>
>
>>>So you would have me boycott all foods?
>>
>>No. I'd have you grow your own.
>
>
> Me too. But short of winning the lottery, that
> won't happen until I retire and even then, not
> to the extent that I could grow ALL my own.
So you rationalize your failure to behave according to
the demands of your belief by your financial status.
That isn't an ethics at all.
>
>>>Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely.
>>
>>It's absolutely wrong, in your view. There's no
>>alternative.
>
>
> Maybe for you there are no alternatives, but to
> my thinking there are.
No, there's no alternative: you believe killing
animals other than in self defense is ABSOLUTELY wrong:
Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
There's no qualification to that, e.g. "usually wrong"
or "a little bit wrong". You just call it "wrong",
period. That's absolute.
>
>
>>>I feel good about myself.
>>
>>Your good feelings are unjustified and pathetic. You
>>have not made any moral improvement.
>
>
> I get to feel good about myself for what *I* decide
> is important or moral or anything else.
Your good feelings are unjustified and disgusting. You
have not made any moral improvement, merely based on
not putting meat in your mouth.
>
>
>>>> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
>>>
>>>
>>>You know, when you're quoting someone to make
>>>a point
>>
>>I quote her accurately. Always.
>
>
> Even her name?
The quote is accurate.
>
>
>>>As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
>>>is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute.
>>
>>It's implied by the absence of any modifier. You can't
>>possibly spin it as being "a little bit" wrong, or
>>wrong "some of the time". You just said it is wrong,
>>period. That MEANS absolutely wrong, no ifs, ands or buts.
>>
>>Why are you voluntarily and knowingly participating in
>>something that you believe is wrong?
>
>
> Let's see now, there's no choice,
There IS a choice. You just don't want to exercise it,
because it would be hard and uncomfortable. So,
animals must die so you can enjoy ease and comfort.
That's not an ethics.
> and it's just a bit
> wrong
No, there's no wiggle room. It's wrong, full stop:
Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
You are not behaving according to any legitimate ethics.
|