In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote
> >> > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
> >> > who's who.
> >>
> >> How do you like it?
> >>
> >> The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from
> >> alt.philosophy.
> >> He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his
> >> agenda
> >> seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he
> >> can
> >> pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack
> >> misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on
> >> people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never
> >> admit it. At least he has ambition :>)
> >
> > 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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.
(It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
double standards that are involved.)

So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
right.