"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>> > Could you please clarify "not wrong".
>>
>> Could you please clarify what you mean by "please clarify "not wrong"?
>
>> Cute little game you have going.. continuously making objections and
>> probing
>> for clarifications, never making a point of your own.
>
> In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing animals,
> for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite
> often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating
> something as morally neutral or just plain "right".

It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different perspective.
Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right",
"acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral", however
you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance, you're
grasping.

>> > I find you more confusing than
>> > ever.
>>
>> Maybe your game isn't so functional as you wish it were. If your
>> objections
>> and requests for clarification game was working you should be in a better
>> position to understand my position.
>
> I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for
> others.

Never.

> The person who kills the animal is killing the animal.

Tautology.

> They do
> so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't.

They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need the
money.

> Justification and
> mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt and
> shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes.

Hogwash.

>> > There are a variety of possibilities such as wrong, neutral or
>> > right. I imagine with could anything across a spectrum from almost
>> > right
>> > to not quite wrong.
>>
>> You are decribing the moral ambiguity of veganism. I think you should
>> address the question to them.
>
> No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify
> do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is
> there some other explanation that you have for not wrong.

Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings.
>
>> > Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."
>> > For example, is paying my taxes "not wrong"?
>>
>> For the most part, yes, of course. I can see nothing wrong in paying
>> one's
>> taxes. What do *you* think?
>
> I think you continue to evade the question.

What question?

> As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, we
> attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on.
> Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug
> dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged"
> is the motive and intent.

Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not
wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The action
is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality.