> >>Right: you are not minimizing. You aren't even TRYING
> >>to minimize; ALL you are trying to do is find a CHEAP
> >>way of thinking well of yourself.
> >
> >
> > Ok, I get the feeling you want to tell me.
>
> I rather doubt it, but I suppose there's some slim, dim
> hope that you're making some progress.

Progressing to what?

> > How can I minimize, and why minimize?
>
> You're asking the wrong person.

But you're the person who is telling me to
do it. How could you know that I'm not already
'minimizing', whatever that means. Does it
mean that if I find the only veganic farmer
availlable grows only potatoes, that I should
not eat anything other than those potatoes?
If that's what you mean, then I disagree on
health reasons especially.

> > Are you perhaps
> > admitting that there's not enough veganic choices
> > in the marketplace as there ought to be?
>
> No, because I don't believe there "ought" to be any
> particular thing available in the marketplace, where
> "ought" is taken to be some kind of moral imperative.
> NO ONE is under any moral obligation to offer for sale
> what you think "should" be available for sale.

Well, I think there should be more veganic foods
availlable. Then people can make the choices
they prefer.

> > but remember, one needs to eat healthy.
>
> No, one doesn't "need" anything. You perhaps WANT to
> eat healthfully (not "healthy").

Health is a need, not a want. If I thought that we
were biologically meant to be carnivores, I
would be one. I believe we are meant to be
vegan for optimal health and that a good
variety of plant foods should be eaten.

> > I won't 'minimize' if that is going to
> > jeopardize my health.
>
> So: doing the right thing (according to YOUR shabby
> "ethics") takes a back seat to your wish for health.
> Interesting.

I don't know, since I don't know what your
'minimizing' means. Why don't you tell me?

> > The getaway driver has many, many other choices
> > of where he can go.
>
> But he CHOSE to be part of a robbery, KNOWING that
> armed robberies sometimes lead to innocent people being
> killed.

He isn't faced with starving if he refuses to participate.

> > The buyer of food is limited
> > by such things as availlability, budget, etc.
>
> NONETHELESS, the principle of complicity is the same.

No. The food consumer faces starving if they were
to avoid all availlable food because of it not being
veganically perfect.

> Furthermore, you always have SOME option of doing
> something else. Among other things, you could always
> die. Your shabby ethics MIGHT require it.

Now here is where you're showing yourself to be
stark raving cuckoo!!!! )) Did you even read
that before clicking send?

> > Tell me how to minimize.
>
> No. It isn't my job. You formulated the stupid rule,
> so you must find a way to abide by it.

I never made the rule of absolute minimization.
This is something you've concocted. But if
you're now saying it's not yours either, then
screw it. No rule is the new rule.

> > Didn't you read that interesting thread about moral
> > absolutes?
>
> There's lots of weird, irrational bullshit that I don't
> read.

It was quite interesting. I particularly noticed your
absence as the talk got to absolutes. Made me
think of you right away.

> Remember: this moral absolute is YOUR moral absolute.
> If you're going to make a morally absolute statement
> like "it is wrong to kill animals except in self
> defense", then you are OBLIGED to follow all the
> implications that emanate from your statement, or else
> you will be seen to be a hypocrite.

Again I must remind you that YOU are saying I'm
under a moral absolute. I don't believe I am.
Therefore what you have written above holds
no obligation over me.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.