Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>If you find the need to eat food, in order to live, to be
>>>bogus, then why do you eat?
>>
>>There is no such thing as a "need vs. want"
>>distinction. You WANT food. So do I.
>
>
> Wrong. Eating is a need.

No, it's a want. You can't possibly come up with an
operationally rigorous test to distinguish between
"needs" and "wants". There is none.

>>>>unable to find "CD-free" food. They think that produce
>>>
>>>
>>>It's difficult to find, sometimes impossible.
>>
>>Then grow it yourself.
>
>
> If I had land, I would.

Rent it.

>
>
>>>A person can only do their best.
>>
>>You're not doing your best; not even close.
>
>
> I am too.

You are not. You could get rid of a high-CD food and
substitute a nutritionally equivalent lower-CD food,
but you don't do it. Thus, you aren't doing the best
you can.

This was settled weeks ago.

>
>
>>Yes, you do. It's why you feel some (weak) impulse to
>>"reduce" the animal deaths you cause in the first
>>place. If you're not responsible, why else would you
>>bother?
>
>
> Health mainly.

Bullshit. "Health" is not the reason you want to
reduce animal CDs. Cut the bullshit.

>>>When I don't have any alternative but to buy
>>>some non-veganically grown foods,
>>
>>Understand this, ****: "veganically" grown does not
>>exist, and "organically" grown kills LOTS of animals.
>>There is no such thing as "veganic" farming. It's just
>>a bullshit expression.
>
>
> Ooo, the C word.

There is no such thing as "veganically" grown.

>>>That's called no other choice.
>>
>>You always have the choice of growing all your own, or
>>dying.
>
>
> Be realistic.

I am. You have a choice TODAY.

>
>>>But unfortunately it isn't done enough to live on
>>>completely.
>>
>>It isn't done AT ALL. But your WISH for it to be done,
>>so you can buy them, reflects your acknowledgment of
>>shared responsibility. If you didn't feel you shared
>>responsibility for the deaths, you wouldn't bother with
>>your search.
>
>
> I'm not responsible when there's no choice involved.

1. You are ALWAYS responsible for the choices AND
THEIR OUTCOMES
that YOU make.

2. There is a choice

> However, if the choice to buy veganic foods was
> there and was varied enough to maintain health,
> then there would be that as a valid choice. As far
> as you saying it's not done at all, you're wrong.

There is no such thing as "veganic" agriculture.

>
>
>>>>3. they believe the deaths to be absolutely wrong
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't put the word absolutely there. You keep doing
>>>that.
>>
>>It's there in your belief whether you use the word
>>explicitly or not. You don't believe it's "a little
>>bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals
>>other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong,
>>full stop. That MEANS absolute.
>
>
> You're going to have to accept that my belief is
> not as absolute as you think.

It is absolute. You don't believe it's "kinda" or
"sorta" or "a little bit" wrong; you believe it's
wrong, period, to kill animals (except in self
defense.) THEREFORE, you cannot explain why you still
cause some to die.

>
>>>Actually I wear no fur or leather.
>>
>>You're lying about the leather.
>
>
> You wish

I know.

>
>>>What amendment. We're already having to eat
>>>non-veganically grown food some of the time.
>>
>>That's ALL you ever eat. There is no such thing as
>>"veganically" grown.
>>
>>The amendment is that if you're going to try to claim
>>an exemption on the wrongness of killing animals where
>>your food is concerned, you will destroy your statement
>>of your belief that it is wrong to kill animals.
>
>
> Having no choice

You always have choice. You do not "need" to buy
commercially produced food, ever.

>>>It doesn't matter what one ethically believes.
>>
>>THERE is a choice quote!
>
>
> Um, you forgot to add the quote you're
> referring to.

No: "It doesn't matter what one ethically believes."
That's the quote. What a doozy!

>>>If those were the only rugs availlable, and if rugs
>>>were necessary to live, then, like the food above,
>>>there is no justification needed. You can't put an
>>>ethics on it if there's no choice.
>>
>>Yes, you can. "No choice" does not change ethics. If
>>you and your skanky lesbo muncher Karen were stuck in a
>>cabin in the mountains and ran out of food, and the
>>choice was one of you killed the other in order to eat
>>her (I mean REALLY eat her) or you both die, then the
>>killer would be prosecuted for murder if rescued.
>
>
> Karen says "Oh my god, I am NOT skanky!"

She's a saknk.

>
>
>>Note that the person who sodomizes small children with
>>a broom handle also claims to feel some "need" to do
>>so. "No choice", aka "Need", does not grant an ethical
>>exemption.
>
>
> Nonsense.

No, sense. There is no such thing as "need" as you are
using the word.

>
> True needs are things like air, water, food, shelter,
> etc.

No, those are wants. They are operationally
indistinguishable from things like movie tickets, golf
clubs, hookers, and video games.

>
>
>>>YOU use the word absolutely
>>
>>YOU use it; you just don't utter or write the word. It
>>is ALWAYS present in your belief that it is wrong to
>>kill animals except in self defense.
>
>
> How can it be present

It's present. It cannot NOT be present.

>
>
>>>Now the need for food to live is stupid?
>>
>>You don't need to live.
>
>
> I definitely disagree

No one cares.