"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > That shows how personal ethics are. The
> > > people you used as examples have different
> > > ethics. I'm sure though, that in at least some
> > > cases they know what they're doing is wrong.
> >
> > You have a small amount of leeway in what you consider ethical within
> the
> > generally accepted standard. The idea that ethics is a personal thing
> is
> > just plain WRONG.
>
> So, you think it's unethical for people to hold
> their own ethics?

That is the definition of a sociopath.

> > > > > It may very well be ethical in someone's
> > > > > ill mind, but that doesn't change the fact
> > > > > that most people think it's wrong and there
> > > > > are laws against it.
> > > >
> > > > Which means that ethics are created by consensus and we learn to
> > > follow
> > > > them, we don't make them up.
> > >
> > > Laws are often based on a consensus
> > > of people who agree on an ethical point.
> >
> > That's right, that agreement has developed over centuries of social
> > evolution, not simply "made up" by any given indivdual.
>
> Ethics does not equal laws, although for most
> people they frequently overlap for the most part.

Are we approaching a meeting of the minds on this point?

> > I never claimed that my goal was to "stop animal suffering", vegans
> however
> > DO make that claim, and the "fringe meat"/cd argument demonstrates
> that they
> > do not actually follow this purported principle.
>
> They'd be better off going for the fringe vegan
> foods.

If avaliable, if not then fringe meats would be a reasonable option.

> Perhaps a group renting a farmhouse
> or something, if they don't have land. Not eating
> fringe meats.

Your dogged dismissal of them is not based on rational grounds.