"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > why are you posting to a newsgroup about ethics if you have no interest
> > in or understanding of ethics?
> I understand ethics, and I fully understand that personal,
idiosyncratic
> ethics are not at all related to the annoying attempts to convince others
> that they are unethical -because of their diet-.

Ethics are an integral part of the social fabric of society. Your desire to
torture your children or steal from your employer are not viewed as
"personal or idiosyncratic". Without ethics society would descend into
chaos, none of these so-called "scientific" concerns would matter at all.

> Why are you and previous posters cross-posting to alt.soceity.homeless
> if you have no relevance to the homeless?

Good question, I have never posted to alt.society.homeless.

> > Your flippant dismissal of ethics as an issue does not ring true.
> So, WHY don't you attempt to disprove it by revealing an OBJECTIVE set
> of ethics?

Disprove what? The existence of a consistent social ethic is self-evident,
it's shown in laws, and proscribed in every religion. Have a look at "The
Ten Commandments", "The Golden Rule".

> Your personal inability to understand the issue does not refute
> it.

Non-sequitor, I understand the issue, the issue is your games.

>
> > Every vegan I have ever met or spoken to falls for the ethical argument.
I
> > believe that you do too.
> Another mind reader? Why don't you respond to what I say, not what
you
> choose to distort?

I just told you, what you say doesn't ring true. I'm calling you a liar.

> > This "ethics is meaningless" line you are selling appears to me to be a
> > smokescreen.
> Refute with facts and logic. Present an OBJECTIVE set of ethics.
Look
> up the meaning of OBJECTIVE and IDIOSYNCRATIC before you embarrass
yourself
> further.

Capitalizing, hurling ad hominems isn't going to make ethics disappear. You
should not murder your neighbour, you should not torture your dog, you
should not ruin the environment, those are simple statements of ethics. They
exist in our social fabric and therefore are real. They are not subjective.
You are not free to ignore them without sanctions.


> > There is no credible evidence that such an extreme approach to diet as
to
> > eliminate even the slightest trace of animal cells from one's diet is
more
> > beneficial to health than a more moderate approach.
> Why don't you and usual moron present scientifically-valid research
that
> demonstrates a "safe" lower level? Biochemistry occurs on a
> molecule-by-molecule basis, so there can be no "safe" lower level of any
> toxin, mutagen, carcinogen, teratogen, ... try taking a chemistry course.

The entire massive body of evidence that underpins modern nutritional
science supports the notion that meat is a positive heath factor in the
proper amounts. All this tossing out of scientific sounding words does not
impress me.

> >> And there are serious economic issues, also.
> > Economic issues are self-regulating.
> That is a lie; there are taxes, duties, tariffs, and huge amounts of
> public tax money are given to support the current agricultural system.
> Public lands are used for grazing; there are milk subsidies, beef
subsidies,
> fish subsidies, ...

Grain subsidies are some of the biggest. There are also subsidies for fruit
producers. At a fundamental level, the economic playing field is
self-regulating, government are just one of the players.

> > Money goes to buy what people want, and people want animal products.
> Some ignorant ones do, strictly because of conditioning by ignorant
> parents and relentless advertising copy.
> You, and the rest of the necrophages NEVER made the informed,
CONSCIOUS
> decision to do so; you are all just blissfully asleep in cultural
hypnosis,
> following the ignorant into early graves, but that is OK.

You CHOOSE to be a frothing-at-the-mouth diet looney, but that's OK.

> I used to be similarly-ignorant because I was taught/conditioned to
> consume dairy and meat by ignorant parents at an early age, both of whom
> eventually died of meat-induced diseases.

So you say.

> I educated myself on the issue,
> and made logical decisions and did experiential research. You could try a
> little self-education, couldn't you? Why not?

Awareness and consciousness does not lead to the extremism you promote.

> >>> But ecology, why should anyone care about ecology except in concern
for
> >>> future generations, and if not for ethical reasons then why else?
> >> Food-production efficiencies, eutrophication of surface water, air,
> >> ground, and water pollution, all are reasonable concerns of the current
> >> generation.
> > No they aren't, not without a significant component of ethics.
> The above are significant economic and health concerns, totally
> unrelated to idiosyncratic ethics.

Why should I avoid air pollution if I can personally benefit greatly from
causing it? Your dismissal of ethics as a factor undermines your whole
position, which is already shaky at best.