"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Laurie" > wrote
>
> It's interesting that you chose to alter the Subject of
> this thread to "Dutch's ethics". What possible meaning
> could that have, since you have stated categorically
> that ethics are completely idiosyncratic?
The meaning is that the subject is YOUR "ethics"; specifically, the
total lack of intellectual ethics you display here continually.

> You are a poseur and an imposter.
Name-calling is considered unethical among intelligent people.

> You're the one who needs help, and tap dancing is not
> going to get it for you. If you are referring to ethics as
> we know them as "idiosyncratic" to Western culture,
> then although that may be somewhat supportable, it is
> not meaningful.
No, I am not referring to anything "idiosyncratic" to "Western culture";
the issue is a simple one -- that ethics are idiosyncratic to the
individual, thus may not be used to 'convince' others that their dietary
practices are unethical. This is the fatal flaw of the "ethical vegan"
crusaders.

>> Interesting, you contradict yourself further down the page: "All of
>> our views are subjective ones."
> Those comments don't contradict one another.
You contradict yourself by claiming one minute that ethics are not
idiosyncratic, then that they a "All of our views are subjective ones."
Also, there is a branch of human intellectual endeavor, the purpose of
which is to determine objective facts and an understanding of how the
Universe works. That is called "Science"; strange you have not heard of it.
You also ignore science when you consistently fail to present any
scientifically-credible evidence to support your crackpot contentions.

>>> It is trivial to postulate examples of unethical dietary choices,
>>> killing and eating endangered species, other people or higher
>>> primates, neighbourhood pets.
>> But, YOU are 'postulating' the examples and not everyone in the
>> universe will agree with YOU; that is to say, "ethics" are purely
>> idiosyncratic. You make up yours; they make up theirs.
> That is incorrect, I did not make up any of those ideas.
Are you really as stupid as you seem? The issue is that you just
choose, adopt, accept, follow, ascribe to, or "make up" your "ethics" and
other people just make up theirs; i.e. there is no objective ethical
standard.

> That is just a ridiculous paragraph. I do *not* have a "personal ethical
> construct", ...
Of course you do; here you behave in a way that you probably believe is
'ethical'. Or, are you admitting you have no ethical boundaries at all - a
complete psychopath, like noBalls?
In your personal ethical construct, you believe that lying is ethical,
name-calling is ethical, evading questions is ethical, repeatedly failing to
support your claims is ethical.

> I do *not* accept intellectual dishonesty,
You must 'accept' intellectual dishonesty, because you practice it
continually here - lying, name-calling, evading questions, evading issues,
not supporting your scientific claims with consensus science. These
behaviors are considered unethical by those actually having intellectual
integrity, or some minimal level of education.

> I have *not* suggested forcing my ethics on anyone, ...
You are doing exactly that by falsely claiming that because "ethical
vegans" do not follow YOUR claimed model of "vegan ethics" that they are
dishonest, morally irresponsible, ethically corrupt, ... Thus, you are
claiming that your set of 'ethics' is superior, and that is false.

> ... and opinions on ethics are not meaningless.
What meanings do opinions about fantasies hold?

> "Objective" is just a buzzword you like to use to make yourself feel
> important.
No, it is a real word with a profound meaning for the topic at hand; try
consulting a dictionary. You choose to ignore it, since it reveals the
falsity of your propaganda.

> Ethics are a result of many generations of social evolution, ...
"Evolution" is a process of random mutations at the genetic level that
are then filtered out at the somatic level by a mysterious process called
"reproductive advantage". Try reading something on evolution so you do not
embarrass yourself like this.

> ... not idiosyncratic at all, but founded in a vital core set of
> principles.
"Ethics" vary from society to society and within the same society over
time; thus, they are idiosyncratic.

>> Of course, if you were God and could actually produce the Objective
>> Set, you might be able to make a useful contribution...
> Holding you to account for your BS is useful enought for me.
Why don't you try to do so with facts and logic, instead of lies,
evasions, and personal insults?

>>> Then there is following diets
>>> which may result in excessive environmental damage, or
>>> promoting diets which cause poor health in people, those,
>>> if shown to be true, would arguably be unethical acts.
>> There is overwhelming evidence that animal-centric human diets do
>> exactly that.
> If you believe that, then why do you find it so wrong to say
> that promoting such diets is unethical?
Claiming practices or diets are unethical is impossible, since there is
no objective set of ethics to make such a determination.
People, and corporations, have free will. Corporations, unfortunately,
are not currently prevented from "promoting"/advertising self-destructive
"foods", products, or practices.

>>> "Objectivity" is a diversion. All of our views are subjective ones.
>> Thank you for finally agreeing that "ethics" are purely idiosyncratic
>> and thus can NOT be used to support dietary preferences, nor practices.
> I didn't agree to that.
YOU just claimed that: "All of our views are subjective ones.", and that
includes YOUR views on "ethics", and the perverted ethics of "ethical
vegans", etc. Having a serious peoblem with this "logic" thing?

>> And, they especially can not be used in silly attempts to -convince-
>> others to change their diet.
> Why would it be silly to argue that it is wrong to promote
> bad health and environmental degradation?
It is silly to base such arguments on "ethical" grounds; valid economic,
environmental, and social arguments, however, could be made.

>> And, if you really believe that "All of our views are subjective
>> ones", why do you harass and insult people here for their subjective
>> views?
> Ask yourself, why do you insult me in your replies?
I have NEVER "insulted" you; you do that quite well yourself.
I may point out your ongoing lack of intellectual integrity, your lack
of maturity, your lack of comprehension of fundamental science, your
dishonestly and boring evasiveness, ... but if you misinterpret this to be
"insults", you could make some effort to correct these glaring deficiencies.
All education is self-education: try some.

> When I find people's
> ideas to be foolish and irrational, AND they demonstrate stubborn
> adherence to those ideas, I am sometimes moved to inform them that
> they are fools.
You could attempt to -prove- such irrationality by presenting a
well-reasoned, factual, logical counter-argument, as I do, instead of
name-calling, but that takes more effort and some supporting education.

> All subjective ideas are not created equal.
Having nothing to support them, they are equally meaningless.

>> then why do you attempt to force yours down peoples' throats?
> I don't.
Aren't you one that makes outrageous claims about CD's without ever
presenting scientifically-credible data to support tham?

> People with idiotic ideas are well served by being straightened out.
Try using facts and logic, instead of insults and evasion, you will be
more effective.

>>> No it doesn't, it indicates that I don't believe you.
>> Who cares what you believe, since your beliefs are purely subjective?
> I do.
That's right, you care only about your own, unsupportable, subjective,
idiosyncratic fantasies, certainly not objective, scientific findings. But,
thanks for finally admitting the obvious.

>> I am interested in what can be supported by facts and logic, you see,
>> a bit more objective.
> I have supported my belief that you are a liar and a poseur, a fruit
> and a egomaniac.
You are just demonstrating your profound lack of maturity with
name-calling, and you are too stupid to understand that simple fact?

>> Neither you nor your parents have even attempted to intelligently look at
>> human nutrition/diet,
> You have ZERO knowledge of what I have read on nutrition,
> much less my parents.
Your "understanding" is clearly revealed in your writings, here.

>> none of you have done any experiential research.
> What papers have *you* published?
Do not know what the word "experiential" means?? HINT: it is related to
"experience".

>> Your willful ignorance is a repeatedly demonstrated fact here, you
>> simply ignore studies or facts that challenge your infantile social
>> conditioning.
> I thought you were averse to using insults to make your points.
> Doesn't it indicate infantile behaviour when YOU do it?
No insult, simply a statement of fact.
You were socially-conditioned into your current erroneous dietary
practices and beliefs as an infant, having no critical facilities. So was
I; so were we all - however, the difference is that by self-education, I
learned that the local cultural diet is deadly and have taken logical steps,
based on 36 years of experiential research, toward dietary reform. You have
yet to honestly look at the facts, nor experience meaningful dietary reform

> The question is, why do you choose to be a complete shit-for-brains?
You really do not understand how this juvenile behavior reveals the
essence of your being and destroys what shred of credibility you once may
have had?

>>>> What is "extreme" about our biologically-correct diet?
>>> Which is what, raw-food/fadism?
>> All Life on this planet evolved on a raw diet;
> So what?
Therefore, raw diets are the norm, the way Nature works, not "extreme"
as you falsely claim. Did you REALLY not follow the logic?? Or are you
just making believe you are this stupid, for effect?

>> cooking is a recent fad practiced by the sickest species on the planet.
> Ipse dixit.
Picked that up from noBalls?? Facts dixit.

> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...ide%20of%20raw
www.ecologos.org/tb.htm

>> Developing a reasonable set of intellectual ethics would be in your best
>> interests, however.
> Why? If all ethics are meaningless.
I said ethics are irrelevant to DIETARY choices, especially in
propagandizing dietary change, as the misguided "ethical vegans" try to do.
Adopting a reasonable set of intellectual ethics would allow you to
eventually understand, and communicate with, others who have some
intellectual maturity, something you are incapable of at this point.

Laurie