rick wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >> I wrote,
> >>
> >> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw [denying the
> >> antecedent] most frequently fall back on an equally
> >> defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least
> >> harm" practice.
> >>
> >> To this, Karen replied, "No, that veganism *can*
> >> represent a least-harm practice."
> >>
> >> The potential of a practice is morally meaningless.
> >> There only is meaning to what one *does*, not what one
> >> *might* do but doesn't.
> >>
> >> Karen continued:
> >>
> >> The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that
> >> it is "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis,
> >> but that it is a more -- not *absolutely*, but
> >> *more* -- just practice because it better respects
> >> animals.
> >>
> >> Karen seems to want to take a cafeteria approach to
> >> utilitarianism and deontology. (For those not familiar
> >> with her, Karen - "glorfindel", bleaghh - historically
> >> has leaned toward deontology, believing that animals
> >> should hold "rights".) She wants to try to cadge as
> >> much prestige as she can from utilitarian beliefs
> >> without really adopting them. But there is *no*
> >> improvement, in utility or otherwise, from adopting a
> >> belief system, and some half measures based on it, that
> >> don't actually reduce the level of harm one causes.
> >>
> >> By trying to make much of her belief that "veganism"
> >> has more potential to reduce harm, but not actually
> >> *doing* things to reduce harm, Karen is demonstrating
> >> once again that "veganism" is almost entirely about
> >> symbolic gestures.
> >
> >
> >
> > ~jonnie~?....................why do you wear your underpants on
> > the
> > outside of your clothing?
> =======================
> Typical response from a usenet vegan loon. Nothing....



Please make sure ~jonnie~ is properly dressed before he comes out to
play.




>
>
> >