"Don" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ps.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>> >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
>>> >> fellow. Ye
>>> >> afforded:
>>>
>>> >> > Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>>> >> > moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a
>>> >> > moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up
>>> >> > as
>>> >> > an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as
>>> >> > a
>>> >> > statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very
>>> >> > likely
>>> >> > to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from
>>> >> > starting to eat meat.
>>>
>>> >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their
>>> >> bodies
>>> >> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will
>>> >> die
>>> >> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack.
>>> >> Also
>>> >> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly
>>> >> because
>>> >> the
>>> >> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>>>
>>> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>>
>>> >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to
>>> >> live
>>> >> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
>>>
>>> >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the
>>> >> "moral
>>> >> commitment"?
>>>
>>> > Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
>>> > probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
>>> > alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
>>>
>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply accept
>>> to
>>> live in a state of diminished health? When are we permitted to allow our
>>> self-interest to take precendence?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
>>
>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to save
>>> himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if it came
>>> right
>>> down to it.
>>
>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push came
>> to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation. But
>> yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals to die.
>> And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal liberation
>> philosophers would maintain that that preference can be justified in
>> one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think "equal
>> consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and kill
>> demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
>>
>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
>
> You need to stop acting like a rube.
> Dutch poses an imaginary scenario

Not imaginary, real.

to justify his claim and you shape
> yourself like a pretzel on his command.

Not everyone is as evasive as you are. There are a few people around who are
genuinely struggling to discover the truth.

> Then you stumble all over yourself trying to come up with a response.
> jeezis.
>
> His comment about *letting* someone else use their property (animals) as
> they see fit is equally silly.

Be more specific, I recall making no such comment.