On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
> > iniquity. Ye jabbered:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> > >> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
> > >> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
>
> > >>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > groups.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.
>
> > >> What is there to justify?
>
> > > A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
> > > justification.
>
> > Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
>
> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>
> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> obviously can be justified

No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.


> and it's not worth arguing about.

Which, if there's no moral dimension to it, is correct.


> Well, fine, you can hold that view if you want. A lot of animal rights and
> animal liberation philosophers would agree with you that it can be
> justified. You can try and do a serious critique of animal rights and
> animal liberation philosophies if you want, but just assuming that
> something must be justified because "that's the way things are" is not
> a very good start.
>
> > >> Man's brain developed off the back of eating
> > >> protein-rich meat.
>
> > > Yes, I've heard this before. One thing I'm interested in is whether
> > > it's supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution. If it's
> > > Darwinian, then the protein-richness of meat has nothing to do with
> > > it, it would have been by the selective pressures set up by humans'
> > > transition to hunting. And Lamarckian evolution is generally reckoned
> > > to have been pretty much discredited for a long time.
>
> > Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat. Man eats meat because man likes the
> > taste of meat. So, better you first distinguish between something innate,
> > perhaps due to instinct, and something due evolution, before you get down
> > that path.
>
> You're positing a connection between our ancestors' consumption of red
> meat and the evolution of our brain capacity. What I want to know is
> whether the mechanism is supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian
> evolution. If you want to start talking about an "innate" tendency to
> eat meat that's a different argument. There are a lot of cultures
> where vegetarianism is quite widespread, you know.
>
> > > Anyway, even if this were the case it wouldn't matter.
>
> > If it didn't matter, why did you raise it and waste time elucidating about
> > it?
>
> You raised it, and I responded to it because I felt like it.
>
> > > Most of us can
> > > be perfectly healthy being vegan now.
>
> > Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.
>
> It's not open to question by any reasonably well-informed person, and
> I've provided a link in another post which supports it. If you've
> decided you're going to join in in a newsgroup about vegetarianism,
> it's probably a good idea to acquaint yourself with the basic facts
> about the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
> > >> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise
> > >> devour.
>
> > >> Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying
> > >> animal products to growing children is unethical.
>
> > >> Cite:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm
>
> > > Yes, but that's nonsense. The American Dietetic Association states
> > > that vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally adequate at all
> > > stages of life and have many health benefits. A child is much more
> > > likely to get health problems from eating meat at some stage during
> > > his or her life than from being brought up vegan.
>
> > Yes, but that's nonsense. Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service)
> > says that denying animal products to growing children is unethical.
>
> You think someone from the US Agricultural Research Service is a
> better source than the American Dietetic Assocation, do you?
>
> No reputable dietitian is going to agree with the proposition that
> denying animal products to growing children is unethical. If it is,
> then why haven't some parents ended up in court?
>
> > >> So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to
> > >> animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very
> > >> skew-whiff indeed.
>
> > Note: No response.
>
> I'd already adequately addressed it. The contention that feeding your
> children a vegan diet is unethical is nonsense.
>
>
>
> > --
> > alt.usenet.kooks
> > "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
> > Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
>
> > Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
> > Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
> > Official Member:
> > Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
> > Usenet Ruiner Lits
> > Top Assholes on the Net Lits
> > Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
> > AUK psychos and felons Lits
> > #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits
>
> > "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
> > alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
> > AOK
>
> > Straks vind ik je nog een bengaalse kleffe choleravlinder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -