Rupert > Thou clay-brained flax-wench. Thou
dishonest flatterer. Ye pussyfooted:
> On Jun 6, 10:40 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> Rupert > Thou great-siz'd coward. Thou
>> blasted, tottering prince of cats. Ye yipped:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Then why did you bring it up? That is at least the second time you've
>> brought up an idea, proceeded to elucidate upon it then dismiss it as
>> irrelevant when the path it took didn't go the way you wanted it.
>> You did it when you traipsed off merrily down the garden path of
>> Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution.
>>
>
> What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
> the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
> were replying.
Not so. Your statement, "Discrimination requires some sort of
justification", is an all-encompassing statement.
> You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that we
> would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
> humans to save ourselves.
And now, for the at least the third time, you commence arguing against an
idea that you, your very self, created.
I challenge you to show where I ever conveyed the notion that you just
constructed.
> I don't agree with this<BITCHSLAP>
Then why make it up?
--
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 in
Jij bent nu echt een russische verkankerde cycloon.