|
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 6, 10:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou damned furious wight. Hang, beg,
> starve, die in the streets. Ye entreated:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> 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
>
> oglegroups.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.
>
> > If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
> > Hence, taking the contrapositive, if there is no moral dimension to
> > it, it can be justified.
>
> > What he's saying is that it's not an issue for serious moral debate. I
> > paraphrased what he said well enough the last time around.
>
> No you did not. You transmogrified it into an idea that I never conveyed,
> whereupon you commenced to argue against your very own creation.
>
> --
> 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
>
> Jij bent vast een vliegende bejaarde bladluis.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I'm afraid not.
|