On Jun 6, 11:15 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> >> 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.
>
Your reply in no way undermined this remark.
> > 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.
>
In
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....3?dmode=source
we have
"Dutch: 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.
Me: 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: What is there to justify?"
> > 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
>
> Jij bent nu echt een russische verkankerde cycloon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -