On Jun 6, 11:16 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou detested parasite. You lisp and
> wear strange suits. Ye driveled:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > Oh yes, and that wasn't a "garden path", that was directly relevant to
> > the contention you were making<BITCHSLAP>
>
> You mean the contention that you made up and proceeded to argue against as
> if I had made such an assertion.
>

I hope, for your sake, that you are trolling and are not really this
stupid. The comment I made was perfectly relevant to your contention
that the evolution of our brain capacity was influenced by eating
meat. If you don't understand what is involved in making this
contention, that is not my problem.