Rupert wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>> 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. 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.

****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
justified.

You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.