On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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
> 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.
>
> ****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.
>

Which in no way contradicts anything I said.

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

Stop projecting, you silly fool.