On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 3:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Don wrote:
> >>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> 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"?
> >>> This so called *moral code* is largely a figment of the posters imagination.
> >> No. What is imaginary is your belief that you are
> >> morally superior by virtue of not consuming animal
> >> parts. That such a false moral belief underlies
> >> "veganism" is not in rational dispute.
>
> > Why is it false,
>
> Not consuming the parts doesn't mean one doesn't harm
> animals, killer.

Yes, I know. Maybe you could answer the question that you snipped.