Rupert wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.

Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
You are claiming there is something that needs to be
justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
is nothing that needs to be justified.


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

No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.