On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>news:1181029663.976921.25060@j4g2000prf. googlegroups.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.

Silly man.

> 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.
>

This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
replying.

> >> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
>
> > Stop projecting
>
> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.

No - accurately describing *you*.