Rupert wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
> replying.

Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
what you said. You said something needs to be
justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
****. "Something needs to be justified" is
contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.

You're stupid - terminally stupid.


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

rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.