On Jun 6, 6:00 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
> >> > the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
> >> > were replying.
>
> >> Discrimination is every animal's most important survival tool. Without
> >> the
> >> ability to discriminate antelope would walk right up to a pride of lions
> >> and
> >> we would continue to eat foods known to be poisonous. You have taken a
> >> negative *******ization of the word and made into your reality.
>
> > Discrimination, in the sense of making different moral judgements
> > about two different cases, requires justification, i.e. pointing out
> > some morally relevant distinction between the cases. This is a basic
> > point in moral philosophy.
>
> >> > You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that we
> >> > would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
> >> > humans to save ourselves. I don't agree with this and I bothered to
> >> > say something about it, but I don't regard it as a major issue. (You
> >> > later conflated this with the issue of whether there is anything to
> >> > justify about the practice of eating meat, obviously I regard that as
> >> > a more important issue).
>
> >> That cannot be the issue, because meat is dead. The issue must come
> >> earlier,
> >> that is the killing or, or the sponsoring of the killing of animals for
> >> the
> >> purpose of creating food. Then the question must be asked, why is it
> >> necessary to justify the killing an animal to turn it into food and
> >> clothing
> >> and other useful products while at the same time it does not seem to be
> >> necessary to justify killing animals collaterally in other forms of
> >> agriculture. This raises the point, isn't food the justification?
>
> > Both require some justification.
>
> Food, what better justification could there be?
>

That's a totally inadequate justification.

> > A form of agriculture which causes
> > less harm might be easier to justify.
>
> Easier to justify than food?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > 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 and it's not worth arguing about.
>
> >> >> Er, no. The question "What is there to justify?" means exactly what it
> >> >> asks,
> >> >> "What is there to justify?"; i.e. "What is there to justify if people
> >> >> kill
> >> >> animals to eat?"
>
> >> > That's actually not what we were talking about. Saying "what is there
> >> > to justify" about that issue is really just a move to opt out of
> >> > serious discussion of the issue. If you're not interested in seriously
> >> > discussing the issue, you probably shouldn't be on
> >> > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.
>
> >> You're constantly condescending towards people,

You have some nerve criticizing me for being condescending.

> implying they're not
> >> discussing the issues properly, but you never say much of any substance
> >> yourself.
>
> > I am only condescending as tit-for-tat. The points I make in reply to
> > people are usually relevant, good points. In particular, I have
> > pointed out important limitations to the arguments the antis make
> > here, which they have never really adequately responded to.
>
> If you have made such points I don't recall reading them.

I've made plenty of such points to Jon Ball in this very thread. Have
another read.