FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hardto make up) (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/149664-jones-cant-make-up.html)

Rudy Canoza[_4_] 23-02-2008 08:11 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hardto make up)
 
I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Mr.Smartypants[_2_] 23-02-2008 08:39 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)
 
On Feb 23, 1:11*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

1 130.191.3.6 Succeed USA - California SDSU-NET San Diego State
University 130.191.0.0 130.191.255.255 Yes San Diego State
University 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego ARIN newshub.sdsu.edu
gondor.sdsu.edu

2 207.217.77.102 Succeed USA - Georgia EARTHLINK-CIDR EARTHLINK, Inc.
207.217.0.0 207.217.255.255 Yes EARTHLINK, Inc. 1375 PEACHTREE
STREET, LEVEL A, ATLANTA
+1-404-815-0770 ARIN newsfeed.earthlink.net
newsfeed.earthlink.net

3 207.217.77.60 Succeed USA - Georgia EARTHLINK-CIDR EARTHLINK, Inc.
207.217.0.0 207.217.255.255 Yes EARTHLINK, Inc. 1375 PEACHTREE
STREET, LEVEL A, ATLANTA

+1-404-815-0770 ARIN
stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net

4 81.93.163.147 Succeed Norway NO-BASEFARM-NET Basefarm lb2-net
81.93.163.128 81.93.163.255 Yes Grethe Viksaas Basefarm AS,
Gullhaugveien 9, NO-0484 OSLO, NORWAY

+47 4000 4100 +47 4000 4080 RIPE NCC norvege.no
norvege.no

5 1.8.1.2 Succeed USA - California RESERVED-9 Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority 1.0.0.0 1.255.255.255 No Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330, Marina del Rey
+1-310-301-5820 ARIN

6 69.3.212.154 Succeed USA - California NETBLK-COVAD-IP-4-NET Covad
Communications Co. 69.3.0.0 69.3.255.255 Yes Covad Communications
Co. 2510 Zanker Rd., San Jose

+1-703-376-2830 ARIN h-69-3-212-154.lsanca54.dynamic.covad.net

7 209.86.93.205 Succeed USA - Georgia EARTHLINK2000-E EarthLink, Inc.
209.86.0.0 209.86.255.255 Yes EarthLink, Inc. 1375 PEACHTREE ST,
LEVEL A, ATLANTA

+1-404-
815-0770 ARIN earthlink.net earthlink.net

8 207.217.77.54 Succeed USA - Georgia EARTHLINK-CIDR EARTHLINK, Inc.
207.217.0.0 207.217.255.255 Yes EARTHLINK, Inc. 1375 PEACHTREE
STREET, LEVEL A, ATLANTA

+1-404-815-0770 ARIN
newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net



Derek[_2_] 23-02-2008 09:00 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.


Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

Jones 23-02-2008 09:02 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.


Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?


I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
none of us actually are.



Derek[_2_] 23-02-2008 09:06 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.


Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?


I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
none of us actually are.


Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.

Jones 23-02-2008 09:13 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?


I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
none of us actually are.


Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.


Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.



Rudy Canoza[_3_] 23-02-2008 09:17 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn'tbe hard to make up)
 
Derek wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.


Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?


Not inadvertently. If it were intentional, it wouldn't
be a mistake; it would be 'avin' a larf.

Rudy Canoza[_3_] 23-02-2008 09:18 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn'tbe hard to make up)
 
Jones wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
none of us actually are.

Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.


Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.


Maybe you shouldn't post at all if you're not really
being serious, which you aren't.

Derek[_2_] 23-02-2008 09:24 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
none of us actually are.


Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.


Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.


That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.

Jones 23-02-2008 09:32 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality
none of us actually are.

Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.


Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.


That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.


I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?



Rudy Canoza[_3_] 23-02-2008 09:35 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn'tbe hard to make up)
 
Jones wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?


I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
none of us actually are.


You said, "That's exactly what we all do --- the best
we can." You didn't write, "That's what we all say we
do"; you said that's what we all do.

You're explicitly saying that "vegans" who say they're
doing the best they can really are. I've shown you
that they're not. Those "vegans" who have been pushed
first off the "no harm to animals" claim, and then off
the false "minimizing" claim, usually land at the
"doing the best I can" position, and I have shown that
they're not.

Rudy Canoza[_3_] 23-02-2008 09:36 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn'tbe hard to make up)
 
Jones wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality
none of us actually are.
Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.

That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.


I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans


No, I'm saying that none of the status claims "vegans"
make for themselves is true. I'm right. Refraining
from consuming animal parts does not alter the
"vegan's" moral status one bit.

Derek[_2_] 23-02-2008 09:37 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality
none of us actually are.

Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.

Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.


That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.


I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?


Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?

Jones 23-02-2008 09:50 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality
none of us actually are.

Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.

Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
the
best we can, in reality we aren't.

That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.


I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?


Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?


I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during the
winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body into
a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large amounts
of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym? When
you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring at
first but you soon get used to it.



Derek[_2_] 23-02-2008 09:59 PM

"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
 
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:55 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality none of us actually are.

Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.

Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
the best we can, in reality we aren't.

That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.

I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?


Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?


I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during the
winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body into
a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large amounts
of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym? When
you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring at
first but you soon get used to it.


Then, against your better judgment you let vanity decide your
moral principles? You want to look good, not just be happy
with being healthy, and in order to do it you throw whatever
moral principles you have regarding animals into the waste
basket. Sorry, Jones, but "I don't buy that."


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter