|
"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. |
"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" 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. |
"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" 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. |
"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. |
"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. |
"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" 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? |
"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. |
"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. |
"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" 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:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax. 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. |
"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." |
"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 21:50:55 -0000, "Jones" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" > wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:tg21s3pemkbjtnksd6anbjesdf3dm1nto7@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" > wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4a x.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. > > 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." Did I say that I'm a vegan? No. Did I say I have a moral principle not to eat animals? No. I'm the first to congratulate them for standing by their principles but I don't share them. |
"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)
On Feb 23, 2:18*pm, Rudy Canoza SERIOUSLY
> > > > Maybe you shouldn't post at all if you're not really > being serious, which you aren't Attention Everyone! As you can tell Goobs is very, very serious and prefers that only those equal to or greater than him in seriousness bother posting to newsgroups. Sometimes Goobs gets hysterical but that's only because he's so-o-o-o serious. |
"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)
On Feb 23, 2:36*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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 > om... > >>>>>> 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.- and refusing to shoot everyone you meet doesn't either. You're still a homocidal maniac even if you haven't killed anyone. Right Goobs? I'm serious. |
"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)
On Feb 23, 3:07*pm, "Jones" > wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > > 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 > m... > >>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" > wrote: > >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message > >>>>>>news:tg21s3pemkbjtnksd6anbjesdf3dm1nto7@4ax. com... > >>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4a x.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. > > > 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." > > Did I say that I'm a vegan? No. Did I say I have a moral principle not to eat > animals? No. I'm the first to congratulate them for standing by their principles but > I don't share them.- and with *that* statement you just sent Goobs over the edge. He will now respond with sheer hysterics. |
"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 21:50:55 -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." > > Did I say that I'm a vegan? No. Did I say I have a moral principle not to eat > animals? No. I'm the first to congratulate them for standing by their principles but But they don't. |
"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)
On Feb 23, 4:50 pm, "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 > m... > >>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" > wrote: > >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message > >>>>>>news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax. 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. Sounds reasonable. Someone said that if you fast for three days, you get hunger pangs, but if you persist in not eating, your hunger pangs stops and your body switch to your body fat. It is not until 40 days is when you can honestly say you are starving. I never tried that tho, but I won't be above trying 3 days at least. |
"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)
> wrote in message ... > On Feb 23, 4:50 pm, "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 >> m... >> >>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" > wrote: >> >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >> >>>>>>news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax. 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. > > Sounds reasonable. Someone said that if you fast for three days, you > get hunger pangs, but if you persist in not eating, your hunger pangs > stops and your body switch to your body fat. It is not until 40 days > is when you can honestly say you are starving. I never tried that > tho, but I won't be above trying 3 days at least. When I carb down to 25grams a day, after about 2 weeks my body switches from being a carb eater into a fat eater. I use lipolysis testing strips to measure the keytones in my urine to confirm that I'm burning off my excess fat when they turn from pink to dark purple. During this time I can eat as much meat and cheese as I want and still lose the fat even if I don't work out because meat and cheese contains no carbs at all. I can't do this on a vegetarian diet because of the carbs in vegetables and fruit. An apple contains about 13 grams of carbs and if I eat 2 a day my body will no longer be in a state of lipolysis and the fat doesn't get burned off. I can burn off up to 10lbs of fat a week using this method. It's hell to start with because the lack of carbs leave me exhausted but I soon get used to it and find all the energy I need from my body fat. I wouldn't recommend everyone use it to lose weight but it works well for me. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter