You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
to meat eating.

The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
to do any of it.

It's like pollution...

No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
utilitarian standpoint.

But it is like pollution. Less polution benefits the
human animal as well as other lifeforms. Less
land taken from nature to grow excessive crop
needs benefit humans and animals too.

Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not?

It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.

I do. I think it's morally wrong to do what many
big companies do to the air and water. Any
effort to lessen damage on their part would
be a good thing in my view.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
to meat eating.

The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
to do any of it.


It's like pollution...

No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
utilitarian standpoint.


But it is like pollution.

It is NOT like pollution: no one believes pollution
_per se_ to be absolutely wrong, the way you profess to
believe killing animals to be absolutely wrong.

Pollution is undesirable from a *utilitarian*
standpoint. My toilet being stopped up is undesirable,
but it is not morally bad.



Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not?

It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.


I do.

No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
undesirable, not morally wrong.

In article . net,
Jay Santos wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:


Scented Nectar wrote:


"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004

And you're back to insults rather than arguments.

The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.


Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis.

If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then,
they don't really believe in their X.

False - being religious doesn't require attending
service.

You're off to a bad start, shitbag.


If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life
then, obviously they don't believe in honesty.

If they state their belief in honesty as a moral
absolute, then yes, they don't believe in honesty.

You're sinking faster, shitbag.


You just reached the bottom.

Yes, you have. You stated your position that one MUST act towards there
belief and do what is necessary, or all they can or be labeled as not
believing in the moral or ethic under discussion.

In article et,
Jay Santos wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:


Sophomore Ron wrote:


In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:



"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.


Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?

Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?


That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence

I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
your usual blowhard windy equivocation."

Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.

Do you? Do you do everything possible in furtherance of this belief? NO?
You're having a discussion with me. Obviously, you are spending time
here rather than following through on your *belief* (ahem) that this
behaviour is wrong. I am only left to one conclusion: you don't believe
that this wrong, otherwise you COULD and WOULD do more.

Shame. She lets some animals die. You let children get sodomized.

Ron wrote:

In article . net,
Jay Santos wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:



Scented Nectar wrote:



"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004

And you're back to insults rather than arguments.

The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.


Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis.

If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then,
they don't really believe in their X.

False - being religious doesn't require attending
service.

You're off to a bad start, shitbag.


If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life
then, obviously they don't believe in honesty.

If they state their belief in honesty as a moral
absolute, then yes, they don't believe in honesty.

You're sinking faster, shitbag.


You just reached the bottom.


Yes,

Yes, you have.

Ron wrote:

In article et,
Jay Santos wrote:


Ron wrote:

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:



Sophomore Ron wrote:



In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:




"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.


Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?

Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?


That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence

I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
your usual blowhard windy equivocation."

Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.


Do you?

Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
morally wrong?

Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
reading yet more of your trite sophistry.

Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not?

It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.


I do.

No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
undesirable, not morally wrong.

I view it as morally wrong to willfully (stole that
word from ricky) pollute the air or water that we
all have to share on this earth.

Are you going to still insist that I don't see it
as morally wrong? Guess what, it's me who
decides that, not you.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not?

It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.


I do.

No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
undesirable, not morally wrong.


I view it as morally wrong to willfully

No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.

No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
undesirable, not morally wrong.


I view it as morally wrong to willfully

No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.

Oh, you mean my farting? After a while the body
gets used to both beans and cruciferae veggies.
The extra farting goes away. Ok, seriously, what
polluting are you talking about?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
undesirable, not morally wrong.


I view it as morally wrong to willfully

No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.


Oh, you mean my farting?

No, I mean your use of fossil fuels, and your household
waste. I suppose we should include the toxic
rhetorical output, too, but that's not as important.

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
news 8
Oh, you mean my farting? After a while the body
gets used to both beans and cruciferae veggies.
The extra farting goes away. Ok, seriously, what
polluting are you talking about?

Don't forget, pastured cattle fart an aweful lot more than vegans.

John

Don't forget, pastured cattle fart an aweful lot more than vegans.

John

That's for sure. I read somewhere that on pig farms alone,
the threat to the ozone (or was it the greenhouse effect)
was quite high.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

wrote
Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
who's who.

How do you like it?

The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from alt.philosophy.
He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his agenda
seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he can
pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack
misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on
people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never
admit it. At least he has ambition :)

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article et,
Jay Santos wrote:


Ron wrote:

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:



Sophomore Ron wrote:



In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:




"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.


Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?

Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?


That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence

I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
your usual blowhard windy equivocation."

Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.


Do you?

Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
morally wrong?

Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
reading yet more of your trite sophistry.

We both must think it okay. Since we have time to discuss anything here.
Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must
not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong. Since neither of us is
doing everything possible, we both must think it okay. Since both of us
are not doing everything possible, we both must be complicit.

Join the club, wit**** or bagshit, or whatever those cute expressions are

roflmao

"Scented Nectar" wrote

The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.

rebut If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
animals then why do I feel good about lessening
their deaths? Huh? /rebut

If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
than you are doing.

The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it, because
of the TASTE!

Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
false moral significance to it is a mistake.