Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
![]()
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. ![]() 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 ![]() Oh, you mean my farting? After a while the body gets used to both beans and cruciferae veggies. The extra farting goes away. ![]() 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The perfect G&T.... | General Cooking | |||
The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
Perfect BBQ was had | Barbecue | |||
The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) | Vegan |