" 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.

There's that absolute or nothing demand.

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!

What about my health and nutrition beliefs? I don't think eating
dead body parts is a good thing. By the way, if all meateaters
were to turn to your low cd wild game, they'd be extinct in no time.




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

"John Coleman" wrote in message
...

"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.
===============
Then you need to boycot rice, stupid...



John

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
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.
===============
More of you stupid research, killer?


Now, you need to boycott rice, if you are really concerned with methane.
But then, just like animal deaths, it's all just a pose for you, has you
care nothing about either, right hypocrite?



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

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

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 :)

Let's test your's and Jay's theory....

What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.

Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but I
hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.

the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the killing
of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
you.

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:

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.

Killing people as well as animals. Is it morally right, wrong or morally
netural to kill people under these circumstances, Jay.

Don't rush to answer. I know this must be difficult for you.

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"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.

Thank you for repeating yourself...

If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
about sexually broomed children.

If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
more about the death of humans

If you really thought it was wrong....

Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.



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.

In article ,
"Scented Nectar" wrote:

Sophomore Ron, do 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?

Careful with this one Ron. He loves to talk about
sodomizing children and comparing it to meat
eating. Why he loves to talk about it I don't know.

Meat eating is the sign of latent homosexuality.

Shh. You'll scare them away and I'm on a membership drive. Didn't you
get the memo. roflmao

Meat eating is the sign of latent homosexuality.

Shh. You'll scare them away and I'm on a membership drive. Didn't you
get the memo. roflmao

LOL Good luck. You get an extra chalk mark
on the wall for bedding a phobic troll! That's
a hard one to do (pun happened).


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

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:45:44 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

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

Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening"
your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong
to kill animals?

You're not very bright. I obviously think it's
wrong to kill animals.

Then why do you participate in killing ANY? Obviously,
you do NOT consider it wrong to kill animals.

Similarly, why do you participate in the killing of humans?
Obviously, you do NOT consider it wrong to kill humans
for your convenience.

[According to the National Safety Council, agriculture
and mining are the two most hazardous occupations in
the country. In 1996, 21 accidental deaths occurred per
100,000 agricultural workers, compared with a national
average of 4 deaths per 100,000 workers for all industries.
A recent survey of 2,000 Kentucky farmers found that
each year one of every eight farm families experiences
an accident requiring medical attention.]
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/he282.htm

According to your logic, people who don't seek out zero-
human death foods are guilty of showing a contempt for
their belief in human rights. How much coal are you
directly and indirectly responsible for, Jon? And there's
the meat packers to consider as well. The harms accrued
in this industry are a direct result of your diet, yet you do
nothing to stop them. In fact, you reward the meat packing
industry for the harms you intentionally cause.

[In 1999, more than one-quarter of America's nearly
150,000 meat packing workers suffered a job-related
injury or illness. The meat packing industry not only has
the highest injury rate, but also has by far the highest
rate of serious injury-more than five times the national
average, as measured in lost workdays.]
http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/...atpacking.html

Those numbers might be even greater than those given
in that example, but if you go to this link
http://146.142.4.24/labjava/outside.jsp?survey=sh
and add up all the injuries in the meat, poultry and dairy
trades you'll find that the numbers of human collateral
harms in the meat trade exceed all others.

Being that you hold all vegans responsible, in fact causal
to the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food, it is only reasonable to insist that you take full
responsibility for the collateral harms you cause to humans
by your diet and conclude that you are showing a contempt
for the rights of humans. How much coffee and chocolate
do you buy from child slave labour?

Scented Nectar wrote:
...
What about my health and nutrition beliefs?

Your health and nutrition "beliefs" are footed on the same activist
bullshit you used for the rest of your crap.

I don't think eating
dead body parts is a good thing.

On what basis?

By the way, if all meateaters
were to turn to your low cd wild game, they'd be extinct in no time.

Ipse dixit. You've yet to prove this asinine claim you've been repeating
all day.

Jay Santos wrote in news:2LYzd.4737$qf5.66
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Didn't really want to jump into this thread, but this is too ridiculous to
ignore.

But ethical values are different; they're not
utilitarian.

There are a good many utilitarian ethicists who would disagree with you. In
fact, utilitarianism is the dominant, though not the only, approach to
moral reasoning, especially in Anglo-American academia.

Furthermore, not only utilitarians, but many ethicists favoring other
approaches, such as deontologists, would adopt some form of the "least
harm" rule. Sometimes doing no harm is not an available option. And
sometimes causing less of one harm may cause more of another. Thus the
rule, "do the least harm, all things considered, that the circumstances and
available choices permit."

Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
something that makes us all worse off than we would be
if there were no pollution.

Anything that may make anyone worse off or better off is by definition a
moral issue.

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" wrote:

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 :)

Let's test your's and Jay's theory....

What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.

Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but I
hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.

the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the killing
of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
you.

Ouch! Poor attempt Ron. First of all, killing a human is not absolutely
wrong, it's wrong by default, but there are several exceptions. Arguably
nothing is *absolutely* wrong, but that's another debate. More importantly,
you are confusing passive and active rights. We are not morally obliged
under rights theory to seek out every injustice everywhere and attempt to
stamp them all out. We are not supermen. What we are morally obliged to do
is refrain from any deliberate act that leads to a rights violation.

This leads us to the case of vegans, they begin by postulating that animals
possess the same basic right to life as humans. They try to come into accord
with this idea by attempting (usually ineptly) to remove "animal products"
from their lives. But if animals truly have a "basic right to life", then
they must go further, because the food they buy in the markets and most
every product that benefits them entails the violation of many of these
alleged rights, and they are deliberately subsizing it all.

"Ron" wrote
Jay Santos wrote:

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.

that kills humans too....

Jay, jay, jay.

tsk, tsk, tsk.

Think "mitigation" Ron.

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" wrote:

"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.

Thank you for repeating yourself...

You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..

If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
about sexually broomed children.

Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with abuse
of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be OK
if I did, but I am not obliged.

If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
more about the death of humans

Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals who
they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers when
they purchase consumer goods.

If you really thought it was wrong....

Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.

You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?

Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
study from.

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.

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


Sophomore Ron wrote:


In article et,
Jay Santos wrote:



Sophomore Ron wrote:


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.

No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.

Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
to answer, cocksucker?

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.

****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
evil for doing it.

The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
It isn't about me preventing you from doing
something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
YOU about YOUR behavior.

Do you get it, cocksucker? You stupid, brick-headed,
pouncing homo cocksucker.