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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 06:40 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

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.


I'm asking the questions here, cocksucker.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 07:13 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Scented Nectar" wrote

[..]

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.


If you get to decide what is the right amount of animal killing then so do
I. Mine includes killing some livestock.


Why just livestock. What "wrong" with a little tiger stew, roast dog, or
elephant burgers? It seems to me that there are religious and cultural
elements to OUR dietary needs, just as the vegan is accused of following
some religious ideals. I seem to recall a Christian perspective on what
animals are acceptable to kill for food and which aren't. Oddly, we do
seem to follow this as a culture.

I wonder the outcome for a person living in largely religious society
that refuses to comply with those dietary expectations.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 07:24 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"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.


Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.

Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.

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.


Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
hypocritical on your part.

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.


And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
(It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
double standards that are involved.)

So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
right.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 07:24 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"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.


Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.

Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.

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.


Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
hypocritical on your part.

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.


And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
(It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
double standards that are involved.)

So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
right.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 07:27 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

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.


No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
others from doing it.

Why do you deliberately do that which you consider
absolutely wrong, stupid homo?


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 07:33 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"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.


There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

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.


A nice phrase to remove responsibility. A justified killing is still a
killing. Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal. Just as
killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
"divine".

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?


Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

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.


Hmmm.

Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

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.

  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 07:33 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"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.


There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

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.


A nice phrase to remove responsibility. A justified killing is still a
killing. Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal. Just as
killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
"divine".

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?


Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

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.


Hmmm.

Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

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.

  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 10:28 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Scented Nectar" wrote

[..]

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.


If you get to decide what is the right amount of animal killing then so
do
I. Mine includes killing some livestock.


Why just livestock.


I didn't say *just*, I also eat hunted meat occasionally.

What "wrong" with a little tiger stew


Endangered species.

roast dog,


Cultural taboo

or
elephant burgers?


Both of above.

It seems to me that there are religious and cultural
elements to OUR dietary needs,


Yes, defintely, dietary *rules* actually, not so much needs.

just as the vegan is accused of following
some religious ideals.


I agree, but tell a vegan that they follow some "religious ideal" and they
will argue that is nothing of the sort, that is strictly based on compassion
for animals.

I seem to recall a Christian perspective on what
animals are acceptable to kill for food and which aren't. Oddly, we do
seem to follow this as a culture.


Not only Christian, most religions and cultures have such customs. It's a
curious hodge-podge, the human mindset towards animals.

I wonder the outcome for a person living in largely religious society
that refuses to comply with those dietary expectations.


Isn't it apparent? If one hears that a particular Asian family in the
neighbourhood is eating dog meat, all hell ensues.


  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 10:28 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Scented Nectar" wrote

[..]

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.


If you get to decide what is the right amount of animal killing then so
do
I. Mine includes killing some livestock.


Why just livestock.


I didn't say *just*, I also eat hunted meat occasionally.

What "wrong" with a little tiger stew


Endangered species.

roast dog,


Cultural taboo

or
elephant burgers?


Both of above.

It seems to me that there are religious and cultural
elements to OUR dietary needs,


Yes, defintely, dietary *rules* actually, not so much needs.

just as the vegan is accused of following
some religious ideals.


I agree, but tell a vegan that they follow some "religious ideal" and they
will argue that is nothing of the sort, that is strictly based on compassion
for animals.

I seem to recall a Christian perspective on what
animals are acceptable to kill for food and which aren't. Oddly, we do
seem to follow this as a culture.


Not only Christian, most religions and cultures have such customs. It's a
curious hodge-podge, the human mindset towards animals.

I wonder the outcome for a person living in largely religious society
that refuses to comply with those dietary expectations.


Isn't it apparent? If one hears that a particular Asian family in the
neighbourhood is eating dog meat, all hell ensues.


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 10:40 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" wrote:

[..]

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.


Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.


You left your Thinking Cap over there as well.

Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.


Why? You know exactly which instances, since by a strange coincidence they
are the same as yours.

Go figure.

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.


Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
hypocritical on your part.


Hold on, you must have skipped over the last sentence.

"What we are morally obliged to do is refrain from any deliberate act that
leads to a rights violation."

Since she believes in some incoherent way that animals have rights, and
commercial agriculture involves deliberate and also unmitigated accidental
killing of animals, then she is obligated by her own standards to avoid
deliberate involvement with commercial agriculture. She does not, she does
not even have the intestinal fortitude after many vears of vegetarianism to
go completely vegan, even though her misguided morality informs her that is
imperative that she do so. Her "animal morality" is a joke.

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.


And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.


And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much further.

(It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
double standards that are involved.)


I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it ought to
be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.

So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
right.


Yes, and no.




  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2004, 11:34 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" 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.


There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
smoking friend then you must be complicit there.


Attempting to impart information or give an opinion about an act is not
complicity in the act. If I tell my friend he oughta quit shoplifting, that
doesn't make me complicit in it. If I BUY some of the stuff, THEN I'm
complicit. Get the difference?

You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.


That would not amount to complicity.

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.


A nice phrase to remove responsibility


It defines responsibility, it doesn't remove it.

A justified killing is still a
killing.


Yes, what does justification have to do with it?

Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal.


Naturally.

Just as
killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
"divine".


You take valid concepts and reduce them to absurdities. This is fallacious
thinking.

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?


Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.


You aren't, you're groping in the dark. You have some agenda that is
preventing you from understanding basic concepts. You have brief lucid
periods which makes me discount the idea that you're just dumb.

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.


Hmmm.

Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.


Not even remotely. I have taken no active role in her pot smoking, in fact I
have attempted to discourage it. Following from that, if she quit because of
my advice and subsequently had a negative outcome, it could be argued that I
was morally complicit, although not really, as I have offered my advice on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis.


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.



  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2004, 02:09 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" wrote:

[..]

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.


Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.


You left your Thinking Cap over there as well.

Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.


Why? You know exactly which instances, since by a strange coincidence they
are the same as yours.

Go figure.

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.


Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
hypocritical on your part.


Hold on, you must have skipped over the last sentence.

"What we are morally obliged to do is refrain from any deliberate act that
leads to a rights violation."

Since she believes in some incoherent way that animals have rights, and
commercial agriculture involves deliberate and also unmitigated accidental
killing of animals, then she is obligated by her own standards to avoid
deliberate involvement with commercial agriculture. She does not, she does
not even have the intestinal fortitude after many vears of vegetarianism to
go completely vegan, even though her misguided morality informs her that is
imperative that she do so. Her "animal morality" is a joke.

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.


And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.


And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much further.

(It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
double standards that are involved.)


I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it ought to
be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.


I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
but still allow us to do them. It's called justification. Such
justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.

So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
right.


Yes, and no.

  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2004, 02:17 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" 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.


There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
smoking friend then you must be complicit there.


Attempting to impart information or give an opinion about an act is not
complicity in the act. If I tell my friend he oughta quit shoplifting, that
doesn't make me complicit in it. If I BUY some of the stuff, THEN I'm
complicit. Get the difference?

You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.


That would not amount to complicity.

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.


A nice phrase to remove responsibility


It defines responsibility, it doesn't remove it.

A justified killing is still a
killing.


Yes, what does justification have to do with it?

Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal.


Naturally.

Just as
killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
"divine".


You take valid concepts and reduce them to absurdities. This is fallacious
thinking.

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?


Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.


You aren't, you're groping in the dark. You have some agenda that is
preventing you from understanding basic concepts. You have brief lucid
periods which makes me discount the idea that you're just dumb.

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.


Hmmm.

Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.


Not even remotely. I have taken no active role in her pot smoking, in fact I
have attempted to discourage it. Following from that, if she quit because of
my advice and subsequently had a negative outcome, it could be argued that I
was morally complicit, although not really, as I have offered my advice on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis.


We disagree. The website you asked me to read supports legalization of
pot. Therefore, you are at least involved in allowing her legal access
to the very drug that you claim is harmful to her personal and social
well-being.

You've stated that you support legalization of pot, at least I think it
was your post. As a result of your condoning this behaviour in society,
you have made it "okay" for her to do so. You attempt to "mitigate" your
responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the drug.
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2004, 02:56 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t,
Jay Santos wrote:

Ron wrote:

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.


No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
others from doing it.


This is a contradiction to the position of moral requirements. I ask
again, is brooming children wrong. Have stopped yourself from doing? If
yes, then you are now obligated to stop others from doing.

What a loon.

Why do you deliberately do that which you consider
absolutely wrong, stupid homo?


I'll tell ya about it when you blow me.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2004, 04:03 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
Jay Santos wrote:

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.


You don't have the power to stop me from doing anything.

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


Projection is a terrible thing to waste! *winks*


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The perfect G&T.... Aussie General Cooking 19 24-11-2010 06:23 AM
The perfect cup of tea aaaaa Tea 13 03-01-2007 07:27 PM
Perfect BBQ was had Duwop Barbecue 0 27-05-2005 10:47 PM
The perfect cup of tea Captain Infinity Tea 12 19-04-2005 08:20 PM
The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) Jay Santos Vegan 23 19-12-2004 12:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017