In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> [..]
>
> >> I'm not arguing absolutes, that's a strawman. There is wide gap between
> >> acknowledging a valid principle and calling it absolute. In human affairs
> >> very little is absolute. In other words, you are not refuting my
> >> arguments
> >> by asserting that they are not absolute.
> >
> > Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.
>
> No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
> whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be the
> case, get used to it.
>
> > For example, you
> > claimed that eating meat was not wrong.
>
> It isn't.
>
> > Well, that isn't true based on
> > the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> > meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat in
> > North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement of
> > absoluteness.
>
> Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a response
> to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
> relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement. Vegans
> are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are referring
> to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the charge
> in my response.

We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
all animals (an absolute), but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
generalization).

> > To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> > using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton why
> > is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger meat?
>
> First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof of
> "circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because *you*
> asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel and
> tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by western
> culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
> endangered species status among others.

Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
are not inherent. In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
is not right but determined by such things as time and location.

> > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
>
> Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
> don't?

Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic by
having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above. I can
retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on eating
meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.

You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given issue.