"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > 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),

Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no moral
objection to using animals that die of natural causes.

> but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
> generalization).

They are both generalizations.

> > > 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.

They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example, morals
almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there is
no reason for a moral precept to exist.

> In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> is not right but determined by such things as time and location.

Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion between
myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other circumstances.
Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.

> > > 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.

Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.

> 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.

I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very principle
over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit premeditated
murder and conclude that I have done something moral.

> 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.

Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > 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),
>
> Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no moral
> objection to using animals that die of natural causes.

The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
common to Christianity and Western nations?

> > but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
> > generalization).
>
> They are both generalizations.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example, morals
> almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there is
> no reason for a moral precept to exist.

There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you."

> > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>
> Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion between
> myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other circumstances.
> Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.

Yet, you use the term.

> > > > 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.
>
> Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.

Arguments from popularity are exactly that. Once again, I ask how is the
golden rule the required morality for any human? I agree it is common to
North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.

> > 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.
>
> I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very principle
> over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit premeditated
> murder and conclude that I have done something moral.

Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.

There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.

> > 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.
>
> Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?

That wasn't my point at all.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

> > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > > all animals (an absolute),
> >
> > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
moral
> > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
>
> The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
> the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
> common to Christianity and Western nations?

You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just go
on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.

[..]
> > > 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.
> >
> > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
morals
> > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there
is
> > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
>
> There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
> be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.

> > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
> >
> > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
between
> > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
circumstances.
> > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
>
> Yet, you use the term.

Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.

It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
>
> Arguments from popularity are exactly that.

Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
suffering under a delusion.

> Once again, I ask how is the
> golden rule the required morality for any human?

Strawman.

> I agree it is common to
> North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
> and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
> Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.

I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
popularity.

> > > 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.
> >
> > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
principle
> > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
premeditated
> > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
>
> Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.

I did the exact opposite.

> There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
> killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
> desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
> itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.

You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are not
being coherent.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
>
> That wasn't my point at all.

It's precisely what you said right above. "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."

You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
involve what a group of humans think.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > > > all animals (an absolute),
> > >
> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
> moral
> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
> >
> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
>
> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just go
> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.

Again, you avoid accountability for your comments. You stated that
actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance. Even though we
disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

> [..]
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
> morals
> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there
> is
> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
> >
> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>
> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.

Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
> > >
> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
> between
> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
> circumstances.
> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
> >
> > Yet, you use the term.
>
> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.

That amounts to hypocrisy.

> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.

Try a mirror, Dutch.

> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
> >
> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
>
> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
> suffering under a delusion.

Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
beliefs and thinking.

What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
something is wrong?

> > Once again, I ask how is the
> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>
> Strawman.

The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

> > I agree it is common to
> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
>
> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
> popularity.

I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
fallacy. Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
have been able to supply is one of popularity.

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
> principle
> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
> premeditated
> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
> >
> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
>
> I did the exact opposite.

How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
>
> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are not
> being coherent.

Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
> >
> > That wasn't my point at all.
>
> It's precisely what you said right above. "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."
>
> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
> involve what a group of humans think.

Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
label it as morality.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers
>> > > > to
>> > > > all animals (an absolute),
>> > >
>> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to
>> > > animals
>> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
>> moral
>> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
>> >
>> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
>> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
>> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
>>
>> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just
>> go
>> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.
>
> Again, you avoid accountability for your comments.

Not my comments, an irrationally cobbled-together bunch of comments with a
question mark at the end?

>You stated that
> actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance.

Indisputable.

> Even though we
> disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
> effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
> vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

Incoherent nonsense.

>
>> [..]
>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
>> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
>> morals
>> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then
>> > > there
>> is
>> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
>> >
>> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
>> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle
>> > "do
>> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>>
>> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.
>
> Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
> violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

Whew! finally a coherent question, I suppose it was inevitable.

Tolerating other people killing animals on their behalf in the production of
food while attacking and demonizing good people for doing the same thing.

>> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
>> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>> > >
>> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
>> between
>> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
>> circumstances.
>> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
>> >
>> > Yet, you use the term.
>>
>> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
>> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.
>
> That amounts to hypocrisy.

No it amounts to using words responsibly and rationally based on agreed upon
meanings.

>> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.
>
> Try a mirror, Dutch.

Yes, please do Ron.

>
>> > > > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
>> >
>> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
>>
>> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
>> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
>> suffering under a delusion.
>
> Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
> disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
> beliefs and thinking.
>
> What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
> something is wrong?

Tch tch, Ron, don't bullshit me. Every time you hear an idea that smacks of
"conventional wisdom" you sneer "Spoonfed" as if an idea is believed by many
people it is wrong by defnition.

>> > Once again, I ask how is the
>> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>>
>> Strawman.
>
> The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
> required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
> guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
> describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

I did actually describe it explicitly, but the question misses the mark by
so much it hardly matters.
>
>> > I agree it is common to
>> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
>> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
>> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
>>
>> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
>> popularity.
>
> I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
> fallacy.

You have never even attempted to establish that anything I have said was an
argument from popularity, you simply asserted it then proceeded as if it
were proven.

> Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
> have been able to supply is one of popularity.

This degree of blind stupidity is bordering on the unforgivable. I have
explained the rationale behind the golden rule at least once in detail. Are
you not reading my responses? If not, then why should I continue?

>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity
>> > > in
>> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
>> principle
>> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
>> premeditated
>> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
>> >
>> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
>>
>> I did the exact opposite.
>
> How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
> assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
> murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

Don't move the goalposts slimeball, I did the opposite of integrate legal
with moral, GET IT? Read it until you do.

>> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
>> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
>> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
>> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
>>
>> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are
>> not
>> being coherent.
>
> Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

Their own.

>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
>> >
>> > That wasn't my point at all.
>>
>> It's precisely what you said right above. "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."
>>
>> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
>> involve what a group of humans think.
>
> Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
> gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
> label it as morality.

Why is it relevant that the thinking is commonly held? You appear to be
embracing a reverse version of "argumentum ad populum" and calling that
wisdom.

The Ron plan goes like this.. since people who simply accept popular ideas
willy-nilly are committing an error in thinking, I will avoid that error by
simply rejecting popular ideas out of hand.

The main difference between them and you is only that they are probably
right more of the time.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > all animals (an absolute),
> >> > >
> >> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to
> >> > > animals
> >> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
> >> moral
> >> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
> >> >
> >> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
> >> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
> >> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
> >>
> >> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just
> >> go
> >> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.
> >
> > Again, you avoid accountability for your comments.
>
> Not my comments, an irrationally cobbled-together bunch of comments with a
> question mark at the end?
>
> >You stated that
> > actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance.
>
> Indisputable.
>
> > Even though we
> > disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
> > effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
> > vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.
>
> Incoherent nonsense.
>
> >
> >> [..]
> >> > > > 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.
> >> > >
> >> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> >> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
> >> morals
> >> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then
> >> > > there
> >> is
> >> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
> >> >
> >> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
> >> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle
> >> > "do
> >> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> >>
> >> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.
> >
> > Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
> > violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?
>
> Whew! finally a coherent question, I suppose it was inevitable.
>
> Tolerating other people killing animals on their behalf in the production of
> food while attacking and demonizing good people for doing the same thing.

How can you claim goodness, Dutch. The amount of time that you've spent
responding to me is time that you could have been using against those
who sodomize children.

How can you claim yourself as good, by tolerating the sodomizing of
children in our society? I guess as long as the children get used as
food, the sodomizing of them is acceptable.

> >> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> >> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
> >> > >
> >> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
> >> between
> >> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
> >> circumstances.
> >> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
> >> >
> >> > Yet, you use the term.
> >>
> >> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
> >> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.
> >
> > That amounts to hypocrisy.
>
> No it amounts to using words responsibly and rationally based on agreed upon
> meanings.
>
> >> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.
> >
> > Try a mirror, Dutch.
>
> Yes, please do Ron.
>
> >
> >> > > > > > 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.
> >> > >
> >> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
> >> >
> >> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
> >>
> >> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
> >> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
> >> suffering under a delusion.
> >
> > Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
> > disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
> > beliefs and thinking.
> >
> > What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
> > something is wrong?
>
> Tch tch, Ron, don't bullshit me. Every time you hear an idea that smacks of
> "conventional wisdom" you sneer "Spoonfed" as if an idea is believed by many
> people it is wrong by defnition.
>
> >> > Once again, I ask how is the
> >> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
> >>
> >> Strawman.
> >
> > The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
> > required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
> > guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
> > describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.
>
> I did actually describe it explicitly, but the question misses the mark by
> so much it hardly matters.
> >
> >> > I agree it is common to
> >> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
> >> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
> >> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
> >>
> >> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
> >> popularity.
> >
> > I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
> > fallacy.
>
> You have never even attempted to establish that anything I have said was an
> argument from popularity, you simply asserted it then proceeded as if it
> were proven.
>
> > Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
> > have been able to supply is one of popularity.
>
> This degree of blind stupidity is bordering on the unforgivable. I have
> explained the rationale behind the golden rule at least once in detail. Are
> you not reading my responses? If not, then why should I continue?
>
> >> > > > 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.
> >> > >
> >> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity
> >> > > in
> >> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
> >> principle
> >> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
> >> premeditated
> >> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
> >> >
> >> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
> >>
> >> I did the exact opposite.
> >
> > How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
> > assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
> > murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....
>
> Don't move the goalposts slimeball, I did the opposite of integrate legal
> with moral, GET IT? Read it until you do.
>
> >> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
> >> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
> >> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
> >> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
> >>
> >> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are
> >> not
> >> being coherent.
> >
> > Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> > violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?
>
> Their own.
>
> >> > > > 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.
> >> > >
> >> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
> >> >
> >> > That wasn't my point at all.
> >>
> >> It's precisely what you said right above. "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."
> >>
> >> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
> >> involve what a group of humans think.
> >
> > Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
> > gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
> > label it as morality.
>
> Why is it relevant that the thinking is commonly held? You appear to be
> embracing a reverse version of "argumentum ad populum" and calling that
> wisdom.
>
> The Ron plan goes like this.. since people who simply accept popular ideas
> willy-nilly are committing an error in thinking, I will avoid that error by
> simply rejecting popular ideas out of hand.
>
> The main difference between them and you is only that they are probably
> right more of the time.

Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"
>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different
issue.
> > >
> > > Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
> > > violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?
> >
> > Whew! finally a coherent question, I suppose it was inevitable.
> >
> > Tolerating other people killing animals on their behalf in the
production of
> > food while attacking and demonizing good people for doing the same
thing.
>
> How can you claim goodness, Dutch.

He didn't.

"Ron" > wrote

> How can you claim goodness, Dutch. The amount of time that you've spent
> responding to me is time that you could have been using against those
> who sodomize children.

I trust that I have been killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Intolerably weak response by the way..

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers
>> > > > to
>> > > > all animals (an absolute),
>> > >
>> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to
>> > > animals
>> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
>> moral
>> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
>> >
>> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
>> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
>> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
>>
>> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just
>> go
>> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.
>
> Again, you avoid accountability for your comments.

Not my comments, an irrationally cobbled-together bunch of comments with a
question mark at the end?

>You stated that
> actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance.

Indisputable.

> Even though we
> disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
> effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
> vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

Incoherent nonsense.

>
>> [..]
>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
>> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
>> morals
>> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then
>> > > there
>> is
>> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
>> >
>> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
>> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle
>> > "do
>> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>>
>> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.
>
> Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
> violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

Whew! finally a coherent question, I suppose it was inevitable.

Tolerating other people killing animals on their behalf in the production of
food while attacking and demonizing good people for doing the same thing.

>> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
>> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>> > >
>> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
>> between
>> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
>> circumstances.
>> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
>> >
>> > Yet, you use the term.
>>
>> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
>> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.
>
> That amounts to hypocrisy.

No it amounts to using words responsibly and rationally based on agreed upon
meanings.

>> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.
>
> Try a mirror, Dutch.

Yes, please do Ron.

>
>> > > > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
>> >
>> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
>>
>> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
>> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
>> suffering under a delusion.
>
> Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
> disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
> beliefs and thinking.
>
> What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
> something is wrong?

Tch tch, Ron, don't bullshit me. Every time you hear an idea that smacks of
"conventional wisdom" you sneer "Spoonfed" as if an idea is believed by many
people it is wrong by defnition.

>> > Once again, I ask how is the
>> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>>
>> Strawman.
>
> The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
> required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
> guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
> describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

I did actually describe it explicitly, but the question misses the mark by
so much it hardly matters.
>
>> > I agree it is common to
>> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
>> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
>> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
>>
>> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
>> popularity.
>
> I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
> fallacy.

You have never even attempted to establish that anything I have said was an
argument from popularity, you simply asserted it then proceeded as if it
were proven.

> Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
> have been able to supply is one of popularity.

This degree of blind stupidity is bordering on the unforgivable. I have
explained the rationale behind the golden rule at least once in detail. Are
you not reading my responses? If not, then why should I continue?

>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity
>> > > in
>> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
>> principle
>> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
>> premeditated
>> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
>> >
>> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
>>
>> I did the exact opposite.
>
> How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
> assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
> murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

Don't move the goalposts slimeball, I did the opposite of integrate legal
with moral, GET IT? Read it until you do.

>> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
>> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
>> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
>> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
>>
>> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are
>> not
>> being coherent.
>
> Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

Their own.

>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
>> >
>> > That wasn't my point at all.
>>
>> It's precisely what you said right above. "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."
>>
>> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
>> involve what a group of humans think.
>
> Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
> gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
> label it as morality.

Why is it relevant that the thinking is commonly held? You appear to be
embracing a reverse version of "argumentum ad populum" and calling that
wisdom.

The Ron plan goes like this.. since people who simply accept popular ideas
willy-nilly are committing an error in thinking, I will avoid that error by
simply rejecting popular ideas out of hand.

The main difference between them and you is only that they are probably
right more of the time.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > > > all animals (an absolute),
> > >
> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
> moral
> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
> >
> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
>
> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just go
> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.

Again, you avoid accountability for your comments. You stated that
actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance. Even though we
disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

> [..]
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
> morals
> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there
> is
> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
> >
> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>
> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.

Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
> > >
> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
> between
> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
> circumstances.
> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
> >
> > Yet, you use the term.
>
> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.

That amounts to hypocrisy.

> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.

Try a mirror, Dutch.

> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
> >
> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
>
> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
> suffering under a delusion.

Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
beliefs and thinking.

What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
something is wrong?

> > Once again, I ask how is the
> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>
> Strawman.

The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

> > I agree it is common to
> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
>
> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
> popularity.

I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
fallacy. Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
have been able to supply is one of popularity.

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
> principle
> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
> premeditated
> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
> >
> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
>
> I did the exact opposite.

How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
>
> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are not
> being coherent.

Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
> >
> > That wasn't my point at all.
>
> It's precisely what you said right above. "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."
>
> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
> involve what a group of humans think.

Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
label it as morality.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > 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),
>
> Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no moral
> objection to using animals that die of natural causes.

The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
common to Christianity and Western nations?

> > but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
> > generalization).
>
> They are both generalizations.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example, morals
> almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there is
> no reason for a moral precept to exist.

There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you."

> > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>
> Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion between
> myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other circumstances.
> Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.

Yet, you use the term.

> > > > 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.
>
> Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.

Arguments from popularity are exactly that. Once again, I ask how is the
golden rule the required morality for any human? I agree it is common to
North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.

> > 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.
>
> I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very principle
> over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit premeditated
> murder and conclude that I have done something moral.

Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.

There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.

> > 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.
>
> Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?

That wasn't my point at all.