"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.

All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in
order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the
rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this:

If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
and death of animals.

I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals.

This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the
Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of
animals by means other than consuming things made from
animal parts. The most important way in which this
occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral
animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation,
harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in
particular causes suffering and death to animals on a
massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is
"necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods
of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without
any consideration whatever about how many animals were
killed in the course of their production.

When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
to cause animal death.

Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is
untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest
position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be
utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm
doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is
false, as one can easily show that a meat-including
diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan"
diet. However, there is no further room for retreat,
so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and
either stick with the "I'm doing better than you"
position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy
of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to
their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can."

This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
locally produced foods and spices (the implication
being that local production somehow necessarily causes
fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?

It can't.

In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
revealing:

You can't accept that I find an improvement good
enough.
You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that
only
you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which
is good
enough for me to be content.

There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
doing better than you, which is good enough for me."

In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
they don't really believe their absolute claim that
killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.

In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> "If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> [consume only locally grown produce]."
>
> - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>
>
> The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> argument.

Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans live
up to your expectations for perfection?

Sophomore Ron wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>
>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>
>>
>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
>>argument.
>
>
> Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?

Because they don't believe in the supposedly
fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place.

Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron?

> "If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> [consume only locally grown produce]."
>
> - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004

Waa waa, poor Jay. You needed to start a whole
new crossposted thread for this old stuff again?

And you're back to insults rather than arguments.
'Skanky Carpetmuncher'. What's that? An unbathed
*******? LOL ))))

> When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
> to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
> life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
> consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
> to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
> doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
> quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
> crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
> of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
> animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
> extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
> lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
> to cause animal death.

Despite variances in individual foods, you know
full well that eating vegan causes way, way less
cds as a whole than the animal product industry
as a whole, due to livestock's extensive need
for far more cropland (thus more cds).

> There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> doing better than you, which is good enough for me."

I never made a claim of doing better than you.
Is this one of those 'implied' things you see so
often in people's writings?




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

Ron wrote:
> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
> > "If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> > [consume only locally grown produce]."
> >
> > - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >
> >
> > The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> > cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> > argument.
>
> Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans
live
> up to your expectations for perfection?

It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
it, banbrains.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>
>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>
>>When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
>>to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
>>life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
>>consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
>>to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
>>doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
>>quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
>>crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
>>of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
>>animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
>>extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
>>lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
>>to cause animal death.
>
>
> Despite variances in individual foods, you know
> full well that eating vegan causes way, way less
> cds as a whole than the animal product industry
> as a whole, due to livestock's extensive need
> for far more cropland (thus more cds).

This is the second retreat, AGAIN: you are trying to
defend yourself by saying "vegans cause fewer deaths
than omnivores". You are implicitly admitting that you
aren't "doing the best you can", and you're comforting
yourself with the false and ethically bankrupt belief
"I'm doing better than you".

You can't say why you think it "good" to reduce animal
deaths in the first place.

>
>
>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>
>
> I never made a claim of doing better than you.

Yes, you did; you make it every time you talk about
"average" "vegans" versus "average" omnivores.

You still can't say why you think it is "good" to
reduce animal deaths in the first place.

wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
>>In article .net>,
>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>>
>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>>
>>>
>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
>>>argument.
>>
>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans
>
> live
>
>>up to your expectations for perfection?
>
>
> It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
> living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
> most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
> it, banbrains.

K, this "Ron" isn't Banbrains. Mr. Dutch and I both
initially thought it was, but it's not. Actually, he
most resembles that ****wit JethroUK who was taking a
shit all over the newsgroups last April-June. That was
another sophomoric pseudo-philosopher that ****wit
Harrison lured in from alt.philosophy; "Ron" is the
latest. He's marginally better educated than JethroFW,
but it is excruciatingly clear that he fancies himself
a "philosopher" based on one or two lower division
philosophy courses at a third tier college in Canada.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>
>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>
> And you're back to insults rather than arguments.

The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.

Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
who's who.

wrote:

> Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
> who's who.

Yep; it's better than nothing, but it's not ideal.

Sophomore Ron wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>
>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>
>>
>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
>>argument.
>
>
> Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?

Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?

> 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>


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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>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>

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

> Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
> with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
> Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
> equivocation.
>
> If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
> sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
> or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
> comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
> children with a broom handle on a daily basis?

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


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

> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>
> Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening"
> your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong
> to kill animals?

You're not very bright. I obviously think it's
wrong to kill animals. The less the better.
Don't you get it yet?


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

> wrote in message
ups.com...
8<
> It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
> living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
> most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
> it, banbrains.

we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not

1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture"
(organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds

2) We rarely live up to that standard because society imposes different
conditions due to less concern for animal welfare - this is a further case
for more veganism (not less). This is little different from slavery
abolitionists who still benefitted from the products of slavery, but didn't
keep slaves, and of course, opposed slavery. Like vegans, they were not
hypocrits, and it seems society eventually agreed that they were morally
right.

3) No reasonable case has been made that "pasture fed" (a very misleading
title) beef is better than vegan food in terms of cds - pasturing is
probably never any better than growing plants for direct consumption because
of the 90% loss of energy input (you need far more land available for
pasturing per calorie yielded). Worse "pasture fed" is very misleading as
such cattle can be fed quite high amounts of "concentrates". This includes
things like barley and corn, maybe up to 5 pounds daily, and on top of that
protein (some from dead fish or chicken) and vitamin supplements (in the UK
75% of land is already used for farming, much of which to grow animal feeds,
thus promoting more meat eating in the UK, or anywhere similar is a very bad
environmental move).

The Innu peoples and Tibetans (and similar) will probably need to keep
eating animals for practical reasons, most people in the West do not.


John

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
>>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
>>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
>>equivocation.
>>
>>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
>>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
>>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
>>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
>>children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
>
>
> Careful with this one Ron.

Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?

Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
as acceptable?

You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
something that makes us all worse off than we would be
if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
better off for having attained the reduction.

But ethical values are different; they're not
utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
absolutely wrong.

You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical
thinking.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>>
>>Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening"
>>your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong
>>to kill animals?
>
>
> You're not very bright. I obviously think it's
> wrong to kill animals.

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

John Coleman wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> 8<
>
>>It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
>>living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
>>most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
>>it, banbrains.
>
>
> we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not

No, you do NOT "get it". You have formulated an
ethical absolute - "it is wrong to kill animals" - and
then you don't even ATTEMPT to abide by the dictates of
that alleged belief.

>
> 1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture"
> (organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds

NO ONE, Coleman, avoids killing animals.

>
> 2) We rarely live up to that standard

You NEVER live up to that standard, Coleman, you
****ing idiot.

> because society imposes different
> conditions due to less concern for animal welfare

No. There you go again, blaming YOUR failure to abide
by YOUR alleged beliefs on others. That simply is not
tenable.

> - this is a further case for more veganism (not less).

NO, Coleman, you shitbag: it is PURELY a case for you
to abandon your unthinking, blind obedience to stupid
dogma.

The failure is entire on the shoulders of "vegans", and
no one else.

> This is little different from slavery

There is vast difference from slavery. You keep
telling the same lies.

In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Sophomore Ron wrote:
>
> > In article .net>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>
> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >>
> >>
> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> >>argument.
> >
> >
> > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?
>
> Because they don't believe in the supposedly
> fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place.
>
> Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron?

I have. You seem to think that humans must perform in the same way the
logical systems do.

That you are claiming one must be 100% or absolute or be a
"non-believer" then there is a separate issue.

Sophomore Ron, twit sophist ordinaire, wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Sophomore Ron, twit sophist ordinaire, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>>>
>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
>>>>argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?
>>
>>Because they don't believe in the supposedly
>>fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place.
>>
>>Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron?
>
>
> I have.

You haven't.

> You seem to think that humans must perform in the same way the
> logical systems do.

False. Nothing I've said indicates such a thought or
belief on my part. You have failed, again, to read and
comprehend correctly. You, at least, are very
consistent in this failure.

In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> >>In article .net>,
> >> Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>>
> >>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> >>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> >>>argument.
> >>
> >>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans
> >
> > live
> >
> >>up to your expectations for perfection?
> >
> >
> > It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
> > living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
> > most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
> > it, banbrains.
>
> K, this "Ron" isn't Banbrains. Mr. Dutch and I both
> initially thought it was, but it's not. Actually, he
> most resembles that ****wit JethroUK who was taking a
> shit all over the newsgroups last April-June. That was
> another sophomoric pseudo-philosopher that ****wit
> Harrison lured in from alt.philosophy; "Ron" is the
> latest. He's marginally better educated than JethroFW,
> but it is excruciatingly clear that he fancies himself
> a "philosopher" based on one or two lower division
> philosophy courses at a third tier college in Canada.

Well, when someone can find some academic references that humans must
conform to logical systems then, you'll have successfully made your
point. Until then, she just doesn't live up to your ideals of perfection.

Ron wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article .net>,
>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>>>>
>>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
>>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
>>>>>argument.
>>>>
>>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans
>>>
>>>live
>>>
>>>
>>>>up to your expectations for perfection?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
>>>living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
>>>most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
>>>it, banbrains.
>>
>>K, this "Ron" isn't Banbrains. Mr. Dutch and I both
>>initially thought it was, but it's not. Actually, he
>>most resembles that ****wit JethroUK who was taking a
>>shit all over the newsgroups last April-June. That was
>>another sophomoric pseudo-philosopher that ****wit
>>Harrison lured in from alt.philosophy; "Ron" is the
>>latest. He's marginally better educated than JethroFW,
>>but it is excruciatingly clear that he fancies himself
>>a "philosopher" based on one or two lower division
>>philosophy courses at a third tier college in Canada.
>
>
> Well, when someone can find some academic references that humans must
> conform to logical systems

Strawman - I never said that, nor was it implied by
anything I wrote.

You just can't read for comprehension. You demonstrate
your inability with every post.

In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>
> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >
> > And you're back to insults rather than arguments.
>
> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> rebut it.
>
> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> it is wrong to kill animals.

Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis.

If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then,
they don't really believe in their X.

If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life
then, obviously they don't believe in honesty.

If someone states that they believe in truth but ignores a truth once in
an entire lifetime then they obviously don't believe in truth.

If someone says they are well read but hasn't read anything then,
obviously they don't believe in being well read otherwise they would
read everything.

I'm finding some difficulty with your perception of what is necessary to
demonstrate that someone believes in X.

Ron wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>>>
>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>>
>>>And you're back to insults rather than arguments.
>>
>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>>rebut it.
>>
>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>>it is wrong to kill animals.
>
>
> Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis.
>
> If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then,
> they don't really believe in their X.

False - being religious doesn't require attending
service.

You're off to a bad start, shitbag.

>
> If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life
> then, obviously they don't believe in honesty.

If they state their belief in honesty as a moral
absolute, then yes, they don't believe in honesty.

You're sinking faster, shitbag.


You just reached the bottom.

No, you, in particular, do not get it. Also, you haven't pointed out
anything to me, try to keep up.

1) "Some" vegans practicing "Veganic agriculture" (you made up that
non-word, didn't you), is irrelevant in reference to the specific vegan
whom this thread is about. YOU definitely DO NOT GET IT.

2) Blaming your own ethical failings on society is a cop-out and a
very weak one at that. Once again we witness the sick, twisted mindset
of an unethical vegan comparing animals killed in agriculture to
slavery. How long will it be before you bring up the Nazi concentration
camps, you pathetic slime?

3) What the hell does pasture-fed beef have to do with anything I
said? In any event, your unsupported claims are not evidence of
anything except your inability to support your claims. All you have is
an unsubstantiated collection of "probably's", "maybe's", "some's" and
"can be's". As far as intelligent debate is concerned, you are your own
worst enemy.

As for your last sentence: what does "need" have to do with
anything? If your position was based on any true ethical principles,
you would have no choice but to tell the Inuit and Tibetans they should
either:

a) move and adapt,

or

b) die

You have no ethics; just a self-gratifying, smug compulsion to tell
other people how to live their lives.

In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Sophomore Ron wrote:
>
> > In article .net>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>
> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >>
> >>
> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> >>argument.
> >
> >
> > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?
>
> Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
> with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
> Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
> equivocation.
>
> If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
> sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
> or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
> comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
> children with a broom handle on a daily basis?

That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence together is somewhat
concerning. In fact, all of your analogies seem to place her choice to
avoid meat where possible with such actions.

If the choice to avoid meat where possible is on par with sexual
violence, I guess that the choice to eat meat is on the same level.

Ron wrote:
> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>>>
>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
>>>>argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?
>>
>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
>>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
>>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
>>equivocation.
>>
>>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
>>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
>>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
>>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
>>children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
>
>
> That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence

I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
your usual blowhard windy equivocation."

Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
> >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
> >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
> >>equivocation.
> >>
> >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
> >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
> >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
> >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
> >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
> >
> >
> > Careful with this one Ron.
>
> Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
> question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?

You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
to meat eating. Since you approve of meat
eating, this makes me worry that you approve
of child abuse since you find it comparable.

> Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
> wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
> as acceptable?

It's like pollution...

> You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
> pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
> something that makes us all worse off than we would be
> if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
> absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
> reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
> better off for having attained the reduction.

Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not? I would compare my views on
meateating to your pollution example.

> But ethical values are different; they're not
> utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
> in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
> improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
> Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
> killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
> as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
> absolutely wrong.

First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child.
I hope the same goes for you. As far as cds caused
by the food industry, it's kinda like pollution...



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

> You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical
> thinking.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
>>>>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
>>>>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
>>>>equivocation.
>>>>
>>>>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
>>>>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
>>>>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
>>>>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
>>>>children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
>>>
>>>
>>>Careful with this one Ron.
>>
>>Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
>>question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?
>
>
> You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
> to meat eating.

The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
to do any of it.

>>Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
>>wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
>>as acceptable?
>
>
> It's like pollution...

No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
utilitarian standpoint.

>
>
>>You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
>>pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
>>something that makes us all worse off than we would be
>>if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
>>absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
>>reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
>>better off for having attained the reduction.
>
>
> Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
> wrong or not?

It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.

>
>>But ethical values are different; they're not
>>utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
>>in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
>>improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
>>Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
>>killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
>>as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
>>absolutely wrong.
>
>
> First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child.

Why not? You could, and apparently you still would
feel good about yourself, just so long as you were
abusing a child less often than someone else, or
perhaps less often than you did last year.

That was the whole point of the example.

> > You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
> > to meat eating.
>
> The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
> some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
> absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
> to do any of it.

> > It's like pollution...
>
> No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
> the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
> isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
> utilitarian standpoint.

But it is like pollution. Less polution benefits the
human animal as well as other lifeforms. Less
land taken from nature to grow excessive crop
needs benefit humans and animals too.

> > Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
> > wrong or not?
>
> It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.

I do. I think it's morally wrong to do what many
big companies do to the air and water. Any
effort to lessen damage on their part would
be a good thing in my view.




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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
>>>to meat eating.
>>
>>The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
>>some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
>>absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
>>to do any of it.
>
>
>>>It's like pollution...
>>
>>No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
>>the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
>>isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
>>utilitarian standpoint.
>
>
> But it is like pollution.

It is NOT like pollution: no one believes pollution
_per se_ to be absolutely wrong, the way you profess to
believe killing animals to be absolutely wrong.

Pollution is undesirable from a *utilitarian*
standpoint. My toilet being stopped up is undesirable,
but it is not morally bad.

>
>
>>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
>>>wrong or not?
>>
>>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
>
>
> I do.

No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
undesirable, not morally wrong.

In article . net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article .net>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>>>
> >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >>>
> >>>And you're back to insults rather than arguments.
> >>
> >>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >>rebut it.
> >>
> >>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >>it is wrong to kill animals.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis.
> >
> > If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then,
> > they don't really believe in their X.
>
> False - being religious doesn't require attending
> service.
>
> You're off to a bad start, shitbag.
>
> >
> > If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life
> > then, obviously they don't believe in honesty.
>
> If they state their belief in honesty as a moral
> absolute, then yes, they don't believe in honesty.
>
> You're sinking faster, shitbag.
>
>
> You just reached the bottom.

Yes, you have. You stated your position that one MUST act towards there
belief and do what is necessary, or all they can or be labeled as not
believing in the moral or ethic under discussion.

In article et>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .net>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article .net>,
> >>> Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>>>
> >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> >>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> >>>>argument.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?
> >>
> >>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
> >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
> >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
> >>equivocation.
> >>
> >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
> >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
> >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
> >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
> >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
> >
> >
> > That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
>
> I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
> shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
> your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
>
> Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
> a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
> children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
> or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.

Do you? Do you do everything possible in furtherance of this belief? NO?
You're having a discussion with me. Obviously, you are spending time
here rather than following through on your *belief* (ahem) that this
behaviour is wrong. I am only left to one conclusion: you don't believe
that this wrong, otherwise you COULD and WOULD do more.

Shame. She lets some animals die. You let children get sodomized.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>>>>
>>>>>And you're back to insults rather than arguments.
>>>>
>>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>>>>rebut it.
>>>>
>>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis.
>>>
>>>If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then,
>>>they don't really believe in their X.
>>
>>False - being religious doesn't require attending
>>service.
>>
>>You're off to a bad start, shitbag.
>>
>>
>>>If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life
>>>then, obviously they don't believe in honesty.
>>
>>If they state their belief in honesty as a moral
>>absolute, then yes, they don't believe in honesty.
>>
>>You're sinking faster, shitbag.
>>
>>
>>You just reached the bottom.
>
>
> Yes,

Yes, you have.

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article .net>,
>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
>>>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
>>>>>>argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?
>>>>
>>>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
>>>>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
>>>>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
>>>>equivocation.
>>>>
>>>>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
>>>>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
>>>>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
>>>>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
>>>>children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
>>>
>>>
>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
>>
>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
>>
>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
>
>
> Do you?

Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
morally wrong?

Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
reading yet more of your trite sophistry.

> >>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
> >>>wrong or not?
> >>
> >>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
> >
> >
> > I do.
>
> No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
> undesirable, not morally wrong.

I view it as morally wrong to willfully (stole that
word from ricky) pollute the air or water that we
all have to share on this earth.

Are you going to still insist that I don't see it
as morally wrong? Guess what, it's me who
decides that, not you.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
>>>>>wrong or not?
>>>>
>>>>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I do.
>>
>>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
>>undesirable, not morally wrong.
>
>
> I view it as morally wrong to willfully

No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.

> >>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
> >>undesirable, not morally wrong.
> >
> >
> > I view it as morally wrong to willfully
>
> No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.

Oh, you mean my farting? After a while the body
gets used to both beans and cruciferae veggies.
The extra farting goes away. Ok, seriously, what
polluting are you talking about?


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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
>>>>undesirable, not morally wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I view it as morally wrong to willfully
>>
>>No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.
>
>
> Oh, you mean my farting?

No, I mean your use of fossil fuels, and your household
waste. I suppose we should include the toxic
rhetorical output, too, but that's not as important.