Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 01:08 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
om...

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.


It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.


So why do you continue to eat meat?

==================
Why do you continue to post your idiocy to usenet? Afterall, there is no
survival need. At least meat provides nutrition, you're just killing for
entertainment.



If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.


I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
animals
for no good reason.


So why do you continue to eat meat?

==================
Why do you continue to post your idiocy to usenet?









  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 05:46 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"Ron" wrote
"Rubystars" wrote:


snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that

when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.

It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is
practical.

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule
operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat
others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.

I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to

animals
for no good reason.

This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.

The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
the behaviour.


That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos
against
using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
universal.


Subjective morals. Finally, we are in agreement.


My position has not changed. There is a large subjective component to
morality.

My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?


Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert
it,
see www.grandin.com



  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 05:53 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

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

"Ron" wrote
"Rubystars" wrote:

snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.

It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is
practical.

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule
operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat
others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.

I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
animals
for no good reason.

This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.

The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
the behaviour.

That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos
against
using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
universal.


Subjective morals. Finally, we are in agreement.


My position has not changed. There is a large subjective component to
morality.


Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?

Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert
it,
see www.grandin.com

  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 07:07 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" wrote

Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The

vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.


That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of cheap
food.



  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 07:32 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote

Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The

vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.


That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of cheap
food.


Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 07:58 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
In article , "Dutch"


wrote:

"Ron" wrote

Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing

simultaneously. The
vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill

some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to

believe_ it is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.


That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan

hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable

to kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans

pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply

of cheap
food.


Name the vegan and the person they paid

No. That is not a serious or legitimate demand.

Stupid leaking homo.

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 09:55 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"Ron" wrote

Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.


That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.


Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?


The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 09:55 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"Ron" wrote

Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.


That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.


Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?


The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 06:00 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

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

"Ron" wrote

Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.


Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?


The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?


Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 06:00 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

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

"Ron" wrote

Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.


Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?


The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?


Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:19 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
...

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote


Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The

vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.

Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?


The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?



Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.


No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
the actions.

This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
the course of several weeks. You either are being
deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
to see the distinction. Those are the only two
possible explanations.

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:19 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
...

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote


Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The

vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.

Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?


The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?



Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.


No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
the actions.

This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
the course of several weeks. You either are being
deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
to see the distinction. Those are the only two
possible explanations.

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:46 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
...

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote


Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The

vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.

Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?

The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?



Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.


No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
the actions.

This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
the course of several weeks. You either are being
deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
to see the distinction. Those are the only two
possible explanations.


That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.

Whose action caused the death of the animal in question?
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:46 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
...

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote


Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The

vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.

Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?

The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?



Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.


No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
the actions.

This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
the course of several weeks. You either are being
deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
to see the distinction. Those are the only two
possible explanations.


That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.

Whose action caused the death of the animal in question?
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:48 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article , "Dutch"
wrote:



"Ron" wrote in message
...


In article , "Dutch"
wrote:



"Ron" wrote



Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The

vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
cheap
food.

Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?

The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?


Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.


No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
the actions.

This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
the course of several weeks. You either are being
deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
to see the distinction. Those are the only two
possible explanations.



That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.


You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
people's actions when those actions are done on your
behalf, and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
of the outcomes.


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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017