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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 01:48 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.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 01:53 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

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,


Who taught you such nonsense?

and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
of the outcomes.

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:00 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


anal leakage wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:

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,



Who taught you such nonsense?


It isn't nonsense.

Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
punishment greater than you would if no one had been
killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
This is moral, just, and as it should be.

Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
flaw is.



and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
of the outcomes.

  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:00 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


anal leakage wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:

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,



Who taught you such nonsense?


It isn't nonsense.

Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
punishment greater than you would if no one had been
killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
This is moral, just, and as it should be.

Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
flaw is.



and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
of the outcomes.

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:14 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


anal leakage wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:

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,



Who taught you such nonsense?


It isn't nonsense.

Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
punishment greater than you would if no one had been
killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
This is moral, just, and as it should be.

Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
flaw is.


Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 03:52 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
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.


Dolores is accountable for her own action, paying Pedro.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 03:52 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
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.


Dolores is accountable for her own action, paying Pedro.


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 04:13 AM
Rubystars
 
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?


Because it's so darn good.

-Rubystars


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 04:14 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"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.

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.

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?


I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
(unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).

I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.

-Rubystars


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 04:14 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"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.

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.

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?


I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
(unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).

I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.

-Rubystars




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 04:49 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:



In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:




anal leakage wrote:


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,


Who taught you such nonsense?


It isn't nonsense.

Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
punishment greater than you would if no one had been
killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
This is moral, just, and as it should be.

Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
flaw is.



Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.


No, you do all the blowing.
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 04:49 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:



In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:




anal leakage wrote:


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,


Who taught you such nonsense?


It isn't nonsense.

Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
punishment greater than you would if no one had been
killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
This is moral, just, and as it should be.

Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
flaw is.



Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.


No, you do all the blowing.
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 04:56 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
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.


Dolores is accountable for her own action, paying Pedro.


Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 05:17 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rubystars" wrote:

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

"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.

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.

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?


I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
(unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).

I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.


Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
for veganism can be avoided.

Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on?


  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 05:17 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rubystars" wrote:

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

"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.

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.

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?


I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
(unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).

I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.


Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
for veganism can be avoided.

Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on?


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