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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 07:06 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
snip
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.


It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.

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?


Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
priority.

-Rubystars



  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 07:06 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
snip
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.


It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.

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?


Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
priority.

-Rubystars


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 07:57 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" wrote

Rudy Canoza wrote:


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.


I agree, he gave you an out, you can cry foul and slink away.


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 07:57 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" wrote

Rudy Canoza wrote:


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.


I agree, he gave you an out, you can cry foul and slink away.


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 10:13 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rudy Canoza" wrote
Ron wrote:


Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.


No, you do all the blowing.


ROTFL!




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 10:13 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rudy Canoza" wrote
Ron wrote:


Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.


No, you do all the blowing.


ROTFL!


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 10:23 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.


Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.


  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 10:23 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.


Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.


  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 10:26 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...

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.


Veganism is not primarily about pain.


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 10:26 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...

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.


Veganism is not primarily about pain.




  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:21 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rubystars" wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
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.


It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.


What are the other objections.

I would support 'euthanizing' animals in a pain free manner as opposed
to slaughtering as a compromise position.

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?


Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
priority.


There are some positive outcomes of human deaths though, so I wouldn't
make this an absolute.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:21 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rubystars" wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
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.


It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.


What are the other objections.

I would support 'euthanizing' animals in a pain free manner as opposed
to slaughtering as a compromise position.

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?


Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
priority.


There are some positive outcomes of human deaths though, so I wouldn't
make this an absolute.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 02:33 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

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


Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.


Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.


Then we are back at square one as they say.

The fundamental question of what you consider immoral is in question. I
still disagree with your perspective that we are hardwired for survival
or that we are about harm-avoidance. The death of humans can have
positive outcomes. The seeking of harmful activities can have positive
effects.
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 06:53 PM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
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.


It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.


What are the other objections.


Killing for the sake of killing wouldn't be a good thing. Let's say you
adopt a puppy from a shelter and go home and shoot it dead with a rifle.
That's cruelty even if the death is instant.

I would support 'euthanizing' animals in a pain free manner as opposed
to slaughtering as a compromise position.


Slaughter should be done as painlessly as possible. Unfortunately I don't
think most meat producers do the best job they can.

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?


Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
priority.


There are some positive outcomes of human deaths though, so I wouldn't
make this an absolute.


Well some people deserve to die. For recent examples, Arafat or Uday and
Qusay.

-Rubystars


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 06:54 PM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

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.


Veganism is not primarily about pain.


True, veganism is about complete non-use of animals, at least in principle.
As PETA puts forth, they believe animals are not ours to use for food,
clothing, entertainment, or any other purpose. Of course, this never
actually works in practice.

-Rubystars




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