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
  #521 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> It IS related to complicity. You are flatly wrong
> about that. They view the meat eater not just as
> complicit in the death of the animals he eats, but the
> prime cause. They are correct, too. That's why they
> can't get away with claiming NOT to be complicit in the
> deaths of the animals killed in the course of producing
> the foods they eat.


Which demonstrates how common it is for people confuse cause and
coincidence.

Given/remorse guilt can be experienced whenever there is an assignment
of wrongdoing and since emotions are often illogical, it is quite
another position to be arguing that they are experiencing emotions and
logically viewing notions of complicity.
  #522 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>It IS related to complicity. You are flatly wrong
>>about that. They view the meat eater not just as
>>complicit in the death of the animals he eats, but the
>>prime cause. They are correct, too. That's why they
>>can't get away with claiming NOT to be complicit in the
>>deaths of the animals killed in the course of producing
>>the foods they eat.

>
>
> Which demonstrates how common it is for people confuse cause and
> coincidence.


No. There is no confusion at all. They clearly see
that which you could see but for your stubborn pretense.

> [snip incomprehensible gibberish]

  #523 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It IS related to complicity. You are flatly wrong
> >>about that. They view the meat eater not just as
> >>complicit in the death of the animals he eats, but the
> >>prime cause. They are correct, too. That's why they
> >>can't get away with claiming NOT to be complicit in the
> >>deaths of the animals killed in the course of producing
> >>the foods they eat.

> >
> >
> > Which demonstrates how common it is for people confuse cause and
> > coincidence.

>
> No. There is no confusion at all. They clearly see
> that which you could see but for your stubborn pretense.


We've been there and done that. If the vegan choose to accept or believe
responsibility (what is being termed participation) for the actions and
outcomes of others that is a choice that they make. The error is further
compounded by using Kant's Categorical Imperative to create an absolute
moral code. (Meat eaters make the same mistake.)
  #524 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It IS related to complicity. You are flatly wrong
>>>>about that. They view the meat eater not just as
>>>>complicit in the death of the animals he eats, but the
>>>>prime cause. They are correct, too. That's why they
>>>>can't get away with claiming NOT to be complicit in the
>>>>deaths of the animals killed in the course of producing
>>>>the foods they eat.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which demonstrates how common it is for people confuse cause and
>>>coincidence.

>>
>>No. There is no confusion at all. They clearly see
>>that which you could see but for your stubborn pretense.

>
>
> We've been there and done that.


You DIDN'T do it. You whiffed.

> If the vegan choose to accept or believe
> responsibility (what is being termed participation) for the actions and
> outcomes of others that is a choice that they make.


It is the correct choice. They are integral to the
outcome. The outcome doesn't happen without their
participation, just as the bank doesn't get robbed -
and the innocent person murdered - without the getaway
driver; just as the goods don't get stolen without the
'fence' willing to buy them. The participation of
others - "vegans", getaway drivers, fences - drives the
processes that lead to bad outcomes.

> The error is further
> compounded by using Kant's Categorical Imperative


You do not know kak-all about Kant. Shut your ****ing
mouth.
  #525 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It IS related to complicity. You are flatly wrong
> >>>>about that. They view the meat eater not just as
> >>>>complicit in the death of the animals he eats, but the
> >>>>prime cause. They are correct, too. That's why they
> >>>>can't get away with claiming NOT to be complicit in the
> >>>>deaths of the animals killed in the course of producing
> >>>>the foods they eat.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Which demonstrates how common it is for people confuse cause and
> >>>coincidence.
> >>
> >>No. There is no confusion at all. They clearly see
> >>that which you could see but for your stubborn pretense.

> >
> >
> > We've been there and done that.

>
> You DIDN'T do it. You whiffed.
>
> > If the vegan choose to accept or believe
> > responsibility (what is being termed participation) for the actions and
> > outcomes of others that is a choice that they make.

>
> It is the correct choice.


It is a choice that confuses a logical fallacy ascribing cause and
effect where there is a coincidence. It is common to religion and a
means to inspire guilt in others. It is the same principle in the
Categorical Imperative that is utilized by Catholics and Christians and
in this case vegans and meat eaters.

> They are integral to the
> outcome. The outcome doesn't happen without their
> participation, just as the bank doesn't get robbed -
> and the innocent person murdered - without the getaway
> driver; just as the goods don't get stolen without the
> 'fence' willing to buy them. The participation of
> others - "vegans", getaway drivers, fences - drives the
> processes that lead to bad outcomes.
>
> > The error is further
> > compounded by using Kant's Categorical Imperative

>
> You do not know kak-all about Kant. Shut your ****ing
> mouth.



  #526 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:10:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>>>>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>>>>>>>>they do NOT act as they say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The vegan does not kill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
>>>>>>vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
>>>>>>the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
>>>>>>moral agency than the meatarian.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, the vegan is a shitty buck-passer
>>>>
>>>>The vegan has no buck to pass, being that he doesn't
>>>>kill.
>>>
>>>Why can't the vegan eat meat or wear leather or fur from animals he
>>>doesn't kill?

>>
>> Some will argue that a vegan can.

>
>You've written in the past that
> My veganism is purely from an ethical point of view but
> allows me to scavenge meat from contented animals that
> have died from natural causes.
> Dreck, Nov 5 2003


If you were to include the rest of what I wrote
regarding this issue you'll see I wrote a lot more,
proving that despite the definition of veganism
given in http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html ,
many vegans, including myself, will allow meat
under certain circumstances if the animal hasn't
been exploited to get it. My argument with James
on this issue was to show that, while some will
argue that vegans can eat such meats, such fare
falls outside the more strict definition of veganism.

[start - Dutch to me]
> > "I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm and eat them."
> > Derek 03/11/03 13:14


To put the record straight on this. That quote of
mine has been dishonestly taken entirely out of
context. In fact, it only includes half a sentence
which begins with an "if" condition which has been
completely omitted;

"By partially accepting Harrison's argument, I'm
sticking my neck out as far as I can on this. *If
animals can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic
settings with vetinary care*, I see no reason why
we shouldn't continue to farm and eat them. It's the
abattoir and frequent abuses of their right to
freedoms that stops me agreeing with him fully."
*my emphasis*
Derek 03/11/03

My partial acceptance of Harrison's argument is well
documented.

"Our World is much richer because we have animals
to share it with. David has every reason to want more
and more animals to experience life. I do. But get rid
of the slaughter house if that's where they're destined."
firstoftwins 2001-09-28

> Far it be from me to support Derek Nash, but I believe his statment meant
> that assuming animals were allowed to live idyllic (happy) lives and die of
> old age or other natural causes, then he could see no ethical objection to
> such a system. I don't think that goes against a reasonable vegan point of
> view,


It doesn't go against my point of view or standard
of veganism. Consider a farm where all the livestock
are given every freedom, foodstuff and vetinary care
needed to live in complete contentment without an
abattoir sitting in the middle of it all. What possible
ethical objection could there be from ARists or
welfarists to shun such shelters?

> although it does violate the basic vegan so-called principle of "using
> animals for our benefit".


There is no such principle. Veganism does allow the
use of animals for our benefit as long as they aren't
exploited or violated. There's no rule that I'm aware
of which stops adherents from scavenging off
carcasses which have lived and died naturally.

There are at least two types of veganism.

[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
food, clothing or any other purpose.

In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing
with all animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry,
eggs, animal milks, honey, and their derivatives.

Abhorrence of the cruel practices inherent in dairy,
livestock and poultry farming is probably the single most
common reason for the adoption of veganism, but many
people are drawn to it for health, ecological, spiritual
and other reasons.]
http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

My veganism is purely from an ethical point of view but
allows me to scavenge meat from contented animals that
have died from natural causes, while "Usual Suspect's"
veganism, on the other hand, is from a dubious health
point of view which doesn't allow him to eat any meat at
all under any circumstances.
[end]
http://tinyurl.com/4cl6e

As you can see, while the given definition excludes all meat,
"My veganism is purely from an ethical point of view but
allows me to scavenge meat from contented animals that
have died from natural causes."

>> James Strutz argued
>> with me that a vegan could eat the meat from road kill,

>
>Given your quote above, why couldn't (or if you object to that, why
>SHOULDN'T) a vegan eat road kill in good conscience?


I believe he could, but that food wouldn't be regarded as
vegan fare in the strict sense of the word given in the
above definition, and that's what my argument with James
concerned itself with.

>Along the same
>lines, why do you consider any such scavenging acceptable -- whether
>from "natural causes" or "accidents," like the sliced fawn in the combine?


I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity
is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally
when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas.
Road kill is the closest you'll get to finding accidental deaths,
but even those incidents are open to debate in my view.
  #527 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:57:54 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, Derek > wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:28 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >In article >, Derek > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:27:58 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >> >In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Rather, they refuse to falsely take on any responsibility
>> >> >> for the farmer's wrong-doing because doing so would
>> >> >> make themselves apologists for and enablers of that
>> >> >> wrong-doing.
>> >> >
>> >> >Actions and wrongdoing are two separate issues. Wrongdoing is a judgment
>> >> >attached to an action. I agree that farmer kill animals. Where I need
>> >> >you to be clearer is on how you came to the conclusion that this action
>> >> >is "wrong".
>> >>
>> >> As Hume once said, "Take any action allowed to be vicious:
>> >> Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see
>> >> if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which
>> >> you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only
>> >> certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no
>> >> other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes
>> >> you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find
>> >> it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find
>> >> a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards
>> >> this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
>> >> feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
>> >> So that when you pronounce any action or character to
>> >> be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
>> >> of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
>> >> from the contemplation of it.", so when I say that the action
>> >> is wrong, I'm not merely exhibiting the constitution of my
>> >> nature, I'm asserting that it's wrong because animals' rights
>> >> are being violated.
>> >
>> >More of the same.

>>
>> Of what?
>>
>> >First off, Hume isn't here to defend his position, I'll ignore what
>> >he says with the exception of the last which I assume you are
>> >supporting.

>>
>> That implies his position needs defending. Are you
>> contesting what he wrote concerning wrong actions
>> and our regard toward them?

>
>I'm stating that I am having discussion with you. If this is your
>position, I am interested in discussing that and with you.


It clearly is my position to some degree, and being that
Hume's position is well known and generally understood,
I thought it fitting to bring it here to explain my own
position more clearly to you.

>> >Animals don't have rights.

>>
>> Please make your case to support that assertion.

>
>Rights are a theoretical construct of humans.


If they are, then they can surely be constructed in such a
way so as to include animals. You've failed to make your
case on the basis you've given so far.

>Animals and millions of
>species have existed long before the presence of our species. I might
>find the argument convincing if you could establish that animals had
>rights before our species happened onto the scene. Or more specific,
>when did animals first have rights?


They held rights the same moment moral agents existed
to observe them. Obviously, they don't hold rights against
each other because a right can only be held against a
moral agent rather than a moral patient.

>> >Humans do as citizen's of nations and even
>> >this is not constitent.

>>
>> Are you trying to assert that only citizens of nations
>> hold the moral right against being killed by moral
>> agents while non-citizens fail to qualify as rights
>> equal rights bearers? If so, then please make your
>> case to support that assertion.

>
>You've altered your language.


I'm merely using what you use to qualify a rights bearer
and asking whether it's a valid qualifier when taking
non-citizens into account. You've claimed that humans
hold rights "as citizens of nations", and while you go on
to say that "even that [qualifier] is not consistent" it
doesn't explain why they are rights bearers on the basis
of citizenship. If anything, your argument which qualifies
a rights bearer is circular; Humans, as citizens are rights
bearers because they are human citizens.

>There are legally established rights and
>what you are now describing as moral rights. Consistency and clarity
>would make for an easier discussion.


I think you'll find that since my post concerns itself with
moral rights rather than legal rights, any inconsistency
you've seen must be an error on your part.

>Moral rights are theoretical constructs. Such constructs rely on the
>presence of another individual to recognize a "belief" or to violate a
>"belief". The "moral right" itself is merely an idea -- a thought. What
>is defined as morality does change over time and location.


Though they be theoretical constructs brought forward
by moral agents, moral patients such as children and
the mentally retarded who have nothing to do with this
theoretical construct do hold those rights we constructed
nevertheless, so you're still left wanting if you're to make
a case against the proposition of animals rights.

>> >Any right to life, be it human or other species
>> >is a contradiction in terms.

>>
>> Then I take it you would have no argument against
>> being used against your will for research purposes,
>> killed, and then discarded along with other family
>> members who were also treated in the same way
>> before you.

>
>You've tied two separate things together.


I'm merely showing that if you don't believe rights
exist, then you have no argument against being used
for medical research against your will and killed. I've
not tied anything together to reach that conclusion.

>I don't know what universal
>moral right you are referring to here, but the impression I have of your
>statements involves the lack of consent of the individual. Pay me enough
>and demonstrate the research is needed and I might make myself available
>for research.


The point being made is not whether you would
volunteer, but rather that you be used against your
will and killed, and whether you hold the right against
moral agents who might see fit to violate your right not
to be used and killed in that way. You clearly do hold
that right, so when you state that "Any right to life, be
it human or other species is a contradiction in terms.",
you give up any argument against those who would
trespass upon you and kill you for their own ends.

>As to the universality of this moral right, please
>indicate in some way how when the humans were traveling the globe
>following the last ice age that any humans had these rights.


Rights bearers only hold rights against moral agents.
If moral agents existed during those times, then
humans traveling the globe following the last ice age
would certainly be holding them against those moral
agents.

>> >Everything that lives dies. To proclaim any
>> >right universally for life is nonsensical.

>>
>> We hold no right against death itself, but we do hold
>> a right against moral agents who might see fit to kill
>> us for their own personal gains and the gains of others.

>
>On what grounds do you make this claim.


On the grounds that a notional social contract exists
to protect moral agents from each other, and which
carries an obligation to extend that contract onto moral
patients.

>And on what grounds do then
>implement a legal code to support the moral code.


I don't get involved with legal codes when discussing
moral rights. Laws don't codify whether a moral right
exists.

>> >> >Animals kill animals as part of the process of life and death on this
>> >> >planet. Humans are still animals despite what we like to think of
>> >> >ourselves.
>> >>
>> >> But, unlike other animals we have the capacity to act
>> >> according to our held taboos and prescriptions, and
>> >> this unique ability is what makes us the paragon of all
>> >> animals while being equal to them at the same time.
>> >
>> >There's that charming human arrogance that I'm familiar with.

>>
>> Why is it arrogant to assume we are the paragon of
>> all animals while being equal to them as rights bearers
>> at the same time?

>
>If you like to imagine us as superior then, that is a choice that you
>make.


I know you're uncomfortable with cites to support
a proposition, but here's (below) a sig I used to use
which illustrates my choice to believe that we are the
paragon of all animals quite well.

What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals!
Hamlet

>There is significant evidence to indicate that we are not the
>sharpest knives in the evolutionary drawer.


Show me a dolphin which can solve a quadratic equation
or produce the two unknowns from a simultaneous
equation and I'll concede.

>> >While you may want to adhere to some ridiculous notion that eating
>> >animal X is right and animal Y is wrong, I find the whole thing quite
>> >unrealistic and illogical.

>>
>> You've moved the goal posts from 'violating a being's
>> rights by killing them' to 'eating them'. Eating a dead
>> animal doesn't violate it's rights in any way, but killing
>> it for food certainly would.

>
>You have.


We were discussing rights and the violations of those
rights during the course of crop production. You then
moved the goal posts from that and onto eating meat.

>The incidence of eating meat once the animal has passed away
>from natural causes or some accident is not what happens.


Yet your next line asserts that it does happen, even if
only in some cases.

>The eating of
>meat requires the killing of an animal along the way in most cases.


As you can see, you've just contradicted yourself by
stating a premise and then denied its conclusion.

>Are we discussing the exception of what typically happens?


No.

>> >Rights are merely theoretical constructs that we attempt to create as
>> >reality in the physical world.

>>
>> Then how do you defend your entitlement to act in
>> certain ways or your entitlement to have moral agents
>> act in certain ways toward you without declaring the
>> existence of rights?

>
>You assume that I feel or think a sense of entitlement.


Then, do you feel you have no entitlement to act in
certain ways or to expect fellow moral agents to act
in certain ways toward you?

>I make the
>choices that I make because they satisfy my needs and wants.


Non sequitur. Your conclusion here does not follow
from your earlier premise concerning your sense of
entitlement, and takes nothing away from the fact that
you do have such entitlements.

>I could justify them as entitlements to you, but simply, I do
>what I do because I can.


No, that doesn't make the case for justifying your actions.
I can do many reprehensible things, but I don't do them
simply because I can, and I don't refrain from doing them
for that same reason either. Enter Kant, again.

>> >Rights can easily be changed.

>>
>> Legal rights can, but moral rights are universal and
>> remain the same.

>
>Moral rights are be specific to time and place and human theoretical
>constructions.


I disagree. I believe they are universal in time and space.
If a being is said to hold a moral right against moral agents
not to be intentionally harmed and killed for another's
personal gains or beliefs, then that principle stands for all
in time and in all space.

>Please indicate for us how the right not to be killed by
>another moral agent existed 15,000 years ago.


The inclusion of a moral agent in your comment reveals
that a potential victim during those times held a right
against that moral agent.

>Or more specifically,
>maybe I need to clarify how you use the term "universal".


I'm quite capable of clarifying the term without your
need to clarify it for me.
  #528 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:09:17 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, Derek > wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:22:21 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >In article >, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message ...
>> >> > Reynard > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
>> >> > > vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
>> >> > > the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
>> >> > > moral agency than the meatarian.
>> >> >
>> >> > I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
>> >> > this might be a strong argument.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong, - without valid justification.
>> >
>> >Fortunately, your assessment of what is valid justification is not
>> >binding on me and vice versa. I can respect anyone's decision not to eat
>> >meat or use animal products. However, to think that this is in any way a
>> >requirement for me to make the same choices is a little unusual. If you
>> >are unwilling to respect my free will then, I don't see much need in
>> >respecting yours.

>>
>> You seem to be of the opinion that vegans are demanding
>> that people stop eating meat, that our [assessment of what
>> is valid justification is binding upon you], and that they don't
>> respect your own decisions and free will.

>
>That hasn't been my experience of vegans.


Yet you did comment as such in your reply to Pearl.

>I was referring to act of
>making assessments in and of themselves. IOW, I recognize that you are
>making assessments and judgments that X is wrong. I ask that you
>recognize that I make other assessments that X can also be 'right', from
>my perspective.


And of course I do recognise that you can assess X
differently according to your own perspective. Take
medieval Christendom, for example. During those
times it was considered right to torture heretics to
get them back to orthodox Christianity to save their
eternal soul. Today, because we have a respect for
personal freedom and integrity, any form of torture
is considered fundamentally wrong. If a medieval
inquisitor were here to witness our multi-faith society
he would no doubt believe our society to be morally
reprehensible for allowing all those souls within it to
burn in Hell.

>> I can only speak for myself as an ARA when I say that
>> what I do is out of a respect for a moral law I hold, borne
>> from a principle I would will to become a universal law.
>> Look up Kant. Notice that what I do isn't an instruction,
>> or even a statement to assert what is right and wrong, but
>> rather a demonstration of a principle that lies behind my
>> intention to act in a certain way, and a willingness to have
>> others behave as I do.

>
>Then perhaps we need to discuss the Categorical Imperative or Kant
>generally. I find his reasoning flawed.


If your reasoning somehow finds a flaw in Kant's,
then I don't believe you've understood his reasoning
in the first place. Though you might not agree with
Kant, I doubt very much that you've found any flaws
in his reasoning.

>My question then is this
>discussion about his belief and you holding to them, or your beliefs.


I brought Kant here in the hope that you'd read some
of his work, and that it would then go some way in
explaining my own position easier.

>> To my mind we can never be shown what is right or wrong
>> in an action by examining its hoped-for consequences.

>
>What hoped for consequences?


Any hoped for consequences.

>It's difficult to agree on the steps to
>accomplish an outcome if we don't agree on the desired outcome.


That doesn't justify the rightness or wrongness of an
act itself.

>> The
>> reason being, that we would never have enough evidence to
>> assert those consequences beforehand, and because those
>> assertions can be easily misinterpreted while the consequences
>> themselves can involve harms. So, rather than judge an action
>> by its consequences, as a means to something else, I judge it
>> on whether it conforms to the moral laws I hold.
>>
>> One of the many moral laws I hold is to do no harm. I don't
>> hold that moral law simply out of obedience to an external
>> moral authority, such as the courts in our land or because my
>> Dad told me to hold it. I hold that law because a predetermined
>> truth tells me it's wrong to cause harms capriciously, and that
>> I would will that principle to become a universal law.

>
>"Predetermined truth"? That's an interesting position. Can you be
>clearer.


Moral agents are equipped with predetermined, self
evident truths. We don't strike down old ladies in the
street for their pension money and we don't kidnap
children for a ransom. Old ladies and children hold a
moral right against moral agents, and this is a simple
predetermined truth understood by all moral agents
despite society's laws that identify those truths as such.
  #529 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> They held rights the same moment moral agents existed
> to observe them. Obviously, they don't hold rights against
> each other because a right can only be held against a
> moral agent rather than a moral patient.


Since, I did respond and in fairness, I think the onus is on you to make
your case since it was you who made assertions in the positive. To
present Hume's opinion (appeal to authority) and that you use "well
understood" (appeal to popularity) is not a good reason to simply accept
the argument.

I don't consider animals to have rights. I recognize that the human laws
in some jurisdictions provide some protections to some animals in some
circumstances. This is quite different than to make any categorical
statement of rights or rights belonging to animals.

Can you establish your case that there is a moral right for animals not
to be killed. Can you be specific if your perspective is subjective or
absolute in its application.
  #530 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > I doubt it. Especially if he were to wait for someone
> > else to die of hunger (or the elements) first. Eating
> > an already dead body in an emergency probably
> > wouldn't be very illegal, just gross.

>
> We're talking about KILLING the person, you stupid
> ****. That's what is wrong: KILLING the person.


You sure do use the word **** a lot. I'll bet
there's people who have you filtered out
for nothing more. Are you unable to debate
a topic without insulting?

If a person kills another to survive via cannabalism,
the circumstances would determine how wrong it
was. Are they on a snowy mountain after a plane
crash? Are they at home where there's lots of
other food to choose from? Has the eaten
person agreed to sacrifice himself so that the
rest of the group could live? Was the eaten
person unwillingly killed? All of these things
would probably be taken into consideration
when the wrongness of it is determined, such
as in court.

> >>>Even though I don't think I would do it myself,
> >>>it's a valid choice in an emergency
> >>
> >>It is absolutely not a "valid" [sic] choice.

> >
> >
> > Why? Even if the person eaten has died naturally?

>
> Because the person DIDN'T die of natural causes, you
> confused, muddled, stupid, slovenly ****-for-brain. I
> SPECIFIED at the very beginning of the example that you
> KILLED the person.


Settle down. What if the eaten has offered himself
to the others so that at least they will survive?
Is this only ok if he commits suicide and not ok if
someone helps him (kills him)?


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




  #531 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Whether I personally would ever resort to
> > cannibalism, has nothing to do with whether
> > I consider it a wrong. It's a mostly wrong
> > type of thing in my opinion.

>
> The KILLING of the person eaten is an ABSOLUTELY wrong
> thing. The eating is irrelevant.


What if they volunteer themself to the group so the
rest may survive?

> Let's change it. Say you and your skanky piece of
> sushi partner are in a mountain cabin miles from
> anywhere. No one knows you're there. You're very
> nearly out of food, and your vehicle is covered by 20
> feet of snow.
>
> There is one pair of snowshoes. They are owned by your
> skank piece of sushi partner. One person can make it
> out using the snowshoes. If you split the snowshoes,
> you both die. If one person takes the snowshoes and
> leaves, she will live, but the one left behind will die.
>
> Is it "just a little bit wrong" for you to kill the
> rancid piece of sushi and take her snowshoes so you can
> leave, make it to safety and live? Or is it absolutely
> wrong?


First of all I would use shoelaces to make the snowshoes
hold two people who would have to take steps in unison.
If that doesn't work...

Secondly, I don't think there would be a need for
either of us to kill the other, even if fighting over
snowshoes.

> Understand: the rancid piece of sushi, who owns the
> snowshoes, can legally take them and leave you behind.
> Unless she voluntarily relinquishes them to you, you
> may not legally take them and leave her behind. If she
> wants to use them herself, leaving you to die, and
> instead you kill her and take them for yourself, you
> have done something ABSOLUTELY wrong. There is no
> "mostly" or "just a weensy bit" about it: it is
> ABSOLUTELY wrong.


Rancid huh? Your fantasies must be a horror. If
the snowshoes are hers, she can go and I'll just
hope help arrives in time. Probably, we would
realistically look at who's in better shape to make
the trip to get help. I can't think of a place so
remote that emergency people (maybe in
snowshoes) can't get there in time.

Another McGyver-like possibility is to rig up a
sled of some kind. Take turns with who pulls
using snowshoes and who rides in the sled.

I can't picture either of us wanting to kill the
other in your scenario.

> You may not *like* absolutes in life, skanky
> carpetmuncher, but they're just a fact of life.


I still say it's mostly wrong.


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


  #532 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> >>Does your snipping mean you now cede that homosexuals have a higher
> >>incidence of mental illness and psychosexual disorders than the
> >>general population?

> >
> >
> > No, it just means that I couldn't be bothered with
> > trying to convince you otherwise. I still disagree
> > with your data/conclusions.

>
> You can't "disagree" with data.


There's other data out there that disagrees. I've
read studies where no difference was found. I
question your data, and wonder if the results
would be found repeatable.


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


  #533 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >> > > Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no eating disorders.
> >> >
> >> > Why would that disappoint me?
> >>
> >> Because I'm sure you would like to connect veganism
> >> to eating disorders.

> >
> > Not "connect to"; "veganism" IS an eating disorder. Actually, it's

one
> > member of a family of eating disorders called orthorexia.

>
> I'm just glad I found this newsgroup, another couple of years as
> self-indoctrinated vegetarians my wife would probably be dead and I

would
> still be weak and sickly.


Well, I'm sorry to hear that you both had eating disorders.
I don't have one and never have, so I can't really relate
with how you feel, but I have sympathy. I'm glad you're
feeling better now, even if you are a troll.


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



  #534 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Veganism *is* connected to eating disorders. If a person fails to
thrive on
> a vegan or any extreme diet, and have become indoctrinated in the

belief
> that it's immoral to consume animal products to the point that they

have an
> aversion to meat, which you have suggested you do, then they become
> immediately vulnerable to a health crisis. That is the classic profile

of an
> eating disorder.
> http://www.beyondveg.com/bratman-s/h...unkie-1a.shtml


You say IF a person fails to thrive to the point of having
a health crisis. I've never met a vegan who had that
happen. If I did, I would want to examine their choices
of foods and see if there's something missing (no, not
meat).

> > What's YMMV?

>
> Google it.


You could have just answered. It means Your
Mileage May Vary. Well, mine varies quite a
bit from yours.


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



  #535 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> >>>>>I thought my statement was killing animals is mostly
> >>>>>wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>>That is your statement, and it's bullshit. It cannot
> >>>>be the case. Killing animals either is wrong, or it
> >>>>isn't wrong. It can't be "mostly" wrong. "wrong"
> >>>>doesn't equate to "bad", although wrong IS bad. "Bad"
> >>>>has a scale; "wrong" does not. "wrong" is binary:
> >>>>something is wrong, or it is not wrong. It cannot be
> >>>>"mostly" wrong; the very concept is sheer nonsense.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If it's my statement, then it's not bullshit to me.
> >>
> >>It IS bullshit. It is absurd.

> >
> >
> > You can find it absurd all you like.

>
> It IS absurd. It is plainly absurd, because "wrong" is
> binary: on or off, yes or no, wrong or not wrong.
> There are no degrees.


This whole argument is absurd! I find that there
is a scale of wrongness, varying degrees. You
only think of it as binary, but I don't. Let's just
agree to disagree.

> >>>>>Um, hate to tell you again and again, but I believe
> >>>>>that killing animals is mostly wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>>You do not. You CANNOT.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But I do.
> >>
> >>No, you WANT to have it that way, but you can't.

> >
> >
> > But I already do.

>
> No, you want to have it that way. You can't.


I can. I'm believing it right now as I type. Your
denial of my belief does not make it disappear.


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




  #536 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:21:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, Derek > wrote:
>
>> They held rights the same moment moral agents existed
>> to observe them. Obviously, they don't hold rights against
>> each other because a right can only be held against a
>> moral agent rather than a moral patient.

>
>Since, I did respond and in fairness, I think the onus is on you to make
>your case since it was you who made assertions in the positive. To
>present Hume's opinion (appeal to authority) and that you use "well
>understood" (appeal to popularity) is not a good reason to simply accept
>the argument.


If you'd left my reasons for including Hume without
snipping them away you would have let the reader
see that, far from appealing to authority to win support
for my position, I included him because his view does
seem to represent "my position to some degree, and
being that Hume's position is well known and generally
understood, I thought it fitting to bring it here to explain
my own position more clearly to you."

>I don't consider animals to have rights. I recognize that the human laws
>in some jurisdictions provide some protections to some animals in some
>circumstances. This is quite different than to make any categorical
>statement of rights or rights belonging to animals.


If you'd left my post intact without snipping it all away
you would have let the reader note that, "I don't get
involved with legal codes when discussing moral rights.
Laws don't codify whether a moral right exists."

>Can you establish your case that there is a moral right for animals not
>to be killed. Can you be specific if your perspective is subjective or
>absolute in its application.


Something 'good' can only be regarded as good if it is
desirable for its own sake rather than for the sake of
some other good, so, if killing billions of animals is good
then it must be desirable for itself rather than for the
sake of some other good. As I see it, the good from
killing animals is for the sake of another good, your good,
and if we are to remain ethical we cannot continue killing
because it clearly isn't good for its own sake.
  #537 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>>>>>Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If my
> >>>>
> >>>>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If you
> >>
> >>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.

> >
> >
> > I keep

>
> Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.


Well, Monsieur Parrot, here's a cracker.
Good birdie!


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


  #538 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > I don't believe that the transportation of food is as
> > bad as you think it is.

>
> The only basis for your belief is wishful thinking.


I don't care what you think it is. The availlability
of worldwide foods is great for my health. There
are some really healthy imports (that I would
grow here if I had enough south facing windows
or a greenhouse). Take the spice Turmeric for
instance. It's extremely healthy. Bananas,
quinoa, etc. etc.

> >>>Do you have land, that you bought yourself and
> >>>didn't inherit.
> >>
> >>Yes.

> >
> >
> > Is it large enough to grow all your own food?
> > Do you grow all or most of your own food?

>
> Irrelevant: he doesn't make any ****witted claims
> about the wrongness of killing animals that would imply
> he needs to grow any part of his food at all.


Ah, do as I say, not as I do. Also, there you go
implying things again.


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


  #539 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Which demonstrates how common it is for people confuse cause and
>>>>>coincidence.
>>>>
>>>>No. There is no confusion at all. They clearly see
>>>>that which you could see but for your stubborn pretense.
>>>
>>>
>>>We've been there and done that.

>>
>>You DIDN'T do it. You whiffed.
>>
>>
>>>If the vegan choose to accept or believe
>>>responsibility (what is being termed participation) for the actions and
>>>outcomes of others that is a choice that they make.

>>
>>It is the correct choice.

>
>
> It is a choice that confuses a logical fallacy ascribing cause and
> effect where there is a coincidence.


Repeating yourself will not make you right. You are
wrong: there is no confusion.

You have not addressed the real issue, so your claim
that you have been there/done that is false. The issue
is that the consumer is integral to the process that
yields the outcome thought to be bad. Without their
participation, the action and the outcome both do not
occur. In the case of "vegans", who claim the outcome
of animal death to be abolutely morally wrong, they
know this outcome occurs, and they willingly choose to
participate anyway. They are complicit, and they share
responsibility for the outcome.

>>They are integral to the
>>outcome. The outcome doesn't happen without their
>>participation, just as the bank doesn't get robbed -
>>and the innocent person murdered - without the getaway
>>driver; just as the goods don't get stolen without the
>>'fence' willing to buy them. The participation of
>>others - "vegans", getaway drivers, fences - drives the
>>processes that lead to bad outcomes.
>>
>>
>>>The error is further
>>>compounded by using Kant's Categorical Imperative

>>
>>You do not know kak-all about Kant. Shut your ****ing
>>mouth.

  #540 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > So, in your opinion, a vegan isn't doing their
> > best unless they grow their own food?

>
> No, that's not what he said. Growing your own food,
> however, may be a REQUIREMENT to be doing your best,
> unless you're going to hire a farmer to farm according
> to "death-free" standards.


Who said it's a requirement? Other than you, I mean.
Those options are not availlable to everyone.

> > Owning or even renting land is not as easy as you think.

>
> Renting farmland is ABSURDLY easy.
>
> >>>It will be a while before you even try to practice what you preach.

>
> How about, the 33rd of Never? That's when the skanky
> narcissist will try to practice what she preaches.


I may wish it was now, but I have to wait. At least I will
be lucky enough to see it in my future. You can't
DEMAND that people grow their own food if they are
vegan. It's not up to you to decide that. You keep
pushing your wacky definitions of vegan.


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




  #541 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I doubt it. Especially if he were to wait for someone
>>>else to die of hunger (or the elements) first. Eating
>>>an already dead body in an emergency probably
>>>wouldn't be very illegal, just gross.

>>
>>We're talking about KILLING the person, you stupid
>>****. That's what is wrong: KILLING the person.

>
>
> If a person kills another to survive via cannabalism,
> the circumstances would determine how wrong it
> was.


NO. If you KILL the person, you have committed a crime
and a grievous sin. The EATING is irrelevant.

> [snip babble]


The ONLY relevant question is: did the survivor kill
the other person? If so, then you have done wrong.

>
>
>>>>>Even though I don't think I would do it myself,
>>>>>it's a valid choice in an emergency
>>>>
>>>>It is absolutely not a "valid" [sic] choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why? Even if the person eaten has died naturally?

>>
>>Because the person DIDN'T die of natural causes, you
>>confused, muddled, stupid, slovenly ****-for-brain. I
>>SPECIFIED at the very beginning of the example that you
>>KILLED the person.

>
>
> Settle down.


**** off. I specified at the very beginning that the
survivor killed the other person, and you ****ED UP,
AGAIN, by talking about the survivor eating an already
dead person. You are ALWAYS sloppy like this.
  #542 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Whether I personally would ever resort to
>>>cannibalism, has nothing to do with whether
>>>I consider it a wrong. It's a mostly wrong
>>>type of thing in my opinion.

>>
>>The KILLING of the person eaten is an ABSOLUTELY wrong
>>thing. The eating is irrelevant.

>
>
> What if they volunteer themself to the group so the
> rest may survive?


That's assumed not to occur, and I never said anything
about a group, you ****ing slovenly idiot; I clearly
specified two people, and only two people. In any
case, the "volunteer" could always commit suicide
first. We are assuming the survivor kills the other
person.

>
>
>>Let's change it. Say you and your skanky piece of
>>sushi partner are in a mountain cabin miles from
>>anywhere. No one knows you're there. You're very
>>nearly out of food, and your vehicle is covered by 20
>>feet of snow.
>>
>>There is one pair of snowshoes. They are owned by your
>>skank piece of sushi partner. One person can make it
>>out using the snowshoes. If you split the snowshoes,
>>you both die. If one person takes the snowshoes and
>>leaves, she will live, but the one left behind will die.
>>
>>Is it "just a little bit wrong" for you to kill the
>>rancid piece of sushi and take her snowshoes so you can
>>leave, make it to safety and live? Or is it absolutely
>>wrong?

>
>
> First of all [snip desperate attempt at evasion]


You can't address it. I knew you couldn't.

>
>>Understand: the rancid piece of sushi, who owns the
>>snowshoes, can legally take them and leave you behind.
>>Unless she voluntarily relinquishes them to you, you
>>may not legally take them and leave her behind. If she
>>wants to use them herself, leaving you to die, and
>>instead you kill her and take them for yourself, you
>>have done something ABSOLUTELY wrong. There is no
>>"mostly" or "just a weensy bit" about it: it is
>>ABSOLUTELY wrong.

>
>
> If the snowshoes are hers, she can go and I'll just
> hope help arrives in time. Probably, we would
> realistically look at who's in better shape to make
> the trip to get help. I can't think of a place so
> remote that emergency people (maybe in
> snowshoes) can't get there in time.
>
> Another McGyver-like possibility is to rig up a
> sled of some kind. Take turns with who pulls
> using snowshoes and who rides in the sled.
>
> I can't picture either of us wanting to kill the
> other in your scenario.


I am asking you if you could somehow justify killing
her and taking her snowshoes, and clearly you can't
honestly address the (admittedly extreme) scenario,
because then you'd have to acknowledge that it would be
ABSOLUTELY wrong.

>
>
>>You may not *like* absolutes in life, skanky
>>carpetmuncher, but they're just a fact of life.

>
>
> I still say it's mostly wrong.


And you still cannot logically hold that belief, for
reasons I have made clear and which you cannot refute
except to repeat yourself stupidly.
  #543 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>Does your snipping mean you now cede that homosexuals have a higher
>>>>incidence of mental illness and psychosexual disorders than the
>>>>general population?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it just means that I couldn't be bothered with
>>>trying to convince you otherwise. I still disagree
>>>with your data/conclusions.

>>
>>You can't "disagree" with data.

>
>
> There's other data out there that disagrees.


Show it. You're lying, of course.

> I've read studies where no difference was found.


Bullshit. You've read no such "studies" ever.

> I question your data


You "question" the data because you don't like the
implications of it. You're a dishonest asshole.
  #544 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>>Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no eating disorders.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would that disappoint me?
>>>>
>>>>Because I'm sure you would like to connect veganism
>>>>to eating disorders.
>>>
>>>Not "connect to"; "veganism" IS an eating disorder. Actually, it's

>
> one
>
>>>member of a family of eating disorders called orthorexia.

>>
>>I'm just glad I found this newsgroup, another couple of years as
>>self-indoctrinated vegetarians my wife would probably be dead and I

>
> would
>
>>still be weak and sickly.

>
>
> Well, I'm sorry to hear that you both had eating disorders.


Sorry to see that you have one, AND that your reasoning
ability is so shitty.

You suffer from orthorexia.
  #545 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>>>I thought my statement was killing animals is mostly
>>>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is your statement, and it's bullshit. It cannot
>>>>>>be the case. Killing animals either is wrong, or it
>>>>>>isn't wrong. It can't be "mostly" wrong. "wrong"
>>>>>>doesn't equate to "bad", although wrong IS bad. "Bad"
>>>>>>has a scale; "wrong" does not. "wrong" is binary:
>>>>>>something is wrong, or it is not wrong. It cannot be
>>>>>>"mostly" wrong; the very concept is sheer nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If it's my statement, then it's not bullshit to me.
>>>>
>>>>It IS bullshit. It is absurd.
>>>
>>>
>>>You can find it absurd all you like.

>>
>>It IS absurd. It is plainly absurd, because "wrong" is
>>binary: on or off, yes or no, wrong or not wrong.
>>There are no degrees.

>
>
> This whole argument is absurd!


By now it is, because you are not amenable to reason.
I demonstrate that your childlike beliefs lead to
logical absurdities, and you simply babble them anew.

>
>
>>>>>>>Um, hate to tell you again and again, but I believe
>>>>>>>that killing animals is mostly wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You do not. You CANNOT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But I do.
>>>>
>>>>No, you WANT to have it that way, but you can't.
>>>
>>>
>>>But I already do.

>>
>>No, you want to have it that way. You can't.



  #546 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>>>Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If my
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you
>>>>
>>>>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
>>>
>>>
>>>I keep

>>
>>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.

>
>
> Well,


Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
  #547 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I don't believe that the transportation of food is as
>>>bad as you think it is.

>>
>>The only basis for your belief is wishful thinking.

>
>
> I don't care what you think it is. The availlability
> of worldwide foods is great for my health.


Your consumption of them proves you aren't doing the
best you can. You are letting your aesthetic
preferences dominate any claim to ethics.
Fundamentally, you are an unethical person.

>>>>>Do you have land, that you bought yourself and
>>>>>didn't inherit.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is it large enough to grow all your own food?
>>>Do you grow all or most of your own food?

>>
>>Irrelevant: he doesn't make any ****witted claims
>>about the wrongness of killing animals that would imply
>>he needs to grow any part of his food at all.

>
>
> Ah, do as I say, not as I do.


No: "do as your so-called 'ethics' demands of you."
  #548 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>So, in your opinion, a vegan isn't doing their
>>>best unless they grow their own food?

>>
>>No, that's not what he said. Growing your own food,
>>however, may be a REQUIREMENT to be doing your best,
>>unless you're going to hire a farmer to farm according
>>to "death-free" standards.

>
>
> Who said it's a requirement?


It's a requirement of your so-called ethics. Your
so-called ethics demands that you live a "cruelty-free"
life. Do it, or acknowledge that the so-called ethics
is poorly conceived bullshit.

>
>>>Owning or even renting land is not as easy as you think.

>>
>>Renting farmland is ABSURDLY easy.
>>
>>
>>>>>It will be a while before you even try to practice what you preach.

>>
>>How about, the 33rd of Never? That's when the skanky
>>narcissist will try to practice what she preaches.

>
>
> I may wish it was now, but I have to wait.


No. Right behavior can never wait.
  #549 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > If a person kills another to survive via cannabalism,
> > the circumstances would determine how wrong it
> > was.

>
> NO. If you KILL the person, you have committed a crime
> and a grievous sin. The EATING is irrelevant.


Let's leave your religious beliefs out of this.

> The ONLY relevant question is: did the survivor kill
> the other person? If so, then you have done wrong.


Not if the person volunteered themself so that
the rest could survive. Then it's not very wrong
at all. Gross, yes, but not high up on the
wrongness scale.

> > Settle down.

>
> **** off. I specified at the very beginning that the
> survivor killed the other person, and you ****ED UP,
> AGAIN, by talking about the survivor eating an already
> dead person. You are ALWAYS sloppy like this.


Settle down. We'll talk about killing if that's what
makes you feel better.


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


  #550 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > What if they volunteer themself to the group so the
> > rest may survive?

>
> That's assumed not to occur, and I never said anything
> about a group, you ****ing slovenly idiot; I clearly
> specified two people, and only two people. In any
> case, the "volunteer" could always commit suicide
> first. We are assuming the survivor kills the other
> person.


Are we assuming that it's against the other person's
will? IF so, then it's kind of high up on the wrongness
scale. Their desperation for food must be taken
into account though.

> > If the snowshoes are hers, she can go and I'll just
> > hope help arrives in time. Probably, we would
> > realistically look at who's in better shape to make
> > the trip to get help. I can't think of a place so
> > remote that emergency people (maybe in
> > snowshoes) can't get there in time.
> >
> > Another McGyver-like possibility is to rig up a
> > sled of some kind. Take turns with who pulls
> > using snowshoes and who rides in the sled.
> >
> > I can't picture either of us wanting to kill the
> > other in your scenario.

>
> I am asking you if you could somehow justify killing
> her and taking her snowshoes, and clearly you can't
> honestly address the (admittedly extreme) scenario,
> because then you'd have to acknowledge that it would be
> ABSOLUTELY wrong.


It's nothing to do with absolute wrongness. I just
can't see a situation where I would kill her. If I
became as desperate for those snowshoes
as you put above, then why wouldn't I simply
fight to get them?




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




  #551 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > I question your data
>
> You "question" the data because you don't like the
> implications of it. You're a dishonest asshole.


Most modern studies disagree. In older
studies, being *** itself was considered
a disorder, so of course it would show as
them having more psych disorders. Also,
until very recently, and even now in some
places, homosexuality is considered bad.
That has resulted in gays being picked on
and probably some getting depressed.
Things like that can change the balance
and conclusions of studies. If I had
known I was going to be having this
argument someday, I would have saved
and posted links to studies that show
different results than yours.


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


  #552 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Well, I'm sorry to hear that you both had eating disorders.
>
> Sorry to see that you have one, AND that your reasoning
> ability is so shitty.
>
> You suffer from orthorexia.


Nope. I have no eating disorder. I'm not veggie for
weight reasons. My weight is an average healthy
one and doesn't tend to fluxuate. I'm not failing to
thrive as you did.


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


  #553 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>>>>>>>Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If my
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If you
> >>>>
> >>>>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I keep
> >>
> >>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.

> >
> >
> > Well,

>
> Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.


Parrot without a large repetoire.


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


  #554 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > I don't care what you think it is. The availlability
> > of worldwide foods is great for my health.

>
> Your consumption of them proves you aren't doing the
> best you can. You are letting your aesthetic
> preferences dominate any claim to ethics.
> Fundamentally, you are an unethical person.


You're free to think that if you want.

> > Ah, do as I say, not as I do.

>
> No: "do as your so-called 'ethics' demands of you."


Can you show me where I have embraced the
ethics you refer to? And let's see if you can
do it without the word absolute or must.


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


  #555 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Who said it's a requirement?
>
> It's a requirement of your so-called ethics. Your
> so-called ethics demands that you live a "cruelty-free"
> life. Do it, or acknowledge that the so-called ethics
> is poorly conceived bullshit.


If we were to go by your definition of being required to
live a cruelty-free life, then I'd be responsible for fixing
the whole world. Why stop at fixing farming practices
of my using only, I 'must' fix it everywhere or I'm complicit
by letting it happen. I'm required to ensure that every
pet owner I come across treats their pet well. I'm
required to force all the drug companies to use non-
animal alternatives to testing. I'm required to change
the whole world and fix all the bad in it because of
my ethics.

Now let's get back to reality. I do what I can.
Remember, it's me who gets to determine
what I can or can't do.

> > I may wish it was now, but I have to wait.

>
> No. Right behavior can never wait.


Gee, with you around, I wouldn't need to
think for myself, would I?


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




  #556 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>
> > That's false, ANY *typical* vegan diet that relies on commercial

> product
> > could be improved by substituting some carefully selected meat.

>
> See? There you go, wanting to compare the worst of
> the vegans to the best of the meats. Come back when
> you want to compare other combos too.


The operative principle of veganism, as you know, is the removal of animal
products from one's diet and lifestyle. My statement above proves that this
rule is flawed.

> > > If we
> > > compare ALL combinations, vegans win
> > > with less cds.

> >
> > Vegans don't win anything, the valid comparison is amongst foods, not
> > people.

>
> Aren't we playing the cds numbers game? If so,
> the vegan team wins. Go team!


Foods, products are the issue, not teams.

> > Right, fancy that! Depending on the source of the food, sometimes

> plant
> > foods are better, sometimes not. That's all I have been saying all

> along.
> > The narrow vegan agenda of simply removing animal products and

> claiming some
> > kind of moral victory is hollow.

>
> That SIMPLE act actually does something.
> It lowers cds. That is a good enough reason
> for a person to feel morally good about themselves.


If the vegan removes fresh salmon from her diet, cds are not lowered.

> > > they are a limited resource.

> >
> > There is enough of them that anyone who wants them now could obtain

> them.
> >
> > > All meateaters can't choose to go that
> > > route because demand would exceed supply.

> >
> > Everyone doesn't need to do anything, it only needs to be shown that a

> diet
> > that includes meat can improve upon a typical vegan diet in order to
> > establish the flaw in the narrow, dogmatic vegan idea of 'no

> consumption of
> > animal products'.

>
> If you feel that not consuming animal products
> is a 'flaw' of veganism, boy, do you ever have
> your work cut out for you!!


The flaw is in the moral conclusion, not the consumption.

> > I've been saying it all along. Veganism is fundamentally flawed in

> it's idea
> > that one's diet/lifestyle is made more moral and ethical by the

> progressive
> > removal of animal products from it. If one accepts the notion that

> there is
> > a direct link between a person's morality and the amount of harm to

> animals
> > one causes with their lifestyle then the rule of veganism is too

> narrow, too
>
> Yeah, you think vegans should starve themselves
> in protest against commercial produce.


No, I think vegans ought to be frank and honest about the death toll behind
commercial produce and stop posturing.

> > non-inclusive. Your typical urban vegan, and I've been one, is beat

> hands
> > down by a small self-sufficient farmer, I've been one of them too. The

> vegan
>
> Gee, just a moment ago, I was reading you claim
> that no one can feed themselves for a winter on
> what they grow.


I also raised eggs, milk, butter, pork, chicken and beef on that farm. That
was enough to make my family self-sufficient.


  #557 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > Well, I'm sorry to hear that you both had eating disorders.

> >
> > Sorry to see that you have one, AND that your reasoning
> > ability is so shitty.
> >
> > You suffer from orthorexia.

>
> Nope. I have no eating disorder. I'm not veggie for
> weight reasons. My weight is an average healthy
> one and doesn't tend to fluxuate. I'm not failing to
> thrive as you did.


And when you do???


  #558 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > Veganism *is* connected to eating disorders. If a person fails to

> thrive on
> > a vegan or any extreme diet, and have become indoctrinated in the

> belief
> > that it's immoral to consume animal products to the point that they

> have an
> > aversion to meat, which you have suggested you do, then they become
> > immediately vulnerable to a health crisis. That is the classic profile

> of an
> > eating disorder.
> > http://www.beyondveg.com/bratman-s/h...unkie-1a.shtml

>
> You say IF a person fails to thrive to the point of having
> a health crisis. I've never met a vegan who had that
> happen.


Why "failure to thrive" on vegetarian
diets is rarely talked about
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

> If I did, I would want to examine their choices
> of foods and see if there's something missing (no, not
> meat).
>
> > > What's YMMV?

> >
> > Google it.

>
> You could have just answered.


I don't wish to encourage your lazy thinking.

> It means Your
> Mileage May Vary. Well, mine varies quite a
> bit from yours.


True, I would never allow myself to become as aggressively ignorant as you
have done.


  #559 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote
> I don't consider animals to have rights. I recognize that the human laws
> in some jurisdictions provide some protections to some animals in some
> circumstances. This is quite different than to make any categorical
> statement of rights or rights belonging to animals.


How is it you can make rational statements like this when responding to
other people yet all I get from you are knee-jerk remarks and devil's
advocacy?


  #560 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Nope. I have no eating disorder. I'm not veggie for
> > weight reasons. My weight is an average healthy
> > one and doesn't tend to fluxuate. I'm not failing to
> > thrive as you did.

>
> And when you do???


When? You're nuts. I'm not one of that minority
of vegans who has an eating disorder. In fact,
I'll bet the same percentage of vegans have
eating disorders as non-vegans. Just because
you had a disorder, doesn't mean all veg*ns do
too.


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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sicko’s Soup (Cabbage Soup. GREAT for Sickness) DinkingAround Recipes 0 19-03-2014 11:10 PM
REC - Brie Cheese Soup / Sweet Potato Soup - RFC Cookbook page 22 Rusty[_1_] Recipes 0 09-03-2009 06:01 AM
Crockpot Southwestern Pumpkin Soup Aka Korma Soup [email protected] Recipes (moderated) 0 22-10-2007 03:48 PM
Soup Cook Along -Modified Farmhouse Supper Soup Mr Libido Incognito General Cooking 4 05-03-2006 09:04 PM
Req: Asparagus soup and Jerusalem artichoke soup MEow Vegetarian cooking 1 09-01-2004 09:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"