In article . net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> If you believe that something is absolutely morally
> wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
> you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
> zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
> believe it to be absolutely wrong.
>
> If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
> kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
> you may not morally participate in any activity or
> process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
> then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
> absolutely wrong.
>
> Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong,
> then you're going to have a very difficult time
> explaining in what way it is relatively wrong. In
> particular, you're going to have an all but impossible
> task to explain why the amount in which you engage or
> indirectly participate is in any sense "better" than
> what someone else does.

that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.

And you're gonna gripe to her a bout doing a doobie and eating a plate
of veggies.