"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> >> >> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> >> >> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> >> >> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> >> >> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> >> >> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> >> >> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
>> >> >> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or
>> >> > popular.
>> >> > So much for "great minds".
>> >>
>> >> He didn't argue that the logic was right *because* it was essentially
>> >> accepted by most vegans, he said it was logical based on it's own
>> >> merits,
>> >> *and* essentially accepted by most vegans.
>> >>
>> >> Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.
>> >
>> > "Essentially argued even by most...." is exactly what he wrote.
>>
>> Read it again, "essentially ***accepted*** even by most "vegans".
>>
>> You appear to be attempting to allege an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy
>> where none exists. He is not using vegan arguments to support his case,
>> they
>> would not do so, since vegan *arguments* indicate that killing animals is
>> wrong. He is using the fact that their actions implicitly support his
>> argument as part of his *conclusion*. Vegans do not "argue" that killing
>> animals is not wrong, Jay Santos was not saying they did, in fact they at
>> least implicitly argue that it IS wrong. He revealed through his
>> reasoning
>> that by their *actions* they implicitly "accept" that it is NOT wrong. I
>> apologize if that is hard to understand, but you have to have a basic
>> grasp
>> of the subject matter to begin with.
>
> Could you please clarify "not wrong".

Could you please clarify what you mean by "please clarify "not wrong"?

Cute little game you have going.. continuously making objections and probing
for clarifications, never making a point of your own.

> I find you more confusing than
> ever.

Maybe your game isn't so functional as you wish it were. If your objections
and requests for clarification game was working you should be in a better
position to understand my position.

> There are a variety of possibilities such as wrong, neutral or
> right. I imagine with could anything across a spectrum from almost right
> to not quite wrong.

You are decribing the moral ambiguity of veganism. I think you should
address the question to them.

> Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."
> For example, is paying my taxes "not wrong"?

For the most part, yes, of course. I can see nothing wrong in paying one's
taxes. What do *you* think?