In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing animals,
for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite
often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating
something as morally neutral or just plain "right".

> > 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.

I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for
others. The person who kills the animal is killing the animal. They do
so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't. Justification and
mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt and
shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes.

> > 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.

No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify
do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is
there some other explanation that you have for not wrong.

> > 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?

I think you continue to evade the question.

As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, we
attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on.
Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug
dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged"
is the motive and intent.