In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >> I'm not arguing absolutes, that's a strawman. There is wide gap
> between
> > > >> acknowledging a valid principle and calling it absolute. In human
> affairs
> > > >> very little is absolute. In other words, you are not refuting my
> > > >> arguments
> > > >> by asserting that they are not absolute.
> > > >
> > > > Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.
> > >
> > > No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
> > > whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be
> the
> > > case, get used to it.
> > >
> > > > For example, you
> > > > claimed that eating meat was not wrong.
> > >
> > > It isn't.
> > >
> > > > Well, that isn't true based on
> > > > the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> > > > meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat
> in
> > > > North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement
> of
> > > > absoluteness.
> > >
> > > Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a
> response
> > > to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
> > > relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement.
> Vegans
> > > are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are
> referring
> > > to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the
> charge
> > > in my response.
> >
> > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > all animals (an absolute),
>
> Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no moral
> objection to using animals that die of natural causes.

The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
common to Christianity and Western nations?

> > but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
> > generalization).
>
> They are both generalizations.
>
> > > > To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> > > > using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton
> why
> > > > is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger
> meat?
> > >
> > > First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof
> of
> > > "circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because
> *you*
> > > asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel
> and
> > > tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by
> western
> > > culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
> > > endangered species status among others.
> >
> > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> > are not inherent.
>
> They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example, morals
> almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there is
> no reason for a moral precept to exist.

There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you."

> > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>
> Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion between
> myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other circumstances.
> Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.

Yet, you use the term.

> > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> > >
> > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
> > > don't?
> >
> > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic by
> > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
>
> Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.

Arguments from popularity are exactly that. Once again, I ask how is the
golden rule the required morality for any human? I agree it is common to
North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.

> > I can
> > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on eating
> > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
>
> I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very principle
> over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit premeditated
> murder and conclude that I have done something moral.

Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.

There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.

> > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given issue.
>
> Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?

That wasn't my point at all.