In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > > 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?
>
> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just go
> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.

Again, you avoid accountability for your comments. You stated that
actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance. Even though we
disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

> [..]
> > > > 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."
>
> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.

Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

> > > > 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.
>
> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.

That amounts to hypocrisy.

> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.

Try a mirror, Dutch.

> > > > > > 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.
>
> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
> suffering under a delusion.

Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
beliefs and thinking.

What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
something is wrong?

> > Once again, I ask how is the
> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>
> Strawman.

The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

> > 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 would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
> popularity.

I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
fallacy. Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
have been able to supply is one of popularity.

> > > > 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.
>
> I did the exact opposite.

How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

> > 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 have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are not
> being coherent.

Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

> > > > 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.
>
> It's precisely what you said right above. "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."
>
> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
> involve what a group of humans think.

Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
label it as morality.