On Jun 6, 10:40 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou great-siz'd coward. Thou blasted,
> tottering prince of cats. Ye yipped:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
> >> iniquity. Ye jabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
> >>>> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> legroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
> >>>>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
> >>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
> >>>>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is
> >>>>>>>>> unlikely to feel a moral barrier to making such a change,
> >>>>>>>>> that would not even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who
> >>>>>>>>> is used to thinking of their diet as a statement of moral
> >>>>>>>>> commitment, which is most of them, is very likely to have
> >>>>>>>>> psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from
> >>>>>>>>> starting to eat meat.
>
> >>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
> >>>>>>>> their bodies
> >>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that
> >>>>>>>> they will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to
> >>>>>>>> the supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man
> >>>>>>>> below did or die horribly because the
> >>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>
> >>>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>
> >>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate
> >>>>>>>> will to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral
> >>>>>>>> commitment"?
>
> >>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
> >>>>>>>> the "moral
> >>>>>>>> commitment"?
>
> >>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
> >>>>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
> >>>>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
>
> >>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply
> >>>>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we
> >>>>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence?
>
> >>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
>
> >>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to
> >>>>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if
> >>>>>> it came right down to it.
>
> >>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push
> >>>>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation.
> >>>>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals
> >>>>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
> >>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be
> >>>>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think
> >>>>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and
> >>>>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
>
> >>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
> >>>>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
>
> >>>> What is there to justify?
>
> >>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
> >>> justification.
>
> >> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
>
> > Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>
> > There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway.
>
> Then why did you bring it up? That is at least the second time you've
> brought up an idea, proceeded to elucidate upon it then dismiss it as
> irrelevant when the path it took didn't go the way you wanted it. You did it
> when you traipsed off merrily down the garden path of Darwinian and
> Lamarckian evolution.
>
What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
were replying.
You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that we
would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
humans to save ourselves. I don't agree with this and I bothered to
say something about it, but I don't regard it as a major issue. (You
later conflated this with the issue of whether there is anything to
justify about the practice of eating meat, obviously I regard that as
a more important issue).
> > I said "Maybe it
> > can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> > anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> > obviously can be justified and it's not worth arguing about.
>
> Er, no. The question "What is there to justify?" means exactly what it asks,
> "What is there to justify?"; i.e. "What is there to justify if people kill
> animals to eat?"
>
That's actually not what we were talking about. Saying "what is there
to justify" about that issue is really just a move to opt out of
serious discussion of the issue. If you're not interested in seriously
discussing the issue, you probably shouldn't be on
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.
> What kind of a stretch of a mad imagination is needed to extrapolate the
> question, "What is there to justify?" into the statement, "I think it
> obviously can be justified and it's not worth arguing about."?
>
Seemed like a pretty natural interpretation to me.
> The very fact that I do not believe it needs to be justified is, in and of
> itself, worthy of argument.
Presumably you think it's morally permitted. If you want to argue
this, you'll have to engage with the arguments people have offered to
the contrary. That means you'll be trying to justify it. Your stance,
"It doesn't need justifying", is just a move to opt out of serious
discussion of the arguments.
> That isn't the first time you've done something
> like that either in this discussion. You did it in a previous post by
> completely misrepresenting my points when you said, "I think one point our
> friend Kadaitcha Man may have been trying to make is that, really, not that
> many people stick to a vegetarian diet if
> it's really bad for them."
I made a conjecture about what you intended and you correct me. It's
really no big deal.
I think you're just trolling, anyway.
>
> > Well,
> > fine, you can hold that view if you want. A lot of animal rights and
> > animal liberation philosophers would agree with you that it can be
> > justified.
>
> Congratulations. You have just commenced arguing against an idea that you
> alone created.
>
No. It was you who had the idea that if vegans were prepared to eat
meat to save their lives, that was some kind of problem with their
position. We were discussing an idea that you brought up.
> Rest snipped, entirely unread. How badly does your inability to keep a
> single train of thought on a steady path affect you?
>
> --
> alt.usenet.kooks
> "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
> Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
>
> Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
> Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
> Official Member:
> Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
> Usenet Ruiner Lits
> Top Assholes on the Net Lits
> Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
> AUK psychos and felons Lits
> #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits
>
> "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
> alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
> AOK
>
> Jij bent een ontiegelijke afgetrokken sjacheraar.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -