"Don" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ps.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.
>
> You need to stop acting like a rube.
> Dutch poses an imaginary scenario

Not imaginary, real.

to justify his claim and you shape
> yourself like a pretzel on his command.

Not everyone is as evasive as you are. There are a few people around who are
genuinely struggling to discover the truth.

> Then you stumble all over yourself trying to come up with a response.
> jeezis.
>
> His comment about *letting* someone else use their property (animals) as
> they see fit is equally silly.

Be more specific, I recall making no such comment.

"Don" > wrote
>
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote
>> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating
>> protein-rich meat.
>
> Make that *raw* meat and you may be close.

What's your point?

On Jun 5, 8:34 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 6:39 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou bondsman. Ye
> >> insinuated:
>
> >> > On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >> >> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The
> >> >> terror
> >> >> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye
> >> >> mewled:
>
> >> >>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >> >>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live
> >> >>>> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I
> >> >>>> love for
> >> >>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd:
>
> >> >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> >>>>>> 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"?
>
> >> >>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's
> >> >>>>> more common than they are willing to admit
>
> >> >>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was
> >> >>>> a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was
> >> >>>> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also
> >> >>>> got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The
> >> >>>> "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced
> >> >>>> with their own demise.
>
> >> >>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should
> >> >>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people
> >> >>> are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay
> >> >>> in good health by being vegan, then you should.
>
> >> >> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a
> >> >> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>
> >> > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical
> >> > works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan
> >> > diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made.
>
> >> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful anal
> >> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist?
>
> > I am a Grey alien and I want your ass for probing.
>
> > Art Deco
>
> Correction: You are NOT a Grey Alien, but a *** Butt-Pirate who wants to
> probe anyone's anal cavity, especially if they fall into that "little boy"
> age bracket.

Art Deco as a Kid!:

http://www.derfcity.com/o/scratch_my_butt.html

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:14:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> What is REQUIRED to be a goo is to
>>admire the Goober and want to be his boy. That's you and Derek, and
>>ONLY you and Derek, unless someone else wants to claim to be a goo
>>like you two. THEY decide, just as you have decided. You do NOT
>>decide for someone else whether or not they want to be a goo! You
>>poor bewildered fool.
>
>Correct

The truth hurts, but it's good to see that you understand. It
must be very lonely, and should make you feel like the fool
you are to accept the fact that you and Derek are the only
people who admire the Goober, but most people know better
than to admire such a nasty, dishonest, inept type of thing as
Goo.

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:35:55 -0700, Rupert > wrote:

>On Jun 5, 6:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > 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"?
>>
>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's more common
>> than they are willing to admit that vegetarians experience failure to thrive
>> on their diets, and many if not most of them experience serious
>> psychological difficulties in deciding to go back to a more "normal" diet. I
>> am sure that many suffer unecessary physical harm because of this.
>
>When you say it's "unnecessary", that's your judgement. I would
>maintain that the suffering caused to nonhuman animals by the
>widespread practice of eating meat is "unnecessary", you would be the
>first to point out that

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan. ·
.. . .
>Some unnecessary harm may come from vegan diets, but far more
>unnecessary harm comes from eating meat, even if we just talk about
>harm to humans.

Let's not worry about harm to humans. Think about this instead:

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:13:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:25:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:04:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant
>>>>>>>used
>>>>>>>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue,
>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>>>>>>>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and
>>>>>>>irrefutable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to
>>>>>say
>>>>>unless he says otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't, especially since it doesn't even apply to the Goobal
>>>> situation.
>>>
>>>Yes, you do.
>>
>> We can't.
>
>YOU can't

Since it doesn't even apply to the Goobal situation,
WE can not simply assume that it's really what he meant
to say. Not you, not me, not even the Goober. No one.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:14:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>dh pointed out:
>>
>>> What is REQUIRED to be a goo is to
>>>admire the Goober and want to be his boy. That's you and Derek, and
>>>ONLY you and Derek, unless someone else wants to claim to be a goo
>>>like you two. THEY decide, just as you have decided. You do NOT
>>>decide for someone else whether or not they want to be a goo! You
>>>poor bewildered fool.
>>
>>Correct
>
> The truth hurts

Which is why you're afraid of it.

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
>
> groups.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. 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. 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. You can try and do a serious critique of animal rights and
animal liberation philosophies if you want, but just assuming that
something must be justified because "that's the way things are" is not
a very good start.

> >> Man's brain developed off the back of eating
> >> protein-rich meat.
>
> > Yes, I've heard this before. One thing I'm interested in is whether
> > it's supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution. If it's
> > Darwinian, then the protein-richness of meat has nothing to do with
> > it, it would have been by the selective pressures set up by humans'
> > transition to hunting. And Lamarckian evolution is generally reckoned
> > to have been pretty much discredited for a long time.
>
> Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat. Man eats meat because man likes the
> taste of meat. So, better you first distinguish between something innate,
> perhaps due to instinct, and something due evolution, before you get down
> that path.
>

You're positing a connection between our ancestors' consumption of red
meat and the evolution of our brain capacity. What I want to know is
whether the mechanism is supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian
evolution. If you want to start talking about an "innate" tendency to
eat meat that's a different argument. There are a lot of cultures
where vegetarianism is quite widespread, you know.

> > Anyway, even if this were the case it wouldn't matter.
>
> If it didn't matter, why did you raise it and waste time elucidating about
> it?
>

You raised it, and I responded to it because I felt like it.

> > Most of us can
> > be perfectly healthy being vegan now.
>
> Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.
>

It's not open to question by any reasonably well-informed person, and
I've provided a link in another post which supports it. If you've
decided you're going to join in in a newsgroup about vegetarianism,
it's probably a good idea to acquaint yourself with the basic facts
about the subject.

> >> If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
> >> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise
> >> devour.
>
> >> Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying
> >> animal products to growing children is unethical.
>
> >> Cite:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm
>
> > Yes, but that's nonsense. The American Dietetic Association states
> > that vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally adequate at all
> > stages of life and have many health benefits. A child is much more
> > likely to get health problems from eating meat at some stage during
> > his or her life than from being brought up vegan.
>
> Yes, but that's nonsense. Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service)
> says that denying animal products to growing children is unethical.
>

You think someone from the US Agricultural Research Service is a
better source than the American Dietetic Assocation, do you?

No reputable dietitian is going to agree with the proposition that
denying animal products to growing children is unethical. If it is,
then why haven't some parents ended up in court?

> >> So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to
> >> animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very
> >> skew-whiff indeed.
>
> Note: No response.
>

I'd already adequately addressed it. The contention that feeding your
children a vegan diet is unethical is nonsense.

> --
> 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
>
> Straks vind ik je nog een bengaalse kleffe choleravlinder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 5, 9:39 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou bondsman. Ye
> insinuated:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The
> >> terror
> >> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye
> >> mewled:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live
> >>>> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I
> >>>> love for
> >>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd:
>
> >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
> om...
> >>>>>> 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"?
>
> >>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's
> >>>>> more common than they are willing to admit
>
> >>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was
> >>>> a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was
> >>>> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also
> >>>> got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The
> >>>> "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced
> >>>> with their own demise.
>
> >>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should
> >>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people
> >>> are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay
> >>> in good health by being vegan, then you should.
>
> >> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a
> >> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>
> > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical
> > works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan
> > diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made.
>
> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful anal
> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist?
>
> The question stands, unaddressed. What evidence can you offer to support the
> idea that there exist a group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>

I know a lot about veganism and the animal protection movement. I know
that what I said is correct. You find my testimony as implausible as a
story about Grey aliens, well, fine. Seems like a pretty irrational
reaction to me, but there you go.

You want to contest my interpretation of the foundations people
usually have for veganism, why don't you read some books like "Animal
Liberation" by Peter Singer, "The Case for Animal Rights" by Tom
Regan, "Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?" by Gary
Francione, "Speciesism" by Joan Dunayer, and get back to me.

Anyway, you're just trying to waste people's time. What's with cross-
posting to alt.astronomy? Have a good life.

> >> You need to be asked that question because being a vegan necessarily
> >> entails being a radical vegetarian.
>
> Note: No response.
>
> --
> 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
>
> Straks vind ik je nog een transatlantische geile zuurstogverpester.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> 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
>
> > groups.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. 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

No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.


> and it's not worth arguing about.

Which, if there's no moral dimension to it, is correct.


> 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. You can try and do a serious critique of animal rights and
> animal liberation philosophies if you want, but just assuming that
> something must be justified because "that's the way things are" is not
> a very good start.
>
> > >> Man's brain developed off the back of eating
> > >> protein-rich meat.
>
> > > Yes, I've heard this before. One thing I'm interested in is whether
> > > it's supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution. If it's
> > > Darwinian, then the protein-richness of meat has nothing to do with
> > > it, it would have been by the selective pressures set up by humans'
> > > transition to hunting. And Lamarckian evolution is generally reckoned
> > > to have been pretty much discredited for a long time.
>
> > Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat. Man eats meat because man likes the
> > taste of meat. So, better you first distinguish between something innate,
> > perhaps due to instinct, and something due evolution, before you get down
> > that path.
>
> You're positing a connection between our ancestors' consumption of red
> meat and the evolution of our brain capacity. What I want to know is
> whether the mechanism is supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian
> evolution. If you want to start talking about an "innate" tendency to
> eat meat that's a different argument. There are a lot of cultures
> where vegetarianism is quite widespread, you know.
>
> > > Anyway, even if this were the case it wouldn't matter.
>
> > If it didn't matter, why did you raise it and waste time elucidating about
> > it?
>
> You raised it, and I responded to it because I felt like it.
>
> > > Most of us can
> > > be perfectly healthy being vegan now.
>
> > Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.
>
> It's not open to question by any reasonably well-informed person, and
> I've provided a link in another post which supports it. If you've
> decided you're going to join in in a newsgroup about vegetarianism,
> it's probably a good idea to acquaint yourself with the basic facts
> about the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
> > >> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise
> > >> devour.
>
> > >> Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying
> > >> animal products to growing children is unethical.
>
> > >> Cite:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm
>
> > > Yes, but that's nonsense. The American Dietetic Association states
> > > that vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally adequate at all
> > > stages of life and have many health benefits. A child is much more
> > > likely to get health problems from eating meat at some stage during
> > > his or her life than from being brought up vegan.
>
> > Yes, but that's nonsense. Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service)
> > says that denying animal products to growing children is unethical.
>
> You think someone from the US Agricultural Research Service is a
> better source than the American Dietetic Assocation, do you?
>
> No reputable dietitian is going to agree with the proposition that
> denying animal products to growing children is unethical. If it is,
> then why haven't some parents ended up in court?
>
> > >> So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to
> > >> animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very
> > >> skew-whiff indeed.
>
> > Note: No response.
>
> I'd already adequately addressed it. The contention that feeding your
> children a vegan diet is unethical is nonsense.
>
>
>
> > --
> > 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
>
> > Straks vind ik je nog een bengaalse kleffe choleravlinder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> > > groups.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. 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
>
> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>

If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
Hence, taking the contrapositive, if there is no moral dimension to
it, it can be justified.

What he's saying is that it's not an issue for serious moral debate. I
paraphrased what he said well enough the last time around.

> > and it's not worth arguing about.
>
> Which, if there's no moral dimension to it, is correct.
>
>
>
> > 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. You can try and do a serious critique of animal rights and
> > animal liberation philosophies if you want, but just assuming that
> > something must be justified because "that's the way things are" is not
> > a very good start.
>
> > > >> Man's brain developed off the back of eating
> > > >> protein-rich meat.
>
> > > > Yes, I've heard this before. One thing I'm interested in is whether
> > > > it's supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution. If it's
> > > > Darwinian, then the protein-richness of meat has nothing to do with
> > > > it, it would have been by the selective pressures set up by humans'
> > > > transition to hunting. And Lamarckian evolution is generally reckoned
> > > > to have been pretty much discredited for a long time.
>
> > > Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat. Man eats meat because man likes the
> > > taste of meat. So, better you first distinguish between something innate,
> > > perhaps due to instinct, and something due evolution, before you get down
> > > that path.
>
> > You're positing a connection between our ancestors' consumption of red
> > meat and the evolution of our brain capacity. What I want to know is
> > whether the mechanism is supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian
> > evolution. If you want to start talking about an "innate" tendency to
> > eat meat that's a different argument. There are a lot of cultures
> > where vegetarianism is quite widespread, you know.
>
> > > > Anyway, even if this were the case it wouldn't matter.
>
> > > If it didn't matter, why did you raise it and waste time elucidating about
> > > it?
>
> > You raised it, and I responded to it because I felt like it.
>
> > > > Most of us can
> > > > be perfectly healthy being vegan now.
>
> > > Unsupported assertion. Claim fails.
>
> > It's not open to question by any reasonably well-informed person, and
> > I've provided a link in another post which supports it. If you've
> > decided you're going to join in in a newsgroup about vegetarianism,
> > it's probably a good idea to acquaint yourself with the basic facts
> > about the subject.
>
> > > >> If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
> > > >> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise
> > > >> devour.
>
> > > >> Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying
> > > >> animal products to growing children is unethical.
>
> > > >> Cite:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm
>
> > > > Yes, but that's nonsense. The American Dietetic Association states
> > > > that vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally adequate at all
> > > > stages of life and have many health benefits. A child is much more
> > > > likely to get health problems from eating meat at some stage during
> > > > his or her life than from being brought up vegan.
>
> > > Yes, but that's nonsense. Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service)
> > > says that denying animal products to growing children is unethical.
>
> > You think someone from the US Agricultural Research Service is a
> > better source than the American Dietetic Assocation, do you?
>
> > No reputable dietitian is going to agree with the proposition that
> > denying animal products to growing children is unethical. If it is,
> > then why haven't some parents ended up in court?
>
> > > >> So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to
> > > >> animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very
> > > >> skew-whiff indeed.
>
> > > Note: No response.
>
> > I'd already adequately addressed it. The contention that feeding your
> > children a vegan diet is unethical is nonsense.
>
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> > > Straks vind ik je nog een bengaalse kleffe choleravlinder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's
> > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational
> > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's
> > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on
> > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless
> > one reasonable step to take.
>
> Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as that,
> but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with hard-core
> Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view. It's a
> huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying,
> blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat as
> disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely "suggesting
> veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the case for the
> mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione.

No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the basis
of arguments other than the environmental argument.

> Not you
> either, based on everything you've said.

Why not?

> If you have decided to accept AR
> ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be tolerant, it
> would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas interesting,
> but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you have
> chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many questions
> about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the very
> least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as skeptical as you
> would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection of an
> angle or something, without providing hard evidence.

The trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not really
saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual. I see a problem with
discriminating on the basis of species alone. I acknowledge that it is
a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You think
it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I think
your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what constitutes
discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say that
if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
is definitely incorrect. That definitely shows you've got a long way
to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing this
out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping you
to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you need
to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
wrong.

On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's
> > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational
> > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's
> > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on
> > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless
> > one reasonable step to take.
>
> Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as that,
> but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with hard-core
> Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view. It's a
> huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying,
> blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat as
> disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely "suggesting
> veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the case for the
> mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione. Not you
> either, based on everything you've said. If you have decided to accept AR
> ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be tolerant, it
> would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas interesting,
> but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you have
> chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many questions
> about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the very
> least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as skeptical as you
> would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection of an
> angle or something, without providing hard evidence.

Actually, this contention that I should be "skeptical" about them is
interesting. One of two things has to be done: we either have to find
a good justification for discrimination on the basis of species, or
else we have to build a plausible comprehensive ethical framework
which avoids it. You're saying I should be more skeptical about the
possibility of the latter than the former, partly because you think
that it's obvious that the latter can't be done and hence the former
needs no justification anyway. As I say, I don't share that view. I
think your skepticism about the possibility of building a
comprehensive ethical framework which avoids discrimination on the
basis of species is partly based on a misapprehension of what that
would involve. I am somewhat skeptical about the possibility of
building such a framework, but I am at least equally skeptical about
the possibility of finding a good justification for discrimination on
the basis of species.

The analogy with trisection of the angle is not quite apt because I
have read and understood the proof that such a thing is impossible.

On Jun 5, 12:12 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>> Not one of your best efforts
> >> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
>
> > What was the task at hand?
>
> Accurately describing you.
>
> >>>>>>> Then refute it.
> >>>>>> Done, quite a while back.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> So show me where.
> >>>> Waste your own time, rupie, you ****wad - you don't get
> >>>> to waste mine.
> >>> True.
> >> So go waste your own time instead of futilely trying to
> >> sound witty, ****wit nerd boy.
>
> > I am wasting my own time
>
> You'll waste *only* your time, boy.



can you please EXPLAIN that for us Goo?

On Jun 5, 11:35 pm, "Don" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.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.
>
> You need to stop acting like a rube.
> Dutch poses an imaginary scenario to justify his claim and you shape
> yourself like a pretzel on his command.

Just saying what I think. Have you got any specific criticisms of what
I said? Feel free to offer them.

> Then you stumble all over yourself trying to come up with a response.
> jeezis.
>
> His comment about *letting* someone else use their property (animals) as
> they see fit is equally silly.

Not sure which comment you're referring to.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 6, 3:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Don wrote:
> > "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> 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"?
>
> > This so called *moral code* is largely a figment of the posters imagination.
>
> No. What is imaginary is your belief that you are
> morally superior by virtue of not consuming animal
> parts. That such a false moral belief underlies
> "veganism" is not in rational dispute.

Why is it false, Ball? Why isn't it morally preferable to cause less
suffering? Just once I'd like to hear the slightest reason.

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
>>
>>>>>> ps.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.

> 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?"

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."?

The very fact that I do not believe it needs to be justified is, in and of
itself, worthy of argument. 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."

> 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.

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 in

Jij bent een ontiegelijke afgetrokken sjacheraar.

Rupert > Thou damned furious wight. Hang, beg,
starve, die in the streets. Ye entreated:
> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>>>>>>> ps.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. 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
>>
>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>>
>
> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
> Hence, taking the contrapositive, if there is no moral dimension to
> it, it can be justified.
>
> What he's saying is that it's not an issue for serious moral debate. I
> paraphrased what he said well enough the last time around.

No you did not. You transmogrified it into an idea that I never conveyed,
whereupon you commenced to argue against your very own creation.

--
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 in

Jij bent vast een vliegende bejaarde bladluis.

Don > Thou enemy inveterate. Thou pribbling,
rotting pedant. Ye whinged:
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote

>> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of
>> eating protein-rich meat.
>
> Make that *raw* meat and you may be close.

Can you provide an argument to support that assertion? I can provide an
argument and references to knock it down dead.

Homo Erectus Pekinensis is known to have tended fires as far back as 300,000
years or more, perhaps 350,000, and there is evidence that Homo Erectus
Pekinensis used fire to prepare food, amongst other things.

http://www.unesco.org/ext/field/beij...c/pkm-site.htm [*1]
http://www.chinatravel.com/china-tra...t-zhouko.shtml
[*2]
http://www.cnwh.org/whyc/enzkd1.htm

The link at [*2] echoes the ideas at [*1], viz "Peking Man subsisted mainly
by hunting and gathering and already knew fire using and food cooking."

Peking Man's brain was still at a very early stage of development, yet
Peking Man used fire to cook food. Cooked meat can be eaten and digested in
a small fraction of the time it takes to eat and digest raw meat. Also,
cooked bones are far more easily broken than raw bones, thus the marrow is
more easily exposed for consumption. Furthermore cooked meat does not
deteriorate anywhere nearly as rapdily as raw meat.

So, you can take my assertion of a more general reference to "eating
protein-rich meat" to a more specific reference of "eating cooked meat".
Now, please support your original assertion. Thank you.

>> If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
>> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise
>> devour. Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that
>> denying
>> animal products to growing children is unethical.
>
> So you cite a gov't parasite?
> You can do better than that, I know you can.

Yes, but indicators are that you can't.

>> Cite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm
>>
>> So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to
>> animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very
>> skew-whiff indeed.
>
> Parents should have no say in how they raise their kids.
> They should read usenet and take the word of anonomous people and
> feed their kids nothing but raw meat everyday as thats how *man's
> brain developed*. LOL And you have the gall to mention the word
> altruism?

Ignored.

--
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 in

Jij deerniswekkende opgeblazen cyrano.

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 -

Rupert > Thou rebel's whore. Vile fiend and
shameless courtesan. Ye vituperated:
> On Jun 5, 9:39 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou
>> bondsman. Ye
>> insinuated:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The
>>>> terror
>>>> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye
>>>> mewled:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and
>>>>>> live upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the
>>>>>> thing I love for
>>>>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd:
>>
>>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> 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"?
>>
>>>>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's
>>>>>>> more common than they are willing to admit
>>
>>>>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I
>>>>>> was a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got
>>>>>> was platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I
>>>>>> also got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same
>>>>>> decision. The "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when
>>>>>> they are faced with their own demise.
>>
>>>>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should
>>>>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most
>>>>> people are more moderate in their views: they think that if you
>>>>> can stay in good health by being vegan, then you should.
>>
>>>> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a
>>>> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>>
>>> Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical
>>> works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan
>>> diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made.
>>
>> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful
>> anal
>> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist?
>>
>> The question stands, unaddressed. What evidence can you offer to
>> support the
>> idea that there exist a group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>>
>
> I know a lot about veganism and the animal protection movement. I know
> that what I said is correct. You find my testimony as implausible as a
> story about Grey aliens, well, fine. Seems like a pretty irrational
> reaction to me, but there you go.

I know a lot about Grey aliens and their anal probes. I know that what I
said is correct. You find my testimony as implausible as a story about
moderate vegans, well, fine. Seems like a pretty irrational reaction to me,
but there you go.

lalalalaaaa... lalalalaaaaa la lala laaaaa...

--
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 in

Nu vind ik je een vreselijke rubberen anussap-verzuring.

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.
>

Oh yes, and that wasn't a "garden path", that was directly relevant to
the contention you were making. You were the one who then brought up
the irrelevant idea of an innate desire to eat meat. Either you don't
have a very good understanding of the ideas you're discussing, or
you're deliberately blowing smoke as part of your trolling exercise.

> > 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?"
>
> 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."?
>
> The very fact that I do not believe it needs to be justified is, in and of
> itself, worthy of argument. 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."
>
> > 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.
>
> 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 -

dh@. Thou juggling fiend. Thou merely a dumb-show. Ye billowed:

> Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc...

Not to mention that dead animals are excellent fertiliser.

--
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 in

Straks vind ik je nog een onfrisse afgeragde makaak.

Eccles: Nope. Iyyyyyy'm not a goo - I'm a Goon!

Bluebottule: Eyuu are not thee onlee one, Eccules. I am one too!

Eccles: Well I was one B4 you was so that makes me one two, and you, three
four!! So dere! Hohoho!

Neddie: What, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what,
what, what, what, what, what, what, what??!! What about the rest of us, you
pair of spotty-faced Herberts?

Omnes: Yerr. Flippin cheek!

Eccles: Oooh. We're spotty-faced Herberts . . . Did you know that Bottule??

Bottule: Well it's better than bein a little tea-stained, crumpet-ridden
idiot! I'm a little tea-stained, crumpet-ridden idiot! I'm a little
tea-stained, crumpet-ridden idiot! I'm a little tea-stained, crumpet-ridden
id . . .

Grams: BANG!!!!

Got eem!

Wal: If this is all completely meaningless to you, dear listener, please
look here . . . .

http://www.thegoonshow.net/

and here . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goon_Show

Amongst my 13,412 plus of downloaded audio tracks collected over 10 years,
<gloat> I have fyeeuw Noah than 148 Goon Shows and a few more on some old
CDs that I thought were kaput, but it turned out that by leaving them in the
drive and waiting, no matter how much it rattled and complained, they were
still readable. (Good tip that.)

Neddie: Eccles! What are you doing here?

Eccles: Everybody's gotta be somewhere!

And when I was forced to tolerate the utter agony of kidney stones for a
time, I used to put the Goon Show on while pacing up and down to distract
myself from the pain.

I don't think there can possibly be a better accolade or lemonade as to the
effriccasee of a comedy show than that!

One *last* pun - and no - it's not cobblers!:

There was a girl who went into hospital to have her kidney stones blasted to
bits with ultrasound once but on the way to the theatre she fell and broke
her leg as well when the lithotripter up!

Nemo.
Ohhhh! It's really like being in heaven, to retire in 2007!!

On Jun 6, 11:03 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou rebel's whore. Vile fiend and
> shameless courtesan. Ye vituperated:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:39 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou
> >> bondsman. Ye
> >> insinuated:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The
> >>>> terror
> >>>> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye
> >>>> mewled:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and
> >>>>>> live upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the
> >>>>>> thing I love for
> >>>>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd:
>
> >>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >>>>>>>> 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"?
>
> >>>>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's
> >>>>>>> more common than they are willing to admit
>
> >>>>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I
> >>>>>> was a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got
> >>>>>> was platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I
> >>>>>> also got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same
> >>>>>> decision. The "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when
> >>>>>> they are faced with their own demise.
>
> >>>>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should
> >>>>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most
> >>>>> people are more moderate in their views: they think that if you
> >>>>> can stay in good health by being vegan, then you should.
>
> >>>> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a
> >>>> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>
> >>> Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical
> >>> works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan
> >>> diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made.
>
> >> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful
> >> anal
> >> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist?
>
> >> The question stands, unaddressed. What evidence can you offer to
> >> support the
> >> idea that there exist a group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>
> > I know a lot about veganism and the animal protection movement. I know
> > that what I said is correct. You find my testimony as implausible as a
> > story about Grey aliens, well, fine. Seems like a pretty irrational
> > reaction to me, but there you go.
>
> I know a lot about Grey aliens and their anal probes. I know that what I
> said is correct. You find my testimony as implausible as a story about
> moderate vegans, well, fine. Seems like a pretty irrational reaction to me,
> but there you go.
>
> lalalalaaaa... lalalalaaaaa la lala laaaaa...
>
> --
> 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
>
> Nu vind ik je een vreselijke rubberen anussap-verzuring.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, very amusing.

Rupert > Thou clay-brained flax-wench. Thou
dishonest flatterer. Ye pussyfooted:
> 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
>>
>>>>>>>> ps.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.

Not so. Your statement, "Discrimination requires some sort of
justification", is an all-encompassing statement.

> 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.

And now, for the at least the third time, you commence arguing against an
idea that you, your very self, created.

I challenge you to show where I ever conveyed the notion that you just
constructed.

> I don't agree with this<BITCHSLAP>

Then why make it up?

--
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 in

Jij bent nu echt een russische verkankerde cycloon.

Rupert > Thou detested parasite. You lisp and
wear strange suits. Ye driveled:
> 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
>>
>>>>>>>> ps.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.
>>
>
> Oh yes, and that wasn't a "garden path", that was directly relevant to
> the contention you were making<BITCHSLAP>

You mean the contention that you made up and proceeded to argue against as
if I had made such an assertion.

--
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 in

Nu vind ik je een etterpuistige uitgezakte aansteller.

On Jun 6, 10:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou damned furious wight. Hang, beg,
> starve, die in the streets. Ye entreated:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>> 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
>
> oglegroups.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. 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
>
> >> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
> >> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>
> > If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
> > Hence, taking the contrapositive, if there is no moral dimension to
> > it, it can be justified.
>
> > What he's saying is that it's not an issue for serious moral debate. I
> > paraphrased what he said well enough the last time around.
>
> No you did not. You transmogrified it into an idea that I never conveyed,
> whereupon you commenced to argue against your very own creation.
>
> --
> 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 vast een vliegende bejaarde bladluis.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I'm afraid not.

Rupert > Thou frothy living dead man. Thou
qualling saucy fellow. Ye reproached:
> On Jun 6, 11:03 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> Rupert > Thou rebel's whore. Vile fiend and
>> shameless courtesan. Ye vituperated:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 9:39 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou
>>>> bondsman. Ye
>>>> insinuated:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The
>>>>>> terror
>>>>>> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye
>>>>>> mewled:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and
>>>>>>>> live upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the
>>>>>>>> thing I love for
>>>>>>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd:
>>
>>>>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> 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"?
>>
>>>>>>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical.
>>>>>>>>> It's more common than they are willing to admit
>>
>>>>>>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I
>>>>>>>> was a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got
>>>>>>>> was platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I
>>>>>>>> also got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same
>>>>>>>> decision. The "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when
>>>>>>>> they are faced with their own demise.
>>
>>>>>>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should
>>>>>>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most
>>>>>>> people are more moderate in their views: they think that if you
>>>>>>> can stay in good health by being vegan, then you should.
>>
>>>>>> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist
>>>>>> a group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>>
>>>>> Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical
>>>>> works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan
>>>>> diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made.
>>
>>>> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful
>>>> anal
>>>> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist?
>>
>>>> The question stands, unaddressed. What evidence can you offer to
>>>> support the
>>>> idea that there exist a group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>>
>>> I know a lot about veganism and the animal protection movement. I
>>> know that what I said is correct. You find my testimony as
>>> implausible as a story about Grey aliens, well, fine. Seems like a
>>> pretty irrational reaction to me, but there you go.
>>
>> I know a lot about Grey aliens and their anal probes. I know that
>> what I said is correct. You find my testimony as implausible as a
>> story about moderate vegans, well, fine. Seems like a pretty
>> irrational reaction to me, but there you go.
>>
>> lalalalaaaa... lalalalaaaaa la lala laaaaa...
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> Nu vind ik je een vreselijke rubberen anussap-verzuring.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, very amusing.

But you still don't get it, do 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 in

Jij bent nu echt een vuile imitatie satraap.

On Jun 6, 11:15 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou clay-brained flax-wench. Thou
> dishonest flatterer. Ye pussyfooted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> oglegroups.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.
>
> Not so. Your statement, "Discrimination requires some sort of
> justification", is an all-encompassing statement.
>

Your reply in no way undermined this remark.

> > 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.
>
> And now, for the at least the third time, you commence arguing against an
> idea that you, your very self, created.
>
> I challenge you to show where I ever conveyed the notion that you just
> constructed.
>

In

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....3?dmode=source

we have

"Dutch: 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.


Me: 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.

You: What is there to justify?"

> > I don't agree with this<BITCHSLAP>
>
> Then why make it up?
>
> --
> 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 nu echt een russische verkankerde cycloon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 6, 11:16 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou detested parasite. You lisp and
> wear strange suits. Ye driveled:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> oglegroups.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.
>
> > Oh yes, and that wasn't a "garden path", that was directly relevant to
> > the contention you were making<BITCHSLAP>
>
> You mean the contention that you made up and proceeded to argue against as
> if I had made such an assertion.
>

I hope, for your sake, that you are trolling and are not really this
stupid. The comment I made was perfectly relevant to your contention
that the evolution of our brain capacity was influenced by eating
meat. If you don't understand what is involved in making this
contention, that is not my problem.

Rupert > Thou notable-coward. Thou worthless,
impertinent stool for a witch. Ye stuttered:
> On Jun 6, 11:15 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> Rupert > Thou clay-brained flax-wench. Thou
>> dishonest flatterer. Ye pussyfooted:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>>>>>>>>> ps.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.
>>
>> Not so. Your statement, "Discrimination requires some sort of
>> justification", is an all-encompassing statement.
>>
>
> Your reply in no way undermined this remark.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And now, for the at least the third time, you commence arguing
>> against an idea that you, your very self, created.
>>
>> I challenge you to show where I ever conveyed the notion that you
>> just constructed.
>>
>
> In
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....3?dmode=source
>
> we have
>
> "Dutch: 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.
>
>
> Me: 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.
>
> You: What is there to justify?"

Please show how the question, "What is there to justify?" conveys the notion
that I "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."

Thank 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 in

Jij bent vast een afgezaagde door wrijving vervormde banaliteit.

Rupert > Thou detested kite. Thou lying,
base-court blasting and scandalous breath. Ye nitpicked:
> On Jun 6, 11:16 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> Rupert > Thou detested parasite. You lisp
>> and wear strange suits. Ye driveled:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>>>>>>>>> ps.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.
>>
>>> Oh yes, and that wasn't a "garden path", that was directly relevant
>>> to the contention you were making<BITCHSLAP>
>>
>> You mean the contention that you made up and proceeded to argue
>> against as if I had made such an assertion.
>>
>
> I hope, for your sake, that you are trolling and are not really this
> stupid. The comment I made was perfectly relevant to your contention
> that the evolution of our brain capacity was influenced by eating
> meat. If you don't understand what is involved in making this
> contention, that is not my problem.

So, your slug-like mind meanders and slithers all over the landscape to the
point where it transmogrifies Question A into Assertion Z therefore it is
someone elses problem if your blitherings are misunderstood? And you want
people to believe that, yes?

As for this:

> The comment I made was perfectly relevant to your contention
> that the evolution of our brain capacity was influenced by eating
> meat.

I provided cited references and reasoned argument. Your mere "comments" and
your associated major distrotions of fact are not a substitute for the
ensuing requirement placed upon you to provide cited references and reasoned
argument to counter the cited references and reasoned argument already given
to you.

HTH

--
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 in

Nu vind ik je een gedissecteerde afgerukte albinoreetkever.

On Jun 5, 12:42 am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 4:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> > >>> On Jun 5, 4:21 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> > >>>>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> > >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> > >>>>>>>>> Not one of your best efforts
> > >>>>>>>> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
> > >>>>>>> What was the task at hand?
> > >>>>>> Accurately describing you.
> > >>>>> Fair enough. I thought the task was to give offence.
> > >>>> That, too.
> > >>> Well, in that case I'm afraid it wasn't adequate to the task at hand.
> > >> Yes, it was.
>
> > > Not at all.
>
> > Yes, it was.
>
> *wiping tears of laughter from eye*

No, you weren't, you ****ing crybaby.

On Jun 6, 11:39 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou detested kite. Thou lying,
> base-court blasting and scandalous breath. Ye nitpicked:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 11:16 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >> Rupert > Thou detested parasite. You lisp
> >> and wear strange suits. Ye driveled:
>
> >>> 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
>
> >>>>>>>>>>news:1181029663.976921.25060@j4g2000prf. googlegroups.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.
>
> >>> Oh yes, and that wasn't a "garden path", that was directly relevant
> >>> to the contention you were making<BITCHSLAP>
>
> >> You mean the contention that you made up and proceeded to argue
> >> against as if I had made such an assertion.
>
> > I hope, for your sake, that you are trolling and are not really this
> > stupid. The comment I made was perfectly relevant to your contention
> > that the evolution of our brain capacity was influenced by eating
> > meat. If you don't understand what is involved in making this
> > contention, that is not my problem.
>
> So, your slug-like mind meanders and slithers all over the landscape to the
> point where it transmogrifies Question A into Assertion Z therefore it is
> someone elses problem if your blitherings are misunderstood? And you want
> people to believe that, yes?
>
> As for this:
>
> > The comment I made was perfectly relevant to your contention
> > that the evolution of our brain capacity was influenced by eating
> > meat.
>
> I provided cited references and reasoned argument. Your mere "comments" and
> your associated major distrotions of fact are not a substitute for the
> ensuing requirement placed upon you to provide cited references and reasoned
> argument to counter the cited references and reasoned argument already given
> to you.
>

In general, I have done at least as good a job at backing up my
contentions with citations and argument as you have. On the occasion
where you provided the evolutionary argument, you did not provide any
references or argument. You parroted an assertion you had heard that
meat influenced the evolution of our brain capacity, and then
manifested a total lack of understanding of what this assertion
actually says.

I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
debate. If you are, then poor you.

> HTH
>
> --
> 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
>
> Nu vind ik je een gedissecteerde afgerukte albinoreetkever.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rupert > Thou grease-covered false blood. Thou
rotting head louse. Ye advised:
> On Jun 6, 11:39 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> Rupert > Thou detested kite. Thou lying,
>> base-court blasting and scandalous breath. Ye nitpicked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 11:16 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>> Rupert > Thou detested parasite. You lisp
>>>> and wear strange suits. Ye driveled:
>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ps.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.
>>
>>>>> Oh yes, and that wasn't a "garden path", that was directly
>>>>> relevant to the contention you were making<BITCHSLAP>
>>
>>>> You mean the contention that you made up and proceeded to argue
>>>> against as if I had made such an assertion.
>>
>>> I hope, for your sake, that you are trolling and are not really this
>>> stupid. The comment I made was perfectly relevant to your contention
>>> that the evolution of our brain capacity was influenced by eating
>>> meat. If you don't understand what is involved in making this
>>> contention, that is not my problem.
>>
>> So, your slug-like mind meanders and slithers all over the landscape
>> to the point where it transmogrifies Question A into Assertion Z
>> therefore it is someone elses problem if your blitherings are
>> misunderstood? And you want people to believe that, yes?
>>
>> As for this:
>>
>>> The comment I made was perfectly relevant to your contention
>>> that the evolution of our brain capacity was influenced by eating
>>> meat.
>>
>> I provided cited references and reasoned argument. Your mere
>> "comments" and your associated major distrotions of fact are not a
>> substitute for the
>> ensuing requirement placed upon you to provide cited references and
>> reasoned argument to counter the cited references and reasoned
>> argument already given to you.
>>
>
> In general, I have

That sounds like an introduction to opinion. I don't want your opinion. I
want reasoned argument, which you are incapable of engaging in by virtue of
your insane and persistent acts of creating your own straw men, which you
then proceed to immolate, whereupon you point your tawdry finger at my
original argument and claim it is dead.

Your antics do not earn you my respect; they earn you only pillory and
ridicule.

--
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 in

Nu vind ik je een neopreutse zompige kotvarken.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's
>> > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational
>> > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's
>> > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on
>> > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless
>> > one reasonable step to take.
>>
>> Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as that,
>> but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with hard-core
>> Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view. It's a
>> huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying,
>> blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat as
>> disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely "suggesting
>> veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the case for
>> the
>> mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione.
>
> No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the basis
> of arguments other than the environmental argument.

They're not "suggesting" veganism as a reasonable alternative as you
portrayed, they are stating categorically that it is the only moral avenue
available to us, assuming of course that we have a choice.

>> Not you
>> either, based on everything you've said.
>
> Why not?

Because your words reveal that you have bought the AR party line on a
fundamental level. You can't do that and at the same time take a moderate
view of animal use. The two are incongruent.

>> If you have decided to accept AR
>> ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be tolerant,
>> it
>> would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas interesting,
>> but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you have
>> chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many questions
>> about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the very
>> least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as skeptical as
>> you
>> would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection of an
>> angle or something, without providing hard evidence.
>
> The trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
> accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not really
> saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual.

That's because you tend to talk in circles. If something like this can't be
parsed down to simple understandable terms then the person speaking doesn't
really understand what they're saying. This subject is unlike higher
mathematics in that way.

> I see a problem with
> discriminating on the basis of species alone.

That statement is internally corrupt from start to finish. What do you mean
by problem, and discrimination? What do you mean when you say something is a
problem? Discrimination per se is not a negative, it is a positive. You seem
to be borrowing from the shorthand use of the word in the place of "injust
or unfair discrimination". And we don't discriminate on species "alone", we
also discriminate within our species, and not always unfairly, but not
always equitably either. Perhaps a clearer statement of that idea would be,
" It seems unjust to harm members of other species in circumstances and ways
in which we would not harm other humans."

The answer is, yes, if you look at animals and attempt to apply the
principles of human rights to them, then it seems unjust. The first question
is, was it a valid exercise to attempt that in the first place? Does it make
sense outside the confines of a theoretical model? What I know is that it is
foolhardy to subscribe to the notion that is de facto truth before grasping
all the implications and complications that it introduces in the real world.

> I acknowledge that it is
> a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
> theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You think
> it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I think
> your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what constitutes
> discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say that
> if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
> longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
> is definitely incorrect.

You're relying on the most extreme example, what about bees, spiders and
other small critters in the lawn? What about moles and voles and lizards and
toads in crop fields? Why does their plight seem so much less important to
the vegan than the plight of the chicken? And it does.

That definitely shows you've got a long way
> to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
> entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing this
> out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping you
> to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you need
> to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
> arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
> pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
> wrong.

Those last dozen or so lines might have been better served attempting to
explain how you think instead of rambling on about my perceived
shortcomings.

I have some rough ideas about the foundations of your form of thought, but I
would prefer to hear you try to elucidate them in your own way first, using
Rupert language, not phrases pulled out of books.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's
>> > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational
>> > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's
>> > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on
>> > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless
>> > one reasonable step to take.
>>
>> Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as that,
>> but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with hard-core
>> Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view. It's a
>> huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying,
>> blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat as
>> disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely "suggesting
>> veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the case for
>> the
>> mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione. Not you
>> either, based on everything you've said. If you have decided to accept AR
>> ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be tolerant,
>> it
>> would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas interesting,
>> but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you have
>> chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many questions
>> about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the very
>> least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as skeptical as
>> you
>> would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection of an
>> angle or something, without providing hard evidence.
>
> Actually, this contention that I should be "skeptical" about them is
> interesting. One of two things has to be done: we either have to find
> a good justification for discrimination on the basis of species, or
> else we have to build a plausible comprehensive ethical framework
> which avoids it.

I think that we can more closely examine the notion that there exists an
onus to find justification, something you have assumed to be true. Since
discrimination in and of itself is good, therefore the task is to establish
if that particular discrimination is unreasonable. I won't attempt that, but
I would submit that it is your job to establish before you begin to believe
in something like this.

You're saying I should be more skeptical about the
> possibility of the latter than the former, partly because you think
> that it's obvious that the latter can't be done and hence the former
> needs no justification anyway. As I say, I don't share that view. I
> think your skepticism about the possibility of building a
> comprehensive ethical framework which avoids discrimination on the
> basis of species is partly based on a misapprehension of what that
> would involve. I am somewhat skeptical about the possibility of
> building such a framework, but I am at least equally skeptical about
> the possibility of finding a good justification for discrimination on
> the basis of species.
>
> The analogy with trisection of the angle is not quite apt because I
> have read and understood the proof that such a thing is impossible.

Unfortunately, as complex as that proof is, even valid proofs of moral
concepts are not so clear cut. All of the logic in the world can't overrule
someone's aversion to the idea of a certain type of killing, even while they
may sponsor other kinds.

"Rupert" > wrote


> 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.

Discrimination is every animal's most important survival tool. Without the
ability to discriminate antelope would walk right up to a pride of lions and
we would continue to eat foods known to be poisonous. You have taken a
negative *******ization of the word and made into your reality.

> 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).

That cannot be the issue, because meat is dead. The issue must come earlier,
that is the killing or, or the sponsoring of the killing of animals for the
purpose of creating food. Then the question must be asked, why is it
necessary to justify the killing an animal to turn it into food and clothing
and other useful products while at the same time it does not seem to be
necessary to justify killing animals collaterally in other forms of
agriculture. This raises the point, isn't food the justification?
>
>> > 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.

You're constantly condescending towards people, implying they're not
discussing the issues properly, but you never say much of any substance
yourself.

[..]