Even if I were Plato, I couldn't have designed a more
excellent foil than "Scented Nectar" to illustrate the
ethical bankruptcy of "veganism", and the moral
confusion from which it originates.

Undeniably, she began by believing that merely by not
consuming animal parts, she was causing zero harm to
animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


How do we know she believed this? First, because all
she had done - in fact, STILL all she does - is to stop
consuming animal parts. Second, because she has
admitted to not knowing, until participating here,
about collateral animal deaths in agricultu

At first I didn't know about cds or what the
initials meant (collateral deaths).

"Scented Nectar" - 13 Dec 2004


She didn't *need* to say explicitly that she believed
in the fallacy; she has admitted it implicitly by what
else she has said. There was no manipulation or
"engineering" of the admission; she came right out with it.

Then she retreated to a far weaker position, and of
course could not explain how she got there in a way
consistent with her earlier belief. The weaker
fall-back position was that she is "doing the best
[she] can" at not causing animal death. This position
is untenable given her earlier demonstrated (and false)
belief that she had attained a ZERO animal death
"lifestyle" merely by not consuming animal parts. She
hasn't changed her actions a bit in making her
desperate retreat: she STILL is only refraining from
consuming animal parts.

Then she retreated a second time, after it was
demonstrated that she is NOT "doing the best she can".
Implicitly, she has acknowledged that she is NOT
doing the best she can, because she has not disputed
the contention that, were she to reduce her consumption
of some high-CD item and substitute an equivalent
amount of a lower-CD item in its place, she would be
doing better ("better" only according to her warped,
inchoate ethical values). Doing the "best" one can, in
something like animal CDs that implies a number,
involves counting, and she has never counted.

The exceedingly weak third position - TWO big retreats
- illustrates the absolute moral bankruptcy of
"veganism", because it makes the invidious comparison
with a demonized group of others the entirety of the
bogus endeavor. The comparison with others is all
that's left.

This comparison with others is especially loathsome,
because in addition to making one's ethicality
contingent on someone else's actions, it presents the
logical absurdity that the "vegan's" actual animal
death toll could INCREASE, but as long as it remains
below that of the demonized others, the "vegan" will
still conclude that she is being ethical!

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:49:26 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>Even if I were Plato, I couldn't have designed a more
>excellent foil than "Scented Nectar" to illustrate the
>ethical bankruptcy of "veganism", and the moral
>confusion from which it originates.
>
>Undeniably, she began by believing that merely by not
>consuming animal parts, she was causing zero harm to

.... farmed

> animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>the Antecedent fallacy:

No, it isn't. Rather, it's your straw man instead.

> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

This conditional proposition is false on the basis that an
improper relationship exists between the antecedent and
its consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) must
exist. The rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to
exist for the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition
must exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) to exist,
since I can cause animals to suffer and die in other ways apart
from just eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition
is fine. The consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die),
however, must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If
I eat meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this
is where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or eating
a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship which is
vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and that's why
it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition, so learn them.

Also, to prove that you know the premise is false, and that
you've built a straw man with this ready-made flaw into it,
here's your statement below where YOU finally admit it,
and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's premise
rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

You lose. Throw again.

[..]

Jay (or whoever you are today), did some
evil vegan dump you in the past? Did one
of them pick on you in school? Were you
ever held captive by evil vegans and
forced to live on nothing but whole grain
bread and organic jam?

What has caused you to have such a
hate-on for vegans? I don't believe the
nonsense about wanting to educate or
saving us, by the way.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Jay (or whoever you are today), did some
evil vegan dump you in the past? Did one
of them pick on you in school? Were you
ever held captive by evil vegans and
forced to live on nothing but whole grain
bread and organic jam?

What has caused you to have such a
hate-on for vegans? I don't believe the
nonsense about wanting to educate or
saving us, by the way.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Retard wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:49:26 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Even if I were Plato, I couldn't have designed a more
>>excellent foil than "Scented Nectar" to illustrate the
>>ethical bankruptcy of "veganism", and the moral
>>confusion from which it originates.
>>
>>Undeniably, she began by believing that merely by not
>>consuming animal parts, she was causing zero harm to
>
>
> ... farmed

No. The classic "vegan" fallacy is that they cause
zero harm to ANY animals. They all begin by believing
this; the twit pothead is just the most recent to make
it publicly.

>
>
>>animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>>the Antecedent fallacy:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>
>
> No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

>
>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
>
> This conditional proposition is

True, as "vegans" conceive of meat.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> What has caused you to have such a
> hate-on for vegans? I don't believe the
> nonsense about wanting to educate or
> saving us, by the way.

He doesn't want to save you or educate you, he just wants to shine a
spotlight on your ignorance.

"Saving" vegans (from themselves), that's my admittedly naive idea.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> What has caused you to have such a
> hate-on for vegans? I don't believe the
> nonsense about wanting to educate or
> saving us, by the way.

He doesn't want to save you or educate you, he just wants to shine a
spotlight on your ignorance.

"Saving" vegans (from themselves), that's my admittedly naive idea.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> Jay (or whoever you are today), did some
> evil vegan dump you in the past? Did one
> of them pick on you in school? Were you
> ever held captive by evil vegans and
> forced to live on nothing but whole grain
> bread and organic jam?

You tried this stupid, amateurish line of questioning on me three weeks
ago. Why are you so lamely trying it again on someone else? Running out
of tricks so soon?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > Jay (or whoever you are today), did some
> > evil vegan dump you in the past? Did one
> > of them pick on you in school? Were you
> > ever held captive by evil vegans and
> > forced to live on nothing but whole grain
> > bread and organic jam?
>
> You tried this stupid, amateurish line of questioning on me three
weeks
> ago. Why are you so lamely trying it again on someone else? Running
out
> of tricks so soon?

No tricks. I really do wonder what motivates you
trolls. It boggles the mind really, to see you hanging
out somewhere you hate and are hated.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:58:50 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:49:26 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>
>>>Even if I were Plato, I couldn't have designed a more
>>>excellent foil than "Scented Nectar" to illustrate the
>>>ethical bankruptcy of "veganism", and the moral
>>>confusion from which it originates.
>>>
>>>Undeniably, she began by believing that merely by not
>>>consuming animal parts, she was causing zero harm to
>>
>> ... farmed
>
>No.

Yes, farmed or hunted meat.

>>>animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>>>the Antecedent fallacy:
>>>
>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

This conditional proposition is false on the basis that an
improper relationship exists between the antecedent and
its consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) must
exist. The rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to
exist for the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition
must exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) to exist,
since I can cause animals to suffer and die in other ways apart
from just eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition
is fine. The consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die),
however, must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If
I eat meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this
is where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or eating
a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship which is
vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and that's why
it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition, so learn them.

Also, to prove that you know the premise is false, and that
you've built a straw man with this ready-made flaw into it,
here's your statement below where YOU finally admit it,
and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's premise
rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

You lose. Throw again.

[..]

Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
>>>Jay (or whoever you are today), did some
>>>evil vegan dump you in the past? Did one
>>>of them pick on you in school? Were you
>>>ever held captive by evil vegans and
>>>forced to live on nothing but whole grain
>>>bread and organic jam?
>>
>>You tried this stupid, amateurish line of questioning on me three
>>weeks ago. Why are you so lamely trying it again on someone else? Running
>>out of tricks so soon?
>
> No tricks. I really do wonder what motivates you
> trolls.

No trolls here. You're still operating under your misunderstanding of
the word.

> It boggles the mind really,

After reading your posts, it's clear that your mind is EASILY boggled.

> to see you hanging
> out somewhere you hate and are hated.

I neither hate nor feel hated.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> > Jay (or whoever you are today), did some
>> > evil vegan dump you in the past? Did one
>> > of them pick on you in school? Were you
>> > ever held captive by evil vegans and
>> > forced to live on nothing but whole grain
>> > bread and organic jam?
>>
>> You tried this stupid, amateurish line of questioning on me three
> weeks
>> ago. Why are you so lamely trying it again on someone else? Running
> out
>> of tricks so soon?
>
> No tricks. I really do wonder what motivates you
> trolls. It boggles the mind really, to see you hanging
> out somewhere you hate and are hated.

Vegans are an interesting bunch. It's kind of like going to a zoo and
watching the monkeys perform.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> > Jay (or whoever you are today), did some
>> > evil vegan dump you in the past? Did one
>> > of them pick on you in school? Were you
>> > ever held captive by evil vegans and
>> > forced to live on nothing but whole grain
>> > bread and organic jam?
>>
>> You tried this stupid, amateurish line of questioning on me three
> weeks
>> ago. Why are you so lamely trying it again on someone else? Running
> out
>> of tricks so soon?
>
> No tricks. I really do wonder what motivates you
> trolls. It boggles the mind really, to see you hanging
> out somewhere you hate and are hated.

Vegans are an interesting bunch. It's kind of like going to a zoo and
watching the monkeys perform.

"Reynard" > wrote

>>>>animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>>>>the Antecedent fallacy:
>>>>
>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> This conditional proposition is false on the basis that an
> improper relationship exists between the antecedent and
> its consequent.

Do you actually think there are people reading this naive enough to be
fooled by this clumsy sleight-of-hand pedantry?

"Dutch" > wrote in :

>> No tricks. I really do wonder what motivates you
>> trolls. It boggles the mind really, to see you hanging
>> out somewhere you hate and are hated.

> Vegans are an interesting bunch. It's kind of like going to a zoo and
> watching the monkeys perform.

It might be helpful if some of SN's critics would advance some arguments
against her position, rather than merely slinging mud at her.

Are (at least some) non-human animals moral agents? Do they have any any
moral status at all? If "yes" to either, what duties do we (as moral
agents) have to them?

Retard wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:58:50 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:49:26 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Even if I were Plato, I couldn't have designed a more
>>>>excellent foil than "Scented Nectar" to illustrate the
>>>>ethical bankruptcy of "veganism", and the moral
>>>>confusion from which it originates.
>>>>
>>>>Undeniably, she began by believing that merely by not
>>>>consuming animal parts, she was causing zero harm to
>>>
>>>... farmed
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Yes

No. The classic "vegan" fallacy is that they cause
zero harm to ANY animals. They all begin by believing
this; the twit pothead is just the most recent to make
it publicly.

>
>
>>>>animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>>>>the Antecedent fallacy:
>>>>
>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>
>
> This conditional proposition is

True.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:03:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote
>
>>>>>animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>>>>>the Antecedent fallacy:
>>>>>
>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>> This conditional proposition is false on the basis that an
>> improper relationship exists between the antecedent and
>> its consequent.
>
>Do you actually think there are people reading this

It's a fact that you certainly aren't.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:42:33 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:58:50 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:49:26 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Even if I were Plato, I couldn't have designed a more
>>>>>excellent foil than "Scented Nectar" to illustrate the
>>>>>ethical bankruptcy of "veganism", and the moral
>>>>>confusion from which it originates.
>>>>>
>>>>>Undeniably, she began by believing that merely by not
>>>>>consuming animal parts, she was causing zero harm to
>>>>
>>>>... farmed
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Yes
>
>No.

Farmed.

>>>>>This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>>>>>the Antecedent fallacy:
>>>>>
>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

This conditional proposition is false on the basis that an
improper relationship exists between the antecedent and
its consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) must
exist. The rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to
exist for the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition
must exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) to exist,
since I can cause animals to suffer and die in other ways apart
from just eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition
is fine. The consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die),
however, must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If
I eat meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this
is where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or eating
a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship which is
vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and that's why
it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition, so learn them.

Also, to prove that you know the premise is false, and that
you've built a straw man with this ready-made flaw into it,
here's your statement below where YOU finally admit it,
and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's premise
rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

You lose. Throw again.

[..]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:42:33 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:58:50 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:49:26 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Even if I were Plato, I couldn't have designed a more
>>>>>excellent foil than "Scented Nectar" to illustrate the
>>>>>ethical bankruptcy of "veganism", and the moral
>>>>>confusion from which it originates.
>>>>>
>>>>>Undeniably, she began by believing that merely by not
>>>>>consuming animal parts, she was causing zero harm to
>>>>
>>>>... farmed
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Yes
>
>No.

Farmed.

>>>>>This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>>>>>the Antecedent fallacy:
>>>>>
>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

This conditional proposition is false on the basis that an
improper relationship exists between the antecedent and
its consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) must
exist. The rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to
exist for the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition
must exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) to exist,
since I can cause animals to suffer and die in other ways apart
from just eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition
is fine. The consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die),
however, must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If
I eat meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this
is where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or eating
a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship which is
vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and that's why
it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition, so learn them.

Also, to prove that you know the premise is false, and that
you've built a straw man with this ready-made flaw into it,
here's your statement below where YOU finally admit it,
and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's premise
rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

You lose. Throw again.

[..]

"Publius" > wrote in message
1...
> "Dutch" > wrote in :
>
>>> No tricks. I really do wonder what motivates you
>>> trolls. It boggles the mind really, to see you hanging
>>> out somewhere you hate and are hated.
>
>> Vegans are an interesting bunch. It's kind of like going to a zoo and
>> watching the monkeys perform.
>
> It might be helpful if some of SN's critics would advance some arguments
> against her position, rather than merely slinging mud at her.
========================
LOL I see you have a reading comprehension problem, just like stinky, eh?
There have been numerous posts with data invaliding her 'position' from the
beginning.


2

>
> Are (at least some) non-human animals moral agents? Do they have any any
> moral status at all? If "yes" to either, what duties do we (as moral
> agents) have to them?
>

"Publius" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
>
>>> No tricks. I really do wonder what motivates you
>>> trolls. It boggles the mind really, to see you hanging
>>> out somewhere you hate and are hated.
>
>> Vegans are an interesting bunch. It's kind of like going to a zoo and
>> watching the monkeys perform.
>
> It might be helpful if some of SN's critics would advance some arguments
> against her position, rather than merely slinging mud at her.

There has been a veritable litany of arguments against her "position", such
as it is, by me, Jay Santos, usual suspect, and others. You ought to go back
and review them in the newsgroup alt.animals.ethics. There are several
active threads involved. If you limit Reply to's to alt.philosophy however
you aren't going to see what you claim to want to see.

> Are (at least some) non-human animals moral agents?

Animals are generally seen as "moral patients", i.e. they deserve moral
consideration from humans but are not obligated to reciprocate.

> Do they have any any
> moral status at all?

Of course, see above.

> If "yes" to either, what duties do we (as moral
> agents) have to them?

That varies widely, depending on the specific relationaship. With respect
to domesticated animals, humans have an obligation to provide food, shelter,
protection from danger and other basic needs. Pets have social needs as
well. Humans generally have a moral obligation in my opinion to treat
animals with some compassion and respect.

"Reynard" > wrote
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:03:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>
>>>>>>animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>>>>>>the Antecedent fallacy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>
>>> This conditional proposition is false on the basis that an
>>> improper relationship exists between the antecedent and
>>> its consequent.
>>
>>Do you actually think there are people reading this
>
> It's a fact that you certainly aren't.

It's a fact that I don't need to read very far to identify it as a load of
********.

"Dutch" > wrote in :

> There has been a veritable litany of arguments against her "position",
> such as it is, by me, Jay Santos, usual suspect, and others. You ought
> to go back and review them in the newsgroup alt.animals.ethics. There
> are several active threads involved. If you limit Reply to's to
> alt.philosophy however you aren't going to see what you claim to want
> to see.

Aha. I read the thread in alt.philosophy, and that is where I replied. Very
little in the way of argument appearing there. One group occupies enough of
my time, however, so I'll withdraw from this argument.

>> Are (at least some) non-human animals moral agents?
>
> Animals are generally seen as "moral patients", i.e. they deserve
> moral consideration from humans but are not obligated to reciprocate.
>
>> Do they have any any
>> moral status at all?
>
> Of course, see above.

Good -- nice to know the issues are being discussed somewhere. Thanks for
the response!

"Dutch" > wrote in :

> There has been a veritable litany of arguments against her "position",
> such as it is, by me, Jay Santos, usual suspect, and others. You ought
> to go back and review them in the newsgroup alt.animals.ethics. There
> are several active threads involved. If you limit Reply to's to
> alt.philosophy however you aren't going to see what you claim to want
> to see.

Aha. I read the thread in alt.philosophy, and that is where I replied. Very
little in the way of argument appearing there. One group occupies enough of
my time, however, so I'll withdraw from this argument.

>> Are (at least some) non-human animals moral agents?
>
> Animals are generally seen as "moral patients", i.e. they deserve
> moral consideration from humans but are not obligated to reciprocate.
>
>> Do they have any any
>> moral status at all?
>
> Of course, see above.

Good -- nice to know the issues are being discussed somewhere. Thanks for
the response!