"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
news 8<
> Oh, you mean my farting? After a while the body
> gets used to both beans and cruciferae veggies.
> The extra farting goes away. Ok, seriously, what
> polluting are you talking about?

Don't forget, pastured cattle fart an aweful lot more than vegans.

John

> Don't forget, pastured cattle fart an aweful lot more than vegans.
>
> John

That's for sure. I read somewhere that on pig farms alone,
the threat to the ozone (or was it the greenhouse effect)
was quite high.


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

> wrote
> Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
> who's who.

How do you like it?

The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from alt.philosophy.
He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his agenda
seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he can
pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack
misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on
people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never
admit it. At least he has ambition :>)

In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article .net>,
> >>> Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article .net>,
> >>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> >>>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> >>>>>>argument.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?
> >>>>
> >>>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
> >>>>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
> >>>>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
> >>>>equivocation.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
> >>>>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
> >>>>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
> >>>>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
> >>>>children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
> >>
> >>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
> >>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
> >>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
> >>
> >>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
> >>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
> >>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
> >>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
> >
> >
> > Do you?
>
> Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
> sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
> morally wrong?
>
> Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
> reading yet more of your trite sophistry.

We both must think it okay. Since we have time to discuss anything here.
Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must
not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong. Since neither of us is
doing everything possible, we both must think it okay. Since both of us
are not doing everything possible, we both must be complicit.

Join the club, wit**** or bagshit, or whatever those cute expressions are

roflmao

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>> rebut it.
>>
>> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>> it is wrong to kill animals.
>
> <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> their deaths? Huh? </rebut>

If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
than you are doing.

The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it, because
of the TASTE!

Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
false moral significance to it is a mistake.

"> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>
> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
more
> than you are doing.

There's that absolute or nothing demand.

> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
because
> of the TASTE!

What about my health and nutrition beliefs? I don't think eating
dead body parts is a good thing. By the way, if all meateaters
were to turn to your low cd wild game, they'd be extinct in no time.




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

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> news > 8<
>> Oh, you mean my farting? After a while the body
>> gets used to both beans and cruciferae veggies.
>> The extra farting goes away. Ok, seriously, what
>> polluting are you talking about?
>
> Don't forget, pastured cattle fart an aweful lot more than vegans.
===============
Then you need to boycot rice, stupid...


>
> John
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> Don't forget, pastured cattle fart an aweful lot more than vegans.
>>
>> John
>
> That's for sure. I read somewhere that on pig farms alone,
> the threat to the ozone (or was it the greenhouse effect)
> was quite high.
===============
More of you stupid research, killer?


Now, you need to boycott rice, if you are really concerned with methane.
But then, just like animal deaths, it's all just a pose for you, has you
care nothing about either, right hypocrite?

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

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> > wrote
> > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
> > who's who.
>
> How do you like it?
>
> The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from alt.philosophy.
> He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his agenda
> seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he can
> pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack
> misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on
> people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never
> admit it. At least he has ambition :>)

Let's test your's and Jay's theory....

What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.

Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but I
hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.

the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the killing
of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
you.

In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> >>>>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
> >>>>>wrong or not?
> >>>>
> >>>>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I do.
> >>
> >>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
> >>undesirable, not morally wrong.
> >
> >
> > I view it as morally wrong to willfully
>
> No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.

Killing people as well as animals. Is it morally right, wrong or morally
netural to kill people under these circumstances, Jay.

Don't rush to answer. I know this must be difficult for you.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >> rebut it.
> >>
> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
> >
> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>
> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> than you are doing.

Thank you for repeating yourself...

If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
about sexually broomed children.

If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
more about the death of humans

If you really thought it was wrong....

Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.



> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it, because
> of the TASTE!
>
> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

In article >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote:

> > Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
> > with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
> > Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
> > equivocation.
> >
> > If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
> > sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
> > or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
> > comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
> > children with a broom handle on a daily basis?
>
> Careful with this one Ron. He loves to talk about
> sodomizing children and comparing it to meat
> eating. Why he loves to talk about it I don't know.

Meat eating is the sign of latent homosexuality.

Shh. You'll scare them away and I'm on a membership drive. Didn't you
get the memo. roflmao

> Meat eating is the sign of latent homosexuality.
>
> Shh. You'll scare them away and I'm on a membership drive. Didn't you
> get the memo. roflmao

LOL Good luck. You get an extra chalk mark
on the wall for bedding a phobic troll! That's
a hard one to do (pun happened).


--
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 Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:45:44 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>>>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>>>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>>>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>>>
>>>Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening"
>>>your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong
>>>to kill animals?
>>
>> You're not very bright. I obviously think it's
>> wrong to kill animals.
>
>Then why do you participate in killing ANY? Obviously,
>you do NOT consider it wrong to kill animals.

Similarly, why do you participate in the killing of humans?
Obviously, you do NOT consider it wrong to kill humans
for your convenience.

[According to the National Safety Council, agriculture
and mining are the two most hazardous occupations in
the country. In 1996, 21 accidental deaths occurred per
100,000 agricultural workers, compared with a national
average of 4 deaths per 100,000 workers for all industries.
A recent survey of 2,000 Kentucky farmers found that
each year one of every eight farm families experiences
an accident requiring medical attention.]
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/he282.htm

According to your logic, people who don't seek out zero-
human death foods are guilty of showing a contempt for
their belief in human rights. How much coal are you
directly and indirectly responsible for, Jon? And there's
the meat packers to consider as well. The harms accrued
in this industry are a direct result of your diet, yet you do
nothing to stop them. In fact, you reward the meat packing
industry for the harms you intentionally cause.

[In 1999, more than one-quarter of America's nearly
150,000 meat packing workers suffered a job-related
injury or illness. The meat packing industry not only has
the highest injury rate, but also has by far the highest
rate of serious injury-more than five times the national
average, as measured in lost workdays.]
http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/...atpacking.html

Those numbers might be even greater than those given
in that example, but if you go to this link
http://146.142.4.24/labjava/outside.jsp?survey=sh
and add up all the injuries in the meat, poultry and dairy
trades you'll find that the numbers of human collateral
harms in the meat trade exceed all others.

Being that you hold all vegans responsible, in fact causal
to the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food, it is only reasonable to insist that you take full
responsibility for the collateral harms you cause to humans
by your diet and conclude that you are showing a contempt
for the rights of humans. How much coffee and chocolate
do you buy from child slave labour?

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> What about my health and nutrition beliefs?

Your health and nutrition "beliefs" are footed on the same activist
bullshit you used for the rest of your crap.

> I don't think eating
> dead body parts is a good thing.

On what basis?

> By the way, if all meateaters
> were to turn to your low cd wild game, they'd be extinct in no time.

Ipse dixit. You've yet to prove this asinine claim you've been repeating
all day.

Jay Santos > wrote in news:2LYzd.4737$qf5.66
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Didn't really want to jump into this thread, but this is too ridiculous to
ignore.

> But ethical values are different; they're not
> utilitarian.

There are a good many utilitarian ethicists who would disagree with you. In
fact, utilitarianism is the dominant, though not the only, approach to
moral reasoning, especially in Anglo-American academia.

Furthermore, not only utilitarians, but many ethicists favoring other
approaches, such as deontologists, would adopt some form of the "least
harm" rule. Sometimes doing no harm is not an available option. And
sometimes causing less of one harm may cause more of another. Thus the
rule, "do the least harm, all things considered, that the circumstances and
available choices permit."

> Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
> something that makes us all worse off than we would be
> if there were no pollution.

Anything that may make anyone worse off or better off is by definition a
moral issue.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote
>> > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
>> > who's who.
>>
>> How do you like it?
>>
>> The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from
>> alt.philosophy.
>> He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his
>> agenda
>> seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he
>> can
>> pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack
>> misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on
>> people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never
>> admit it. At least he has ambition :>)
>
> Let's test your's and Jay's theory....
>
> What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
> speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
> an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
> the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.
>
> Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but I
> hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.
>
> the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
> to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the killing
> of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
> is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
> you.

Ouch! Poor attempt Ron. First of all, killing a human is not absolutely
wrong, it's wrong by default, but there are several exceptions. Arguably
nothing is *absolutely* wrong, but that's another debate. More importantly,
you are confusing passive and active rights. We are not morally obliged
under rights theory to seek out every injustice everywhere and attempt to
stamp them all out. We are not supermen. What we are morally obliged to do
is refrain from any deliberate act that leads to a rights violation.

This leads us to the case of vegans, they begin by postulating that animals
possess the same basic right to life as humans. They try to come into accord
with this idea by attempting (usually ineptly) to remove "animal products"
from their lives. But if animals truly have a "basic right to life", then
they must go further, because the food they buy in the markets and most
every product that benefits them entails the violation of many of these
alleged rights, and they are deliberately subsizing it all.

"Ron" > wrote
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>
>> No, I mean your use of fossil fuels, and your household
>> waste. I suppose we should include the toxic
>> rhetorical output, too, but that's not as important.
>
> that kills humans too....
>
> Jay, jay, jay.
>
> tsk, tsk, tsk.

Think "mitigation" Ron.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>> >> rebut it.
>> >>
>> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
>> >
>> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>>
>> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
>> than you are doing.
>
> Thank you for repeating yourself...

You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..

> If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> about sexually broomed children.

Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with abuse
of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be OK
if I did, but I am not obliged.

> If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> more about the death of humans

Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals who
they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers when
they purchase consumer goods.

> If you really thought it was wrong....
>
> Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.

You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?

Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
study from.

>> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
>> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
>> because
>> of the TASTE!
>>
>> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
>> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

Sophomore Ron wrote:
> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
>>>>
>>>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
>>>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
>>>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
>>>>
>>>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
>>>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
>>>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
>>>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you?
>>
>>Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
>>sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
>>morally wrong?
>>
>>Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
>>reading yet more of your trite sophistry.
>
>
> We both must think it okay.

No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.

Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
to answer, cocksucker?

> Since we have time to discuss anything here.
> Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must
> not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong.

****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
evil for doing it.

The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
It isn't about me preventing you from doing
something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
YOU about YOUR behavior.

Do you get it, cocksucker? You stupid, brick-headed,
pouncing homo cocksucker.

Ron wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
>>>>>>>wrong or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I do.
>>>>
>>>>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
>>>>undesirable, not morally wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I view it as morally wrong to willfully
>>
>>No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.
>
>
> Killing people as well as animals. Is it morally right, wrong or morally
> netural to kill people under these circumstances, Jay.

I'm asking the questions here, cocksucker.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> [..]
>
> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
> > more
> >> than you are doing.
> >
> > There's that absolute or nothing demand.
>
> If you get to decide what is the right amount of animal killing then so do
> I. Mine includes killing some livestock.

Why just livestock. What "wrong" with a little tiger stew, roast dog, or
elephant burgers? It seems to me that there are religious and cultural
elements to OUR dietary needs, just as the vegan is accused of following
some religious ideals. I seem to recall a Christian perspective on what
animals are acceptable to kill for food and which aren't. Oddly, we do
seem to follow this as a culture.

I wonder the outcome for a person living in largely religious society
that refuses to comply with those dietary expectations.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote
> >> > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
> >> > who's who.
> >>
> >> How do you like it?
> >>
> >> The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from
> >> alt.philosophy.
> >> He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his
> >> agenda
> >> seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he
> >> can
> >> pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack
> >> misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on
> >> people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never
> >> admit it. At least he has ambition :>)
> >
> > Let's test your's and Jay's theory....
> >
> > What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
> > speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
> > an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
> > the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.
> >
> > Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but I
> > hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.
> >
> > the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
> > to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the killing
> > of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
> > is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
> > you.
>
> Ouch! Poor attempt Ron. First of all, killing a human is not absolutely
> wrong, it's wrong by default, but there are several exceptions.

Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.

Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.

> Arguably
> nothing is *absolutely* wrong, but that's another debate. More importantly,
> you are confusing passive and active rights. We are not morally obliged
> under rights theory to seek out every injustice everywhere and attempt to
> stamp them all out. We are not supermen. What we are morally obliged to do
> is refrain from any deliberate act that leads to a rights violation.

Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
hypocritical on your part.

> This leads us to the case of vegans, they begin by postulating that animals
> possess the same basic right to life as humans. They try to come into accord
> with this idea by attempting (usually ineptly) to remove "animal products"
> from their lives. But if animals truly have a "basic right to life", then
> they must go further, because the food they buy in the markets and most
> every product that benefits them entails the violation of many of these
> alleged rights, and they are deliberately subsizing it all.

And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
(It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
double standards that are involved.)

So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
right.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote
> >> > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with
> >> > who's who.
> >>
> >> How do you like it?
> >>
> >> The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from
> >> alt.philosophy.
> >> He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his
> >> agenda
> >> seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he
> >> can
> >> pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack
> >> misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on
> >> people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never
> >> admit it. At least he has ambition :>)
> >
> > Let's test your's and Jay's theory....
> >
> > What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
> > speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
> > an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
> > the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.
> >
> > Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but I
> > hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.
> >
> > the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
> > to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the killing
> > of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
> > is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
> > you.
>
> Ouch! Poor attempt Ron. First of all, killing a human is not absolutely
> wrong, it's wrong by default, but there are several exceptions.

Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.

Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.

> Arguably
> nothing is *absolutely* wrong, but that's another debate. More importantly,
> you are confusing passive and active rights. We are not morally obliged
> under rights theory to seek out every injustice everywhere and attempt to
> stamp them all out. We are not supermen. What we are morally obliged to do
> is refrain from any deliberate act that leads to a rights violation.

Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
hypocritical on your part.

> This leads us to the case of vegans, they begin by postulating that animals
> possess the same basic right to life as humans. They try to come into accord
> with this idea by attempting (usually ineptly) to remove "animal products"
> from their lives. But if animals truly have a "basic right to life", then
> they must go further, because the food they buy in the markets and most
> every product that benefits them entails the violation of many of these
> alleged rights, and they are deliberately subsizing it all.

And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
(It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
double standards that are involved.)

So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
right.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>>>>rebut it.
>>>>
>>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
>>>
>>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>>
>>If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
>>than you are doing.
>
>
> Thank you for repeating yourself...
>
> If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> about sexually broomed children.

No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
others from doing it.

Why do you deliberately do that which you consider
absolutely wrong, stupid homo?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >> >> rebut it.
> >> >>
> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
> >> >
> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>
> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >> than you are doing.
> >
> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
>
> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
>
> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> > about sexually broomed children.
>
> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with abuse
> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be OK
> if I did, but I am not obliged.

There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> > more about the death of humans
>
> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals who
> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers when
> they purchase consumer goods.

A nice phrase to remove responsibility. A justified killing is still a
killing. Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal. Just as
killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
"divine".

> > If you really thought it was wrong....
> >
> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
>
> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?

Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
> study from.

Hmmm.

Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

> >> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
> >> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
> >> because
> >> of the TASTE!
> >>
> >> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
> >> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >> >> rebut it.
> >> >>
> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
> >> >
> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>
> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >> than you are doing.
> >
> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
>
> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
>
> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> > about sexually broomed children.
>
> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with abuse
> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be OK
> if I did, but I am not obliged.

There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> > more about the death of humans
>
> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals who
> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers when
> they purchase consumer goods.

A nice phrase to remove responsibility. A justified killing is still a
killing. Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal. Just as
killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
"divine".

> > If you really thought it was wrong....
> >
> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
>
> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?

Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
> study from.

Hmmm.

Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

> >> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
> >> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
> >> because
> >> of the TASTE!
> >>
> >> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
> >> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
>> > more
>> >> than you are doing.
>> >
>> > There's that absolute or nothing demand.
>>
>> If you get to decide what is the right amount of animal killing then so
>> do
>> I. Mine includes killing some livestock.
>
> Why just livestock.

I didn't say *just*, I also eat hunted meat occasionally.

> What "wrong" with a little tiger stew

Endangered species.

>roast dog,

Cultural taboo

> or
> elephant burgers?

Both of above.

> It seems to me that there are religious and cultural
> elements to OUR dietary needs,

Yes, defintely, dietary *rules* actually, not so much needs.

> just as the vegan is accused of following
> some religious ideals.

I agree, but tell a vegan that they follow some "religious ideal" and they
will argue that is nothing of the sort, that is strictly based on compassion
for animals.

> I seem to recall a Christian perspective on what
> animals are acceptable to kill for food and which aren't. Oddly, we do
> seem to follow this as a culture.

Not only Christian, most religions and cultures have such customs. It's a
curious hodge-podge, the human mindset towards animals.

> I wonder the outcome for a person living in largely religious society
> that refuses to comply with those dietary expectations.

Isn't it apparent? If one hears that a particular Asian family in the
neighbourhood is eating dog meat, all hell ensues.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
>> > more
>> >> than you are doing.
>> >
>> > There's that absolute or nothing demand.
>>
>> If you get to decide what is the right amount of animal killing then so
>> do
>> I. Mine includes killing some livestock.
>
> Why just livestock.

I didn't say *just*, I also eat hunted meat occasionally.

> What "wrong" with a little tiger stew

Endangered species.

>roast dog,

Cultural taboo

> or
> elephant burgers?

Both of above.

> It seems to me that there are religious and cultural
> elements to OUR dietary needs,

Yes, defintely, dietary *rules* actually, not so much needs.

> just as the vegan is accused of following
> some religious ideals.

I agree, but tell a vegan that they follow some "religious ideal" and they
will argue that is nothing of the sort, that is strictly based on compassion
for animals.

> I seem to recall a Christian perspective on what
> animals are acceptable to kill for food and which aren't. Oddly, we do
> seem to follow this as a culture.

Not only Christian, most religions and cultures have such customs. It's a
curious hodge-podge, the human mindset towards animals.

> I wonder the outcome for a person living in largely religious society
> that refuses to comply with those dietary expectations.

Isn't it apparent? If one hears that a particular Asian family in the
neighbourhood is eating dog meat, all hell ensues.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>> > Let's test your's and Jay's theory....
>> >
>> > What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
>> > speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
>> > an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
>> > the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.
>> >
>> > Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but
>> > I
>> > hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.
>> >
>> > the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
>> > to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the
>> > killing
>> > of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
>> > is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
>> > you.
>>
>> Ouch! Poor attempt Ron. First of all, killing a human is not absolutely
>> wrong, it's wrong by default, but there are several exceptions.
>
> Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.

You left your Thinking Cap over there as well.

> Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
> thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
> readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.

Why? You know exactly which instances, since by a strange coincidence they
are the same as yours.

Go figure.

>> Arguably
>> nothing is *absolutely* wrong, but that's another debate. More
>> importantly,
>> you are confusing passive and active rights. We are not morally obliged
>> under rights theory to seek out every injustice everywhere and attempt to
>> stamp them all out. We are not supermen. What we are morally obliged to
>> do
>> is refrain from any deliberate act that leads to a rights violation.
>
> Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
> hypocritical on your part.

Hold on, you must have skipped over the last sentence.

"What we are morally obliged to do is refrain from any deliberate act that
leads to a rights violation."

Since she believes in some incoherent way that animals have rights, and
commercial agriculture involves deliberate and also unmitigated accidental
killing of animals, then she is obligated by her own standards to avoid
deliberate involvement with commercial agriculture. She does not, she does
not even have the intestinal fortitude after many vears of vegetarianism to
go completely vegan, even though her misguided morality informs her that is
imperative that she do so. Her "animal morality" is a joke.

>> This leads us to the case of vegans, they begin by postulating that
>> animals
>> possess the same basic right to life as humans. They try to come into
>> accord
>> with this idea by attempting (usually ineptly) to remove "animal
>> products"
>> from their lives. But if animals truly have a "basic right to life", then
>> they must go further, because the food they buy in the markets and most
>> every product that benefits them entails the violation of many of these
>> alleged rights, and they are deliberately subsizing it all.
>
> And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.

And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much further.

> (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
> double standards that are involved.)

I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it ought to
be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.

> So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
> right.

Yes, and no.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>> >> >> rebut it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
>> >> >
>> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>> >>
>> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
>> >> more
>> >> than you are doing.
>> >
>> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
>>
>> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
>>
>> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much
>> > more
>> > about sexually broomed children.
>>
>> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with
>> abuse
>> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be
>> OK
>> if I did, but I am not obliged.
>
> There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
> obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
> children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
> smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

Attempting to impart information or give an opinion about an act is not
complicity in the act. If I tell my friend he oughta quit shoplifting, that
doesn't make me complicit in it. If I BUY some of the stuff, THEN I'm
complicit. Get the difference?

> You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
> where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
> goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

That would not amount to complicity.

>> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
>> > more about the death of humans
>>
>> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals
>> who
>> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
>> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers
>> when
>> they purchase consumer goods.
>
> A nice phrase to remove responsibility

It defines responsibility, it doesn't remove it.

> A justified killing is still a
> killing.

Yes, what does justification have to do with it?

> Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal.

Naturally.

> Just as
> killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
> killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
> "divine".

You take valid concepts and reduce them to absurdities. This is fallacious
thinking.

>> > If you really thought it was wrong....
>> >
>> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
>>
>> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?
>
> Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

You aren't, you're groping in the dark. You have some agenda that is
preventing you from understanding basic concepts. You have brief lucid
periods which makes me discount the idea that you're just dumb.

>> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
>> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
>> study from.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
> vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

Not even remotely. I have taken no active role in her pot smoking, in fact I
have attempted to discourage it. Following from that, if she quit because of
my advice and subsequently had a negative outcome, it could be argued that I
was morally complicit, although not really, as I have offered my advice on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis.


>> >> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
>> >> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
>> >> because
>> >> of the TASTE!
>> >>
>> >> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine.
>> >> Assigning
>> >> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> > Let's test your's and Jay's theory....
> >> >
> >> > What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are
> >> > speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as
> >> > an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure
> >> > the belief of the wrongness was being addressed.
> >> >
> >> > Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but
> >> > I
> >> > hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement.
> >> >
> >> > the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong
> >> > to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the
> >> > killing
> >> > of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW
> >> > is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are
> >> > you.
> >>
> >> Ouch! Poor attempt Ron. First of all, killing a human is not absolutely
> >> wrong, it's wrong by default, but there are several exceptions.
> >
> > Default? I left my Gibberish Dictionary at a friends.
>
> You left your Thinking Cap over there as well.
>
> > Do be more evasive if you can. We are comparing your standards and
> > thinking between our vegan friend and you. Please indicate for the
> > readers which instances of killing humans are absolutely wrong.
>
> Why? You know exactly which instances, since by a strange coincidence they
> are the same as yours.
>
> Go figure.
>
> >> Arguably
> >> nothing is *absolutely* wrong, but that's another debate. More
> >> importantly,
> >> you are confusing passive and active rights. We are not morally obliged
> >> under rights theory to seek out every injustice everywhere and attempt to
> >> stamp them all out. We are not supermen. What we are morally obliged to
> >> do
> >> is refrain from any deliberate act that leads to a rights violation.
> >
> > Yet, you hold this standard for our vegan friend. I find that
> > hypocritical on your part.
>
> Hold on, you must have skipped over the last sentence.
>
> "What we are morally obliged to do is refrain from any deliberate act that
> leads to a rights violation."
>
> Since she believes in some incoherent way that animals have rights, and
> commercial agriculture involves deliberate and also unmitigated accidental
> killing of animals, then she is obligated by her own standards to avoid
> deliberate involvement with commercial agriculture. She does not, she does
> not even have the intestinal fortitude after many vears of vegetarianism to
> go completely vegan, even though her misguided morality informs her that is
> imperative that she do so. Her "animal morality" is a joke.
>
> >> This leads us to the case of vegans, they begin by postulating that
> >> animals
> >> possess the same basic right to life as humans. They try to come into
> >> accord
> >> with this idea by attempting (usually ineptly) to remove "animal
> >> products"
> >> from their lives. But if animals truly have a "basic right to life", then
> >> they must go further, because the food they buy in the markets and most
> >> every product that benefits them entails the violation of many of these
> >> alleged rights, and they are deliberately subsizing it all.
> >
> > And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
>
> And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much further.
>
> > (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
> > double standards that are involved.)
>
> I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it ought to
> be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.

I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
but still allow us to do them. It's called justification. Such
justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.

> > So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
> > right.
>
> Yes, and no.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >> >> >> rebut it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >> >>
> >> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
> >> >> more
> >> >> than you are doing.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
> >>
> >> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
> >>
> >> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much
> >> > more
> >> > about sexually broomed children.
> >>
> >> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with
> >> abuse
> >> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be
> >> OK
> >> if I did, but I am not obliged.
> >
> > There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
> > obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
> > children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
> > smoking friend then you must be complicit there.
>
> Attempting to impart information or give an opinion about an act is not
> complicity in the act. If I tell my friend he oughta quit shoplifting, that
> doesn't make me complicit in it. If I BUY some of the stuff, THEN I'm
> complicit. Get the difference?
>
> > You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
> > where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
> > goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.
>
> That would not amount to complicity.
>
> >> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> >> > more about the death of humans
> >>
> >> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals
> >> who
> >> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
> >> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers
> >> when
> >> they purchase consumer goods.
> >
> > A nice phrase to remove responsibility
>
> It defines responsibility, it doesn't remove it.
>
> > A justified killing is still a
> > killing.
>
> Yes, what does justification have to do with it?
>
> > Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal.
>
> Naturally.
>
> > Just as
> > killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
> > killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
> > "divine".
>
> You take valid concepts and reduce them to absurdities. This is fallacious
> thinking.
>
> >> > If you really thought it was wrong....
> >> >
> >> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
> >>
> >> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?
> >
> > Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.
>
> You aren't, you're groping in the dark. You have some agenda that is
> preventing you from understanding basic concepts. You have brief lucid
> periods which makes me discount the idea that you're just dumb.
>
> >> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
> >> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
> >> study from.
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
> > vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.
>
> Not even remotely. I have taken no active role in her pot smoking, in fact I
> have attempted to discourage it. Following from that, if she quit because of
> my advice and subsequently had a negative outcome, it could be argued that I
> was morally complicit, although not really, as I have offered my advice on a
> take-it-or-leave-it basis.

We disagree. The website you asked me to read supports legalization of
pot. Therefore, you are at least involved in allowing her legal access
to the very drug that you claim is harmful to her personal and social
well-being.

You've stated that you support legalization of pot, at least I think it
was your post. As a result of your condoning this behaviour in society,
you have made it "okay" for her to do so. You attempt to "mitigate" your
responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the drug.

In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >>>>rebut it.
> >>>>
> >>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
> >>>
> >>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>
> >>If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >>than you are doing.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
> >
> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> > about sexually broomed children.
>
> No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
> that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
> doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
> others from doing it.

This is a contradiction to the position of moral requirements. I ask
again, is brooming children wrong. Have stopped yourself from doing? If
yes, then you are now obligated to stop others from doing.

What a loon.

> Why do you deliberately do that which you consider
> absolutely wrong, stupid homo?

I'll tell ya about it when you blow me.

In article . net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Sophomore Ron wrote:
> > In article .net>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article et>,
> >>> Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
> >>>>
> >>>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
> >>>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
> >>>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
> >>>>
> >>>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
> >>>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
> >>>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
> >>>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Do you?
> >>
> >>Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
> >>sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
> >>morally wrong?
> >>
> >>Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
> >>reading yet more of your trite sophistry.
> >
> >
> > We both must think it okay.
>
> No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.
>
> Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
> believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
> children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
> not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
> to answer, cocksucker?
>
> > Since we have time to discuss anything here.
> > Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must
> > not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong.
>
> ****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
> stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
> children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
> is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
> you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
> evil for doing it.
>
> The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
> Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
> it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
> It isn't about me preventing you from doing
> something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
> your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
> YOU about YOUR behavior.

You don't have the power to stop me from doing anything.

> Do you get it, cocksucker? You stupid, brick-headed,
> pouncing homo cocksucker.

Projection is a terrible thing to waste! *winks*

In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article .net>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
> >>>>>>>wrong or not?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I do.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
> >>>>undesirable, not morally wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I view it as morally wrong to willfully
> >>
> >>No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.
> >
> >
> > Killing people as well as animals. Is it morally right, wrong or morally
> > netural to kill people under these circumstances, Jay.
>
> I'm asking the questions here, cocksucker.

Dominate me. LOL more foreplay.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
>>>>>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
>>>>>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
>>>>>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
>>>>>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
>>>>>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you?
>>>>
>>>>Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
>>>>sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
>>>>morally wrong?
>>>>
>>>>Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
>>>>reading yet more of your trite sophistry.
>>>
>>>
>>>We both must think it okay.
>>
>>No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.
>>
>>Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
>>believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
>>children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
>>not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
>>to answer, cocksucker?
>>
>>
>>>Since we have time to discuss anything here.
>>>Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must
>>>not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong.
>>
>>****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
>>stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
>>children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
>>is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
>>you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
>>evil for doing it.
>>
>>The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
>>Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
>>it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
>>It isn't about me preventing you from doing
>>something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
>>your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
>>YOU about YOUR behavior.
>
>
> You don't have the power to stop me from doing anything.

That's probably false, but beside the point. It isn't
my personal and direct obligation to stop you from
committing evil acts.

>
>
>>Do you get it, cocksucker? You stupid, brick-headed,
>>pouncing homo cocksucker.

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
>>>>>>>>>wrong or not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
>>>>>>undesirable, not morally wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I view it as morally wrong to willfully
>>>>
>>>>No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.
>>>
>>>
>>>Killing people as well as animals. Is it morally right, wrong or morally
>>>netural to kill people under these circumstances, Jay.
>>
>>I'm asking the questions here, cocksucker.
>
>
> Dominate

Answer the question, cocksucker.

In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >>>>>>rebut it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >>>>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >>>>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >>>>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>>>
> >>>>If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >>>>than you are doing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thank you for repeating yourself...
> >>>
> >>>If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> >>>about sexually broomed children.
> >>
> >>No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
> >>that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
> >>doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
> >>others from doing it.
> >
> >
> > This is a contradiction to the position of moral requirements.
>
> No, it isn't. It is absolutely essential to "moral
> requirements".
>
> You stupid gerbil-abusing homo.

I assume that you don't and never have broomed children. I further
assume since that you have stopped or never started that you know accept
your moral responsibility to stop all others from this action.

Do be clear in your thinking, Dutch!

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>>>>>>>>rebut it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>>>>>>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>>>>>>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>>>>>>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
>>>>>>than you are doing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you for repeating yourself...
>>>>>
>>>>>If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
>>>>>about sexually broomed children.
>>>>
>>>>No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
>>>>that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
>>>>doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
>>>>others from doing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is a contradiction to the position of moral requirements.
>>
>>No, it isn't. It is absolutely essential to "moral
>>requirements".
>>
>>You stupid gerbil-abusing homo.
>
>
> I assume that you don't and never have broomed children. I further
> assume since that you have stopped or never started that you know accept
> your moral responsibility to stop all others from this action.

No, recognizing that something is absolutely wrong does
not make it my personal responsibility to stop others
from doing it. You keep asserting that it does, and
you are wrong.

>
> Do be clear in your thinking, Dutch!

Get Bruce's 3 centimeters out of your ass, Ron, and
keep track of whom you're responding to. Stupid
brain-damaged homo; the HIV is that advanced, eh?