Scented Nectar wrote:
>>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?
>
>
> Careful with this one Ron.

Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?

Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
as acceptable?

You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
something that makes us all worse off than we would be
if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
better off for having attained the reduction.

But ethical values are different; they're not
utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
absolutely wrong.

You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical
thinking.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>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?
> >
> >
> > Careful with this one Ron.
>
> Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
> question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?

You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
to meat eating. Since you approve of meat
eating, this makes me worry that you approve
of child abuse since you find it comparable.

> Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
> wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
> as acceptable?

It's like pollution...

> You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
> pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
> something that makes us all worse off than we would be
> if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
> absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
> reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
> better off for having attained the reduction.

Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not? I would compare my views on
meateating to your pollution example.

> But ethical values are different; they're not
> utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
> in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
> improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
> Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
> killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
> as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
> absolutely wrong.

First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child.
I hope the same goes for you. As far as cds caused
by the food industry, it's kinda like pollution...



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

> You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical
> thinking.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>
>>>Careful with this one Ron.
>>
>>Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
>>question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?
>
>
> You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
> to meat eating.

The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
to do any of it.

>>Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
>>wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
>>as acceptable?
>
>
> It's like pollution...

No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
utilitarian standpoint.

>
>
>>You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
>>pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
>>something that makes us all worse off than we would be
>>if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
>>absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
>>reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
>>better off for having attained the reduction.
>
>
> Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
> wrong or not?

It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.

>
>>But ethical values are different; they're not
>>utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
>>in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
>>improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
>>Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
>>killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
>>as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
>>absolutely wrong.
>
>
> First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child.

Why not? You could, and apparently you still would
feel good about yourself, just so long as you were
abusing a child less often than someone else, or
perhaps less often than you did last year.

That was the whole point of the example.

> > You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
> > to meat eating.
>
> The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
> some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
> absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
> to do any of it.

> > It's like pollution...
>
> No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
> the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
> isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
> utilitarian standpoint.

But it is like pollution. Less polution benefits the
human animal as well as other lifeforms. Less
land taken from nature to grow excessive crop
needs benefit humans and animals too.

> > Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
> > wrong or not?
>
> It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.

I do. I think it's morally wrong to do what many
big companies do to the air and water. Any
effort to lessen damage on their part would
be a good thing in my view.




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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
>>>to meat eating.
>>
>>The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
>>some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
>>absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
>>to do any of it.
>
>
>>>It's like pollution...
>>
>>No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
>>the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
>>isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
>>utilitarian standpoint.
>
>
> But it is like pollution.

It is NOT like pollution: no one believes pollution
_per se_ to be absolutely wrong, the way you profess to
believe killing animals to be absolutely wrong.

Pollution is undesirable from a *utilitarian*
standpoint. My toilet being stopped up is undesirable,
but it is not morally bad.

>
>
>>>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.

> >>>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 (stole that
word from ricky) pollute the air or water that we
all have to share on this earth.

Are you going to still insist that I don't see it
as morally wrong? Guess what, it's me who
decides that, not you.


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

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.

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.