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.