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.

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

[..]

>> > 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.

Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization. It means taking
concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
mitigating the risk to himself and others. The driver who exercises all due
caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be found
culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill someone.
He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of dangerous
driving and/or manslughter.

> Such
> justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.

Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of this,
you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.

>> > 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:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > 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.
>
> Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization.

Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
way to make the action appear less harsh. Killing is killing. Killing
somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
human. We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
talk about "mitigating" circumstances.

Killing is killing.

> It means taking
> concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
> training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
> mitigating the risk to himself and others.

The workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
dangers involved.

Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.

> The driver who exercises all due
> caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be found
> culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill someone.
> He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
> shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
> kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of dangerous
> driving and/or manslughter.

If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.

> > Such
> > justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> > your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.
>
> Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of this,
> you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.

Redeem? Okay.

The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
the laws associated with killing animals.

Come on, Dutch. You lost.


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

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

>> >> > 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.
>>
>> Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization.
>
> Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
> way to make the action appear less harsh.

I'm not talking about mitigating "appearances", I specifically said
migitation of risks.

> Killing is killing.

Not really, except in the semantic sense, a=a.

> Killing
> somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
> your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
> human.

And....?
> We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
> talk about "mitigating" circumstances.

You appear to be attempting to deliberately misconstrue my words, is that
not a fair statement?

> Killing is killing.

No

>> It means taking
>> concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
>> training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
>> mitigating the risk to himself and others.
>
> The workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
> unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
> dangers involved.

According to whom?

> Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.
>
>> The driver who exercises all due
>> caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be
>> found
>> culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill
>> someone.
>> He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
>> shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
>> kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of
>> dangerous
>> driving and/or manslughter.
>
> If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.

Not necessary, just mitigate the risks.

>> > Such
>> > justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
>> > your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.
>>
>> Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of
>> this,
>> you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.
>
> Redeem? Okay.
>
> The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
> the laws associated with killing animals.

There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such law is
even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal one,
with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they live in
the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an outlandish
moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to follow
it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to validate
their alleged moral system.

> Come on, Dutch. You lost.

Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

>> >> > 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:
> [..]
>
> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization.
> >
> > Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
> > way to make the action appear less harsh.
>
> I'm not talking about mitigating "appearances", I specifically said
> migitation of risks.
>
> > Killing is killing.
>
> Not really, except in the semantic sense, a=a.
>
> > Killing
> > somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
> > your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
> > human.
>
> And....?
> > We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
> > talk about "mitigating" circumstances.
>
> You appear to be attempting to deliberately misconstrue my words, is that
> not a fair statement?
>
> > Killing is killing.
>
> No
>
> >> It means taking
> >> concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
> >> training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
> >> mitigating the risk to himself and others.
> >
> > The workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
> > unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
> > dangers involved.
>
> According to whom?
>
> > Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.
> >
> >> The driver who exercises all due
> >> caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be
> >> found
> >> culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill
> >> someone.
> >> He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
> >> shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
> >> kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of
> >> dangerous
> >> driving and/or manslughter.
> >
> > If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.
>
> Not necessary, just mitigate the risks.
>
> >> > Such
> >> > justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> >> > your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.
> >>
> >> Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of
> >> this,
> >> you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.
> >
> > Redeem? Okay.
> >
> > The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
> > the laws associated with killing animals.
>
> There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such law is
> even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal one,
> with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they live in
> the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
> affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an outlandish
> moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to follow
> it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to validate
> their alleged moral system.

"Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat and I
was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.

Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored the
formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
applied to the vegan.

> > Come on, Dutch. You lost.
>
> Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with a
different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the time to
do all that was necessary to follow through.

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

"Ron" > wrote
[..]

>> > The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
>> > the laws associated with killing animals.
>>
>> There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such law
>> is
>> even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal one,
>> with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they live
>> in
>> the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
>> affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
>> outlandish
>> moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to
>> follow
>> it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to
>> validate
>> their alleged moral system.
>
> "Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat and I
> was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.

Customs.

> Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored the
> formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
> applied to the vegan.

Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along the way.

>> > Come on, Dutch. You lost.
>>
>> Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!
>
> I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with a
> different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the time to
> do all that was necessary to follow through.

Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on fallacies. I do
not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking, you must do
some of the work yourself.

If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate on every
point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing devil's
advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.


[..]

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> [..]
>
> >> > The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
> >> > the laws associated with killing animals.
> >>
> >> There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such law
> >> is
> >> even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal one,
> >> with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they live
> >> in
> >> the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
> >> affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
> >> outlandish
> >> moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to
> >> follow
> >> it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to
> >> validate
> >> their alleged moral system.
> >
> > "Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat and I
> > was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.
>
> Customs.

Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological or
genetic. They are common and popular.

> > Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored the
> > formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
> > applied to the vegan.
>
> Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along the way.
>
> >> > Come on, Dutch. You lost.
> >>
> >> Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!
> >
> > I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with a
> > different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the time to
> > do all that was necessary to follow through.
>
> Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on fallacies. I do
> not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking, you must do
> some of the work yourself.

the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.

> If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate on every
> point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing devil's
> advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.

Listen? I'm reading your comments.

Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
introjecting what is spoonfed.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization.
> >
> > Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
> > way to make the action appear less harsh.
>
> I'm not talking about mitigating "appearances", I specifically said
> migitation of risks.
>
> > Killing is killing.
>
> Not really, except in the semantic sense, a=a.
>
> > Killing
> > somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
> > your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
> > human.
>
> And....?
> > We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
> > talk about "mitigating" circumstances.
>
> You appear to be attempting to deliberately misconstrue my words, is that
> not a fair statement?
>
> > Killing is killing.
>
> No
>
> >> It means taking
> >> concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
> >> training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
> >> mitigating the risk to himself and others.
> >
> > The workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
> > unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
> > dangers involved.
>
> According to whom?
>
> > Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.
> >
> >> The driver who exercises all due
> >> caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be
> >> found
> >> culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill
> >> someone.
> >> He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
> >> shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
> >> kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of
> >> dangerous
> >> driving and/or manslughter.
> >
> > If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.
>
> Not necessary, just mitigate the risks.
>
> >> > Such
> >> > justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> >> > your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.
> >>
> >> Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of
> >> this,
> >> you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.
> >
> > Redeem? Okay.
> >
> > The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
> > the laws associated with killing animals.
>
> There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such law is
> even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal one,
> with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they live in
> the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
> affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an outlandish
> moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to follow
> it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to validate
> their alleged moral system.

"Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat and I
was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.

Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored the
formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
applied to the vegan.

> > Come on, Dutch. You lost.
>
> Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with a
different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the time to
do all that was necessary to follow through.

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