Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
>>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
>>>>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
>>>>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
>>>>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
>>>>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
>>>>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
>>>>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
>>>>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
>>>>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
>>>>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
>>>>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
>>>>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
>>>>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
>>>>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
>>>>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
>
>
> I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.

That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
they chop little animals to bits in the course of
producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
happens that implicates you.

> I'm not
> responsible for any deaths personally.

You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
of animals he eats.

> You are trying
> to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing

It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
wrongness of killing animals.

> when in
> fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
> impossible to do better).

You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
symbolic act you can find.

> You say I'm not allowed to
> feel content, something you have no say in.

I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
contentment. You haven't done anything morally
significant.

> I am doing the best I can

You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.


>
>>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>>>revealing:
>
>
> You're the one putting absolute in there.

No, it is just there.

> I do indeed
> believe that killing animals is wrong

Then you have no reason for feeling "content", because
you are STILL causing the death of animals with your
consumption patterns.

>
>
>>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
>>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
>>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
>>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
>>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>
>
> You're putting words in my mouth.

No. That is the essence of what you're saying.

>
>
>>>>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>>>>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>>>>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>>>>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>>>>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>>>>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>
>
> Stop forcing the word absolute into the above

I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.

> > I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>
> That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
> they chop little animals to bits in the course of
> producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
> but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
> happens that implicates you.

Let me rephrase that. I have no way of knowing
WHICH farmers do what. Short of starving
myself, eating vegan provides the least
accidental deaths. We all know how that
works, I'm not repeating it over again.

> > I'm not
> > responsible for any deaths personally.
>
> You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
> chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
> the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
> of animals he eats.

My responsibility stops where I no longer have
control. In my case, that's most of what I eat,
excepting of course that I prefer Lundberg
both for lessening deaths on their farms, and
for just being the best quality brown rice.

> > You are trying
> > to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing
>
> It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
> wrongness of killing animals.

It's wrong, but I accept that some of it I can't control.
I'm not a superhero. Do you really think the word
absolute fits in this case? I mean considering that
you insist vegans should abstain absolutely from
all food grown by bad farmers.

> > when in
> > fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> > reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
> > impossible to do better).
>
> You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
> for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
> do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
> are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
> symbolic act you can find.

Your way of doing it better is to eat wild meat, a
resource that would go extinct pretty fast if all
meat eaters switched to it. I could counter that
wild meat with wild tubers and berries etc. That's
0 deaths compared to your 1 (minimum) death.

Of course I will not eat meat. That's not a
valid thing to offer a vegetarian. You do
realize that, don't you?

> > You say I'm not allowed to
> > feel content, something you have no say in.
>
> I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
> contentment. You haven't done anything morally
> significant.

I can feel content and you can't stop me. I don't
have to prove any moral points to you in order
to do so. You don't have say. Do you think I
have any say in YOUR contentment level?

> > I am doing the best I can
>
> You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.

Yes I am. I know my abilities and limits. You don't.

> >>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> >>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> >>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> >>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> >>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> >>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> >>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> >>>>revealing:
> >
> >
> > You're the one putting absolute in there.
>
> No, it is just there.

Who put it there? You, as far as I can see. Your words,
your wording.

> >>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> >>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> >>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> >>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> >>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
> >
> >
> > You're putting words in my mouth.
>
> No. That is the essence of what you're saying.

Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
called these things 'implied'. You put words
in my mouth. It's what your paranoid side sees
as vegans hating you and being the enemy.

> > Stop forcing the word absolute into the above
>
> I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.

You put it there.


--
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:
>>>I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>>
>>That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
>>they chop little animals to bits in the course of
>>producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
>>but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
>>happens that implicates you.
>
>
> Let me rephrase that.

No. It's plainly weaseling.

> I have no way of knowing
> WHICH farmers do what.

Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
you can.

> Short of starving
> myself, eating vegan provides the least
> accidental deaths.

That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
your view, just as broom-****ing children is
ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.


>>>I'm not
>>>responsible for any deaths personally.
>>
>>You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
>>chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
>>the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
>>of animals he eats.
>
>
> My responsibility stops where I no longer have
> control.

You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
to buy anything from anyone.


>>>You are trying
>>>to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing
>>
>>It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
>>wrongness of killing animals.
>
>
> It's wrong, but I accept that some of it I can't control.

You don't have to have ANY amount of business with
those who do it.

> I'm not a superhero.

Oh, we know that.

>
>
>>>when in
>>>fact you know full well that I am content with the death
>>>reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
>>>impossible to do better).
>>
>>You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
>>for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
>>do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
>>are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
>>symbolic act you can find.
>
>
> Your way of doing it better

You aren't DOING anything. You falsely conclude from
something you're NOT doing - putting meat in your mouth
- that you're somehow "doing better". You aren't.
Your position simply is morally empty.

>
>>>You say I'm not allowed to
>>>feel content, something you have no say in.
>>
>>I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
>>contentment. You haven't done anything morally
>>significant.
>
>
> I can feel content and you can't stop me.

I can point out that your basis for feeling content is
meaningless, and that your contentment is unearned and
unwarranted.

>>>I am doing the best I can
>>
>>You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.
>
>
> Yes I am.

No, you are NOT. You could EASILY do better.

>
>
>>>>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>>>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>>>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>>>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>>>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>>>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>>>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>>>>>revealing:
>>>
>>>
>>>You're the one putting absolute in there.
>>
>>No, it is just there.
>
>
> Who put it there?

You. It's based on YOUR belief that killing animals is
absolutely wrong, just as you believe broom-****ing
children is absolutely wrong.

>
>>>>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
>>>>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
>>>>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
>>>>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
>>>>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>>>
>>>
>>>You're putting words in my mouth.
>>
>>No. That is the essence of what you're saying.
>
>
> Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
> called these things 'implied'.

The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
you say.

>
>
>>>Stop forcing the word absolute into the above
>>
>>I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.
>
>
> You put it there.

No, YOU put it there. You put it there, and now you
don't like the implications of what you've done.

> > Let me rephrase that.
>
> No. It's plainly weaseling.

No, it's me being more specific so that you know
what I mean.

> > I have no way of knowing
> > WHICH farmers do what.
>
> Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
> buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
> you can.

I am too. When are you just going to accept that? Just
by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
that you always like to mention. What do you suggest I
do to stop bad farmers?

> > Short of starving
> > myself, eating vegan provides the least
> > accidental deaths.
>
> That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
> your view, just as broom-****ing children is
> ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
> absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
> stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.

Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
out there. You can't buy anything from anyone
because they may or may not be child abusers.
You're not doing enough since you haven't
researched the neighbourhood for known sex
offenders. You haven't made an anti-rape
website, etc. Is that how the reasoning works?

Did you even read any of the thread on absolute
morality? Collateral deaths in the farming
process is kind of like pollution.

> > My responsibility stops where I no longer have
> > control.
>
> You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
> to buy anything from anyone.

Well, I guess I could just walk around the city eating
maple trees. All parts are supposed to be edible.
How do I not buy anything from anyone? Get real.

> No, you are NOT. You could EASILY do better.

Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
identify which products are from bad farmers.

> > Who put it there?
>
> You. It's based on YOUR belief that killing animals is
> absolutely wrong, just as you believe broom-****ing
> children is absolutely wrong.

You know you really should read that thread
about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
of good points.

> > Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
> > called these things 'implied'.
>
> The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
> you say.

Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
those things. What you perceive isn't necessarily
the reality.

> > You put it there.
>
> No, YOU put it there. You put it there, and now you
> don't like the implications of what you've done.

When did I put it there? Is this another one of your
implied things?


--
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:
>>>Let me rephrase that.
>>
>>No. It's plainly weaseling.
>
>
> No, it's me being more specific so that you know
> what I mean.

It's weaseling. You're trying to weasel out of
something, and you can't. Your lack of awareness of
which farmers is laughable. You have to assume ALL of
them kill animals.

>
>
>>>I have no way of knowing
>>>WHICH farmers do what.
>>
>>Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
>>buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
>>you can.
>
>
> I am too.

You are not. You could easily do better, if you really
cared. You just don't care.

> When are you just going to accept that?

I'm not.

> Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
> that you always like to mention.

Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.

Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
STILL are in the same position as someone who has
reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
doing ANY of it, in your view.

> What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?

Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
you're in the clear - on food, anyway.

>
>
>>>Short of starving
>>>myself, eating vegan provides the least
>>>accidental deaths.
>>
>>That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
>>your view, just as broom-****ing children is
>>ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
>>absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
>>stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.
>
>
> Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
> out there.

No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't.

> You can't buy anything from anyone
> because they may or may not be child abusers.

No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
money you give him. We're talking about your
acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
behind what he produces.

>
>>>My responsibility stops where I no longer have
>>>control.
>>
>>You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
>>to buy anything from anyone.
>
>
> Well, I guess I could just walk around the city eating
> maple trees.

No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
yourself, you can enlist all the other
self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
collective.

>>No, you are NOT. You could EASILY do better.
>
>
> Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
> identify which products are from bad farmers.

Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.

>
>
>>>Who put it there?
>>
>>You. It's based on YOUR belief that killing animals is
>>absolutely wrong, just as you believe broom-****ing
>>children is absolutely wrong.
>
>
> You know you really should read that thread
> about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
> of good points.

He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
doesn't convince anyone.

>
>
>>>Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
>>>called these things 'implied'.
>>
>>The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
>>you say.
>
>
> Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
> those things.

They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.

>
>
>>>You put it there.
>>
>>No, YOU put it there. You put it there, and now you
>>don't like the implications of what you've done.
>
>
> When did I put it there?

The whole time you've been posting here.

> > Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
> > that you always like to mention.
>
> Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.
>
> Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
> you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
> can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
> STILL are in the same position as someone who has
> reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
> daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
> doing ANY of it, in your view.

Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
any animals myself, but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices. Just like I'm in the position
of not abusing children myself, I can't magicly
know who out there is doing it though.

> > What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?
>
> Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
> them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
> If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
> you're in the clear - on food, anyway.

I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,
just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
you support engage in child abuse.

> >>>Short of starving
> >>>myself, eating vegan provides the least
> >>>accidental deaths.
> >>
> >>That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
> >>your view, just as broom-****ing children is
> >>ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
> >>absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
> >>stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.

There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
again. Killing animals is wrong. I don't say
absolutely. If an alligator attacked me and my
only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
obviously I would kill it. So stop trying to
enforce a state of absoluteness. on this
discussion.

> > Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
> > out there.
>
> No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
> is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
> activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
> stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
> participate myself. I don't.

Just as I don't kill any animals myself (except that
pesky alligator!). It isn't my responsibility personally
to stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't. Sound familiar?

> > You can't buy anything from anyone
> > because they may or may not be child abusers.
>
> No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
> money you give him. We're talking about your
> acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
> behind what he produces.

I don't acquire that responsibility. As such, my
reduction in cds is good enough for me. I'd be
living a fantasy if I thought I could eliminate all
farming deaths, so of course, doing the best
one can is quite good.

> No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
> and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
> animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
> yourself, you can enlist all the other
> self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
> collective.

You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
possible for me. Someday. Meanwhile you'll
just have to be content with me being content!

> > Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
> > identify which products are from bad farmers.
>
> Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
> something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
> diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
> their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
> you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
> clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
> just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.

Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
without answering my questions. I thought it was
supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
and which are the low ones. Please provide proof
links. Also, tell me how to identify which products
are from bad farmers.

> > You know you really should read that thread
> > about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
> > of good points.
>
> He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
> believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
> homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
> doesn't convince anyone.

Actually, he makes a lot of sense, and he doesn't
resort to meanness like you do.

> > Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
> > those things.
>
> They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.

The voices in your head are not in mine. Due to
your constant mixing up of what I mean, I suggest
that you take me more literally, and not believe
things you think are implied.

> > When did I put it there?
>
> The whole time you've been posting here.

Again, thanks for admitting that I never actually
said it at all. You think it's 'implied' from my
various posts.


--
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:
>>>Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
>>>that you always like to mention.
>>
>>Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.
>>
>>Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
>>you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
>>can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
>>STILL are in the same position as someone who has
>>reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
>>daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
>>doing ANY of it, in your view.
>
>
> Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
> any animals myself,

I never said you were killing any yourself.

> but not knowing
> which farmers out there kill animals during
> farming practices.

It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.


>
>>>What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?
>>
>>Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
>>them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
>>If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
>>you're in the clear - on food, anyway.
>
>
> I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,

You have to assume they all are, until you do some
research. The choice facing you is clear: grow all
your own food, so you don't have to waste time checking
out other farmres; or, IMMEDIATELY find some who don't
kill animals, and only buy from them.

You claim to have some intelligence. See if you can
figure it out on your own.

> just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
> you support engage in child abuse.

You and that idiot Ron keep trying to make the consumer
responsible for what the producer does with the money
AFTER the consumer pays for the products, and it just
won't fly. I only deal with producers in their
capacity as producers. I am only responsible for any
moral taint in the PRODUCTS I buy, not in what the
producer does with the money after I give it to him.


>>>>>Short of starving
>>>>>myself, eating vegan provides the least
>>>>>accidental deaths.
>>>>
>>>>That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
>>>>your view, just as broom-****ing children is
>>>>ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
>>>>absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
>>>>stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.
>
>
> There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> again.

No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
absolute.

> Killing animals is wrong.

Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

> I don't say absolutely.

You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.

> If an alligator attacked me and my
> only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
> obviously I would kill it.

I already made the self-defense exemption explicit.
We're very clearly talking ONLY about non-self-defense
killing, for example, what the producers of the rice
you eat do to animals in rice paddies.

>>Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
>>>out there.
>>
>>No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
>>is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
>>activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
>>stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
>>participate myself. I don't.
>
>
> Just as I don't kill any animals myself (except that
> pesky alligator!). It isn't my responsibility personally
> to stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
> participate myself. I don't.

Yes, you DO: through your fully aware market activity
with the hands-on killers. You KNOW they kill in the
course of producing the food you eat, and you buy from
them anyway. That makes you morally complicit.

>
>
>>>You can't buy anything from anyone
>>>because they may or may not be child abusers.
>>
>>No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
>>money you give him. We're talking about your
>>acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
>>behind what he produces.
>
>
> I don't acquire that responsibility.

Yes, you do. You most certainly do, exactly as meat
eaters acquire responsibility for the deaths of the
animals they eat. Remember: meat eaters
overwhelmingly do not personally kill the animals whose
bodies they eat. If not being the hands-on killer is
enough to get you off the hook - it isn't - then it
would have to be enough to get meat eaters off the
hook, too.



> As such, my
> reduction in cds is good enough for me.

No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
wrong. Absolutely wrong.

> so of course, doing the best
> one can is quite good.

You are NOT doing the best you can. You could easily
do better...if you cared to do good at all, which you
plainly don't. You just want to think well of
yourself, the cheaper the better.

>
>
>>No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
>>and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
>>animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
>>yourself, you can enlist all the other
>>self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
>>collective.
>
>
> You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
> of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
> possible for me.

Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.


>
>>>Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
>>>identify which products are from bad farmers.
>>
>>Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
>>something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
>>diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
>>their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
>>you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
>>clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
>>just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.
>
>
> Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
> without answering my questions. I thought it was
> supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
> and which are the low ones.

It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
responsibility to find out.

>
>>>You know you really should read that thread
>>>about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
>>>of good points.
>>
>>He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
>>believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
>>homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
>>doesn't convince anyone.
>
>
> Actually, he makes a lot of sense

He makes zero sense. He's a ****-ant pretend
philosopher, and a sophist. I realize you don't know
what sophist means; look it up.

>
>
>>>Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
>>>those things.
>>
>>They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.
>
>
> The voices in your head are not in mine.

No voices. I read what you write. What you write
says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
participate, through your purchases, in processes that
lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
you have no basis for your contentment.

>
>>>When did I put it there?
>>
>>The whole time you've been posting here.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
>>>that you always like to mention.
>>
>>Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.
>>
>>Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
>>you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
>>can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
>>STILL are in the same position as someone who has
>>reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
>>daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
>>doing ANY of it, in your view.
>
> Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
> any animals myself, but not knowing
> which farmers out there kill animals during
> farming practices.

Hint: they all do. They use pesticides. So do the warehouses and grocery
stores where the food goes before you buy it.

<...>
> There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> again. Killing animals is wrong. I don't say
> absolutely. If an alligator attacked me and my
> only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
> obviously I would kill it.

I know you're from Toronto and alligators aren't native there, but your
best bet *isn't* to try to "snap its neck" if you're ever in that
situation. Your best bet is to hold its jaws tightly closed (do NOT let
him open his jaws), move ashore or as close to land as possible, stay on
top, and scream for help. You're very unlikely to ever break its neck.
Its jaw muscles are much, much stronger contracting than opening --
you're lunch if he opens his mouth or if he can roll you beneath the
water, which is probably the next thing he'll try after being unable to
open his mouth.

<....>

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
>>>that you always like to mention.
>>
>>Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.
>>
>>Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
>>you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
>>can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
>>STILL are in the same position as someone who has
>>reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
>>daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
>>doing ANY of it, in your view.
>
> Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
> any animals myself, but not knowing
> which farmers out there kill animals during
> farming practices.

Hint: they all do. They use pesticides. So do the warehouses and grocery
stores where the food goes before you buy it.

<...>
> There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> again. Killing animals is wrong. I don't say
> absolutely. If an alligator attacked me and my
> only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
> obviously I would kill it.

I know you're from Toronto and alligators aren't native there, but your
best bet *isn't* to try to "snap its neck" if you're ever in that
situation. Your best bet is to hold its jaws tightly closed (do NOT let
him open his jaws), move ashore or as close to land as possible, stay on
top, and scream for help. You're very unlikely to ever break its neck.
Its jaw muscles are much, much stronger contracting than opening --
you're lunch if he opens his mouth or if he can roll you beneath the
water, which is probably the next thing he'll try after being unable to
open his mouth.

<....>