Vegetarian Discussion: "jones" Can't Make Up Its Mind (such A Tiny Thing; Shouldn't Be Hard To Make Up)

"jones" Can't Make Up Its Mind (such A Tiny Thing; Shouldn't Be Hard To Make Up)
Posts: 22

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-23 15:11:16 EST
I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-02-23 15:39:12 EST
On Feb 23, 1:11 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:

1 130.191.3.6 Succeed USA - California SDSU-NET San Diego State
University 130.191.0.0 130.191.255.255 Yes San Diego State
University 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego ARIN newshub.sdsu.edu
gondor.sdsu.edu

2 207.217.77.102 Succeed USA - Georgia EARTHLINK-CIDR EARTHLINK, Inc.
207.217.0.0 207.217.255.255 Yes EARTHLINK, Inc. 1375 PEACHTREE
STREET, LEVEL A, ATLANTA arin_tech@lists.corp.earthlink.net
a*e@abuse.earthlink.net +1-404-815-0770 ARIN newsfeed.earthlink.net
newsfeed.earthlink.net

3 207.217.77.60 Succeed USA - Georgia EARTHLINK-CIDR EARTHLINK, Inc.
207.217.0.0 207.217.255.255 Yes EARTHLINK, Inc. 1375 PEACHTREE
STREET, LEVEL A, ATLANTA arin_tech@lists.corp.earthlink.net
a*e@abuse.earthlink.net +1-404-815-0770 ARIN
stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net

4 81.93.163.147 Succeed Norway NO-BASEFARM-NET Basefarm lb2-net
81.93.163.128 81.93.163.255 Yes Grethe Viksaas Basefarm AS,
Gullhaugveien 9, NO-0484 OSLO, NORWAY gviksaas@basefarm.no
a*e@basefarm.com +47 4000 4100 +47 4000 4080 RIPE NCC norvege.no
norvege.no

5 1.8.1.2 Succeed USA - California RESERVED-9 Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority 1.0.0.0 1.255.255.255 No Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330, Marina del Rey
a*e@iana.org abuse@iana.org +1-310-301-5820 ARIN

6 69.3.212.154 Succeed USA - California NETBLK-COVAD-IP-4-NET Covad
Communications Co. 69.3.0.0 69.3.255.255 Yes Covad Communications
Co. 2510 Zanker Rd., San Jose ip_admin@covad.com abuse-isp@covad.com
+1-703-376-2830 ARIN h-69-3-212-154.lsanca54.dynamic.covad.net

7 209.86.93.205 Succeed USA - Georgia EARTHLINK2000-E EarthLink, Inc.
209.86.0.0 209.86.255.255 Yes EarthLink, Inc. 1375 PEACHTREE ST,
LEVEL A, ATLANTA arin_tech@lists.corp.earthlink.net
a*e@abuse.earthlink.net +1-404-
815-0770 ARIN earthlink.net earthlink.net

8 207.217.77.54 Succeed USA - Georgia EARTHLINK-CIDR EARTHLINK, Inc.
207.217.0.0 207.217.255.255 Yes EARTHLINK, Inc. 1375 PEACHTREE
STREET, LEVEL A, ATLANTA arin_tech@lists.corp.earthlink.net
a*e@abuse.earthlink.net +1-404-815-0770 ARIN
newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Derek
2008-02-23 16:00:09 EST
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote:

>I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
> To that, "jones" said:
>
> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>
>
>Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>
> None of us are. We could all do more.
> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>
>
>Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

Jones
2008-02-23 16:02:35 EST

"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>
>>I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>>false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>>fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>> To that, "jones" said:
>>
>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>
>>
>>Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>>the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>>things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>
>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>
>>
>>Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>>serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>
> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
none of us actually are.



Derek
2008-02-23 16:06:44 EST
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" <no@email.com> wrote:
>"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>
>>>I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>>>false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>>>fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>>> To that, "jones" said:
>>>
>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>>
>>>
>>>Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>>>the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>>>things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>>
>>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>>
>>>
>>>Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>>>serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>>
>> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
>
>I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
>none of us actually are.

Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.

Jones
2008-02-23 16:13:08 EST

"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tg21s3pemkbjtnksd6anbjesdf3dm1nto7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>>>>false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>>>>fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>>>> To that, "jones" said:
>>>>
>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>>>>the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>>>>things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>>>
>>>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>>>>serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>>>
>>> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
>>
>>I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
>>none of us actually are.
>
> Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
> and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.

Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.



Rudy Canoza
2008-02-23 16:17:37 EST
Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>
>> I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>> false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>> fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>> To that, "jones" said:
>>
>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>
>>
>> Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>> the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>> things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>
>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>
>>
>> Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>> serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>
> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

Not inadvertently. If it were intentional, it wouldn't
be a mistake; it would be 'avin' a larf.

Rudy Canoza
2008-02-23 16:18:38 EST
Jones wrote:
> "Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tg21s3pemkbjtnksd6anbjesdf3dm1nto7@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>> "Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>>>>> false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>>>>> fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>>>>> To that, "jones" said:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>>>>> the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>>>>> things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>>>>
>>>>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>>>>> serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>>>> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
>>> I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
>>> none of us actually are.
>> Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
>> and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
>
> Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
> best we can, in reality we aren't.

Maybe you shouldn't post at all if you're not really
being serious, which you aren't.

Derek
2008-02-23 16:24:40 EST
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" <no@email.com> wrote:
>"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tg21s3pemkbjtnksd6anbjesdf3dm1nto7@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>>>>>false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>>>>>fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>>>>> To that, "jones" said:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>>>>>the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>>>>>things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>>>>
>>>>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>>>>>serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>>>>
>>>> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
>>>
>>>I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in reality
>>>none of us actually are.
>>
>> Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
>> and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
>
>Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
>best we can, in reality we aren't.

That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.

Jones
2008-02-23 16:32:34 EST

"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n331s3tj5h6di6i96gdkimlfb7arbp8hh5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:tg21s3pemkbjtnksd6anbjesdf3dm1nto7@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>>>>>>false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>>>>>>fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>>>>>> To that, "jones" said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>>>>>>the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>>>>>>things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>>>>>>serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
>>>>reality
>>>>none of us actually are.
>>>
>>> Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
>>> and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
>>
>>Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
>>best we can, in reality we aren't.
>
> That would've helped. What's being asked for here
> is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
> abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
> crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.
>
> [What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
> omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
> its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
> It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
> a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
> specified moral rules that place determinate moral
> obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
> of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
> the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
> Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
> Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
> so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
> from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
> be demanded of every member of the community.
>
> An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
> moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
> must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
> and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
> kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
> Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
> innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
> overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
> It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
> Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
> medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
> do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
> against killing to apply to omissions would make living
> in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
> heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
> morally decent person.]
>
> I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
> I find this one agreeable.

I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?


Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron