Vegetarian Discussion: "vegan" = NOT Better

"vegan" = NOT Better
Posts: 80

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)

Leif Erikson
2006-05-01 01:10:30 EST
"veganism" - the refraining from consuming animal parts
- does not make the adherent "better", either than
others who don't subscribe to the screwy belief system,
or than the adherents themselves before they became
"vegan".

The screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is that it
is wrong to kill animals. But if that is so, then it
is wrong to kill them regardless of the disposition of
the corpses. "veganism" is *only* about the wrongness
of consuming the animal parts. If a "vegan" gets every
last microgram of animal parts out of his consumption,
she feels she has attained "clear" status. But animals
still die in the course of producing those things the
"vegan" does consume, so the supposed ethical principle
behind "veganism" is still being violated.

One either adheres to a moral principle, or one
doesn't; there is no middle ground. If one's primus
inter pares moral principle is that it is wrong to kill
animals, and if one is still participating - actively,
knowingly, voluntarily - in processes that cause
animals to die, unnecessarily and casually and without
consequence, then one is not adhering to the principle;
such a person is a hypocrite.

Virtue is *never* relative: you do not establish your
virtue by saying you are doing "better" than someone
else. Virtue is shown only in adhering to correct
moral principles. But "veganism" is predicated solely
on a comparison, an exceptionally vile comparison:
that one is not killing as many animals as omnivores.
Thus, "veganism" fails the first ethical test.

S*@yahoo.com
2006-05-01 01:28:52 EST
Give it a rest.


sector-four


Rupert
2006-05-01 06:41:37 EST

sector_four@yahoo.com wrote:
> Give it a rest.
>
>
> sector-four

I suppose here is as good a place as any to make the following
observation. In the course of our conversation, I revealed to Leif that
I had had psychotic episodes in the past. He then proceeded to taunt me
for this. Since I regard this as the most despicable behaviour imagine
and believe that such a person is not worthy of my conversation, I
stopped replying to him. Leif knows that he can resume the conversation
any time he wants to by apologizing for his descpicable, foul behaviour
and undertaking not to do it again. But instead he prefers to post
comments directed at me, safe in the knowledge that I won't reply. He
thereby reveals himself to be an abject coward. Thank you for listening.


Glorfindel
2006-05-01 08:32:11 EST
Leif Erikson wrote:

....

> The screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is that it is wrong to kill
> animals.

That, like your absolutist ethic in general, is a vast
oversimplification, and, as such, is false.

...

> One either adheres to a moral principle, or one doesn't; there is no
> middle ground.

That is also a vast oversimplification, and, as such, false.

...

> Virtue is *never* relative: you do not establish your virtue by saying
> you are doing "better" than someone else.

However, the virtue of individual actions may be ( and usually is)
relative. Absolute virtue is possible only to God.

...

Leif Erikson
2006-05-01 09:59:31 EST
Karen Winter, unethical sleaze, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> "veganism" - the refraining from consuming animal parts - does not make the adherent "better", either than others who don't subscribe to the screwy belief system, or than the adherents themselves before they became "vegan".
>
>> The screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is that it is wrong to kill
>> animals.
>
>
> That, like your absolutist ethic in general,

It isn't *my* absolutist ethic, Karen - it's yours.


> is a vast
> oversimplification, and, as such, is false.

There is no oversimplification. My statement of the
screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is correct.


Restore:
> But if that is so, then it is wrong to kill them regardless of the disposition of the corpses. "veganism" is *only* about the wrongness of consuming the animal parts. If a "vegan" gets every last microgram of animal parts out of his consumption, she feels she has attained "clear" status. But animals still die in the course of producing those things the "vegan" does consume, so the supposed ethical principle behind "veganism" is still being violated.

end restore

>> One either adheres to a moral principle, or one doesn't; there is no
>> middle ground.
>
>
> That is also a vast oversimplification,

No, it is not. It is just the nature of morality,
Karen. Things either are right or they aren't.


> and, as such, false.

No, it is a correct statement of how morality works.


Restore:

> If one's primus inter pares moral principle is that it is wrong to kill animals, and if one is still participating - actively, knowingly, voluntarily - in processes that cause animals to die, unnecessarily and casually and without consequence, then one is not adhering to the principle; such a person is a hypocrite.

end-restore

And this, of course, is the harsh truth that Karen
cannot address, and so unethically must snip.

>
>> Virtue is *never* relative: you do not establish your virtue by
>> saying you are doing "better" than someone else.
>
>
> However,

There is no "however", Karen. You and all other
"vegans" are attemting to proclaim your virtue on the
basis of a false, evil comparison of yourselves with
others who don't even acknowledge the rightness of your
screwy moral premise, and that's simply not allowed.
Furthermore, your comparsion ignores the fact that you,
yourselves, are not adhering to the screwy moral
premise: You all *still* are participating ACTIVELY,
KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY but, of course, UNNECESSARILY in
processes that kill animals.

Leif Erikson
2006-05-01 10:02:04 EST
Karen Winter, unethical sleaze, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> "veganism" - the refraining from consuming animal parts - does not make the adherent "better", either than others who don't subscribe to the screwy belief system, or than the adherents themselves before they became "vegan".
>
>> The screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is that it is wrong to kill
>> animals.
>
>
> That, like your absolutist ethic in general,

It isn't *my* absolutist ethic, Karen - it's yours.


> is a vast
> oversimplification, and, as such, is false.

There is no oversimplification. My statement of the
screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is correct.


Restore:
> But if that is so, then it is wrong to kill them regardless of the disposition of the corpses. "veganism" is *only* about the wrongness of consuming the animal parts. If a "vegan" gets every last microgram of animal parts out of his consumption, she feels she has attained "clear" status. But animals still die in the course of producing those things the "vegan" does consume, so the supposed ethical principle behind "veganism" is still being violated.

end restore

>> One either adheres to a moral principle, or one doesn't; there is no
>> middle ground.
>
>
> That is also a vast oversimplification,

No, it is not. It is just the nature of morality,
Karen. Things either are right or they aren't.


> and, as such, false.

No, it is a correct statement of how morality works.


Restore:

> If one's primus inter pares moral principle is that it is wrong to kill animals, and if one is still participating - actively, knowingly, voluntarily - in processes that cause animals to die, unnecessarily and casually and without consequence, then one is not adhering to the principle; such a person is a hypocrite.

end-restore

And this, of course, is the harsh truth that Karen
cannot address, and so unethically must snip.

>
>> Virtue is *never* relative: you do not establish your virtue by
>> saying you are doing "better" than someone else.
>
>
> However,

There is no "however", Karen. You and all other
"vegans" are attemting to proclaim your virtue on the
basis of a false, evil comparison of yourselves with
others who don't even acknowledge the rightness of your
screwy moral premise, and that's simply not allowed.
Furthermore, your comparsion ignores the fact that you,
yourselves, are not adhering to the screwy moral
premise: You all *still* are participating ACTIVELY,
KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY but, of course, UNNECESSARILY in
processes that kill animals.


Glorfindel
2006-05-01 10:39:59 EST
Leif Erikson wrote:


>>> The screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is that it is wrong to
>>> kill animals.

Glorfindel wrote:

>> That, like your absolutist ethic in general,

> It isn't *my* absolutist ethic - it's yours.

That is false. Rupert and I have been showing it is false
in our recent posts. If you like, I could also give a number
of references to writers on the subject who also demonstrate
your claim is false.

>> is a vast oversimplification, and, as such, is false.

...
>>> One either adheres to a moral principle, or one doesn't; there is no
>>> middle ground.

>> That is also a vast oversimplification,

> No, it is not. It is just the nature of morality. Things either
> are right or they aren't.

*Smile* I'm afraid not, Leif.

>> and, as such, false.

...

S*@yahoo.com
2006-05-01 10:50:12 EST
Rupert wrote:

suppose here is as good a place as any to make the following
observation. In the course of our conversation, I revealed to Leif that

I had had psychotic episodes in the past. He then proceeded to taunt me

for this. Since I regard this as the most despicable behaviour imagine
and believe that such a person is not worthy of my conversation, I
stopped replying to him. Leif knows that he can resume the conversation

any time he wants to by apologizing for his descpicable, foul behaviour

and undertaking not to do it again. But instead he prefers to post
comments directed at me, safe in the knowledge that I won't reply. He
thereby reveals himself to be an abject coward. Thank you for
listening.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya' see, one can never expect anything but the worst from a person such
as Leify,
an individual who fantasizes about his next ad hominem attack.

Not only will Leify attempt to assasinate someone such as Rupert, Leif
is also a reverse-racist. Not to mention a virulent abuser of animals.

sector-four


Leif Erikson
2006-05-01 11:20:38 EST
Karen Winter, unethical sleaze, lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter, unethical sleaze, lied
>>
>>>> The screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is that it is wrong to
>>>> kill animals.
>
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
>>> That, like your absolutist ethic in general,
>
>
>> It isn't *my* absolutist ethic - it's yours.
>
>
> That is false.

No, it's true, Karen. It is indeed an absolutist ethic
- you don't claim that it's "somewhat" wrong to kill
animals, you claim it's wrong per se.

And it is YOUR ethic.


>
>>> is a vast oversimplification, and, as such, is false.
>
>
> ...
>
>>>> One either adheres to a moral principle, or one doesn't; there is no
>>>> middle ground.
>
>
>>> That is also a vast oversimplification,
>
>
>> No, it is not. It is just the nature of morality. Things either are
>> right or they aren't.
>
>
> *Smile* I'm afraid not, Leif.

*leer* I'm afraid it is so, Karen.

D*@.
2006-05-01 12:02:50 EST
On Mon, 01 May 2006, a maundering Goober wrote:

>"veganism" - the refraining from consuming animal parts
>- does not make the adherent "better", either than
>others who don't subscribe to the screwy belief system,
> or than the adherents themselves before they became
>"vegan".

Goo! You have said specifically that some people
"SHOULD" be vegans:

"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

"If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe that
the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an
animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing
at all, then you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

>The screwy moral premise behind "veganism"

Goober you just got through explaining in detail WHY
YOU believe people should be vegans. YOU SUGGESTED
vaganism, you moron!!! Are you AGAIN insisting we accept
that you're stupid enough to somehow disagree with yourself,
Goo?

>is that it is wrong to kill animals.

Don't try pretending to disagree Goobernicus, because
YOU DO TOO Goo:

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then
having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does
not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

>But if that is so, then it is wrong to kill them regardless of the
>disposition of the corpses.

How odd for you to be right about something Goober. It doesn't
matter to the dead animal if you let its body rot in a field, or if you
eat it with mashed potatoes and gravy. A point for Goo.

>"veganism" is *only* about the wrongness of consuming the
>animal parts. If a "vegan" gets every last microgram of animal
>parts out of his consumption . . . .

You're maundering again Goob. In the above quotes you gave very
specific reasons why YOU feel that people SHOULD be vegans. Now
you cry because some did! Goober!!! WTF are you pretending to suggest
that people DO? First you say they *should* be vegans, but now you
pretend to disagree with yourself and act like you want them to do
something else instead. WHAT are suggesting that people DO, Goo???
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)


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