"jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't

Rudy Canoza · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 3

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.

Archived from group: alt>food>vegan

Derek · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 74

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza 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 · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 6

"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza 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 · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 74

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza 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 · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 6

"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> 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 · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 12

Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza 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 · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 12

Jones wrote:
> "Derek" wrote in message
> @4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>> "Derek" wrote in message
>>> @4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> 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 · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 74

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza 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 · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 6

"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>>>@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> 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?

Rudy Canoza · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 12

Jones wrote:
> "Derek" wrote in message
> @4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza 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.

You said, "That's exactly what we all do --- the best
we can." You didn't write, "That's what we all say we
do"; you said that's what we all do.

You're explicitly saying that "vegans" who say they're
doing the best they can really are. I've shown you
that they're not. Those "vegans" who have been pushed
first off the "no harm to animals" claim, and then off
the false "minimizing" claim, usually land at the
"doing the best I can" position, and I have shown that
they're not.

Rudy Canoza · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 12

Jones wrote:
> "Derek" wrote in message
> @4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>> "Derek" wrote in message
>>> @4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>> "Derek" wrote in message
>>>>> @4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> 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

No, I'm saying that none of the status claims "vegans"
make for themselves is true. I'm right. Refraining
from consuming animal parts does not alter the
"vegan's" moral status one bit.

Derek · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 74

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza 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?

Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?

Jones · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 6

"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>>>@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>>>>>@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> 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?
>
> Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
> do you continue to eat meat?

I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during the
winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body into
a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large amounts
of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym? When
you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring at
first but you soon get used to it.

Derek · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 74

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:55 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza 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?
>>
>> Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
>> do you continue to eat meat?
>
>I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during the
>winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body into
>a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large amounts
>of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym? When
>you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
>carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring at
>first but you soon get used to it.

Then, against your better judgment you let vanity decide your
moral principles? You want to look good, not just be happy
with being healthy, and in order to do it you throw whatever
moral principles you have regarding animals into the waste
basket. Sorry, Jones, but "I don't buy that."

Jones · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 6

"Derek" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:55 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>>>@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>>>>>@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
>>> do you continue to eat meat?
>>
>>I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during
>>the
>>winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body
>>into
>>a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large
>>amounts
>>of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym?
>>When
>>you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
>>carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring
>>at
>>first but you soon get used to it.
>
> Then, against your better judgment you let vanity decide your
> moral principles? You want to look good, not just be happy
> with being healthy, and in order to do it you throw whatever
> moral principles you have regarding animals into the waste
> basket. Sorry, Jones, but "I don't buy that."

Did I say that I'm a vegan? No. Did I say I have a moral principle not to eat
animals? No. I'm the first to congratulate them for standing by their principles but
I don't share them.

Recipe for Blue Soup a la Bridget Jones Our daughter's 18th is next week and she has a thing about Bridget Jones. We want to make the famous Blue soup (but without the blue string round the scallions!) which was 1 1/2 kg leeks 3 scallions 3 tbsp olive oil salt and pepper chopped parsley Cl

Meat and Mind Agenda for a New America Part One The Politics of Vegetarianism By Vasu Murti Chapter 6 - Temperament The ill effects of alcohol, opium, morphine, nicotine, etc. upon individual users have been The Federal Bureau of for exa

Empire of Your Mind This planetoid is nearly glazed over with approximately six billion bony, tendoned, spinal, craniumed, jointed, bags of ...... ... an enormous amount of water (us), and every one of us, including my happy self, likes to credit themselves with be

The best thing about Mcdonald's... Probably how they refer to them as restaurants. That cracks me up.

new to the groups thing hey, I am new to this newsgroups thing and just wanted to get in on the postings! I started this as an assignment for a class i am taking. I love cooking but only do it as a hobby when i get the chance and watch the Food Network like a maniac. My future m