Re: How Sarah Palin Created a Whole New Generation of Vegetarians

On Dec 3, 2:14=A0pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 7:01 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>>>news:ee03bd9c-775d-40de-9430-2b0be5ae3cf6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> On Dec 1, 5:09 pm, "Dutch" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> >>>> On Nov 30, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 6:13 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
> >>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 'Turkeys for Thanksgiving
> >>>>>>> Yes, and it was delicious - the best one I've ever prepared.
> >>>>>> You have been known to make the remark that there are some
> >>>> enforceable
> >>>>>> constraints on how we may treat nonhuman animals.
> >>>>> None of them precludes killing animals to eat them.
> >>>> Not a serious response.
> >>>> It is a serious response, animal rights sup****ters consistently
poin=
t to
> >>>> abuse of animals in the meat industry and then leap to the
conclusio=
n
> >>>> that
> >>>> the meat industry ought to be abolished. It's like aboli****ng
school=
s
> >>>> because some children suffer bullying by other students or
teachers.
> >>> No, it is not. The claim that the meat industry ought to be
abolished
> >>> is not what was under discussion. Ball was changing the topic and
> >>> evading the question that was put to him.
> >> Something wrong with your news client. =A0The paragraph immediately
ab=
ove
> >> is rupie's, the on immediately below is yours, but they are indented
t=
he
> >> same.
>
> >>> Nonetheless, it is a serious comment that deserves a serious
response=
..
> >>> The whole underlying message of AR is that meat farming should be
> >>> abolished because abuses exist.
> >> That actually isn't the fundamental message of "ar", which is exactly
> >> why the doctored videos showing "abuses" are so pointlessly
> >> inflammatory. =A0"ar" holds as its central tenet the belief that
*all*
> >> human use of animals is immoral, whether or not the animals are
killed=
,
> >> and whether or not those that are killed are killed humanely. =A0So,
t=
o
> >> committed "ar" loons, the existence of Bossy the milk cow, who gets
to
> >> go out freely into a pasture every day and is lovingly put back her
ba=
rn
> >> at night - basically, a pretty nice existence - is viewed as being
jus=
t
> >> as immoral as the existence of the most wretched crated veal calf or
> >> battery hen. =A0As I spent (too) much time demonstrating to that
stupi=
d
> >> cow Skanky, there are no degrees of immorality or wrongness;
>
> > That's got to be one of the all-time classic quotes.
>
> It's a true statement. =A0Something either is morally wrong, or it isn't
> morally wrong. =A0There are no "degrees" of wrongness.
>
> There really are two questions, you stupid *****. =A0First, is something
> wrong? =A0This is a yes or no question. =A0If you answer "yes", then
ther=
e
> is a secondary question: =A0how bad is it?
>
> But there are no "degrees" of wrongness. =A0Something is wrong, or it
isn=
't.
>
> >> something
> >> either is morally wrong, or it isn't.
>
> If you weren't such a hysterical *****, you'd have read further and seen
> that.

There are no degrees of permissibility or impermissibility. Saying
there are no degrees of wrongness sounds like a bit of a stretch to
me.

Anyway. You believe that it is sometimes permissible to raise a
nonhuman animal for food and then kill and eat it. We've certainly
established that.

But you haven't made any kind of comment on what limits there are, if
any, to the harms that it is permissible to inflict on that animal in
the process. And that is obviously what I've been trying to get you to
do.