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

On Dec 3, 11:39=A0pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2:14 pm, 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]
>
wrot=
e:
> >>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 6:13 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wr=
ote:
> >>>>>>>>> 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
po=
int to
> >>>>>> abuse of animals in the meat industry and then leap to the
conclus=
ion
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> the meat industry ought to be abolished. It's like aboli****ng
scho=
ols
> >>>>>> because some children suffer bullying by other students or
teacher=
s.
> >>>>> No, it is not. The claim that the meat industry ought to be
abolish=
ed
> >>>>> 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
=
above
> >>>> is rupie's, the on immediately below is yours, but they are
indented=
 the
> >>>> same.
> >>>>> Nonetheless, it is a serious comment that deserves a serious
respon=
se.
> >>>>> 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
exactl=
y
> >>>> why the doctored videos showing "abuses" are so pointlessly
> >>>> inflammatory. =A0"ar" holds as its central tenet the belief that
*al=
l*
> >>>> human use of animals is immoral, whether or not the animals are
kill=
ed,
> >>>> and whether or not those that are killed are killed humanely.
=A0So,=
 to
> >>>> 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
=
barn
> >>>> at night - basically, a pretty nice existence - is viewed as being
j=
ust
> >>>> as immoral as the existence of the most wretched crated veal calf
or
> >>>> battery hen. =A0As I spent (too) much time demonstrating to that
stu=
pid
> >>>> 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
somethi=
ng
> >> wrong? =A0This is a yes or no question. =A0If you answer "yes", then
t=
here
> >> 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
se=
en
> >> 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.
>
> It isn't. =A0You're just a contrary little *****.
>

In my view, the claim that there are no degrees of wrongness is a
dress-up-in-a-clown-suit-and-splat-yourself-in-the-face-with-a-cream-
pie claim, like your one about how nonhuman animals never anticipate.

> > 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.
>
> It is *always* permissible to do it.

Thank you for finally saying something interesting. So we're permitted
to raise a nonhuman animal for food and then kill and eat it in any
conceivable way, are we? There are absolutely no restrictions on what
we may do to it, as long as it facilitates profit-making and the
consumption of animal flesh which we find tasty?

We may conceivably at this point get clarification on whether this is
what he actually believes or whether he just proved himself incapable
of expressing himself coherently again.