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

Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:39 pm, 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]
>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 6:13 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
point to
>>>>>>>> abuse of animals in the meat industry and then leap to the
conclusion
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the meat industry ought to be abolished. It's like aboli****ng
schools
>>>>>>>> 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.  The 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
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.  "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.  So,
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
just
>>>>>> as immoral as the existence of the most wretched crated veal calf
or
>>>>>> battery hen.  As I spent (too) much time demonstrating to that
stupid
>>>>>> 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.  Something either is morally wrong, or it
isn't
>>>> morally wrong.  There are no "degrees" of wrongness.
>>>> There really are two questions, you stupid *****.  First, is
something
>>>> wrong?  This is a yes or no question.  If you answer "yes", then
there
>>>> is a secondary question:  how bad is it?
>>>> But there are no "degrees" of wrongness.  Something 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.
>> It isn't.  You'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.

Your view is bull****.


>>> 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?

I didn't say that.  I said it is always permissible to raise and kill an 
animal in order to eat it.  It is.  I didn't address the "conceivable 
way" aspect of it.