Prev: Fucking effete moron rupie trashes the language
Next: Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets
From: Rupert on 2 Aug 2008 21:58
On Aug 3, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 8:02 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert said:
> >>>>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> >>>>>> right against a set of moral
> >>>>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> >>>>>> financially complicit in them
> >>>>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> >>>>>> commiting
> >>>>>> any comparable moral
> >>>>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> >>>>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> >>>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> >>>>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> >>>>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> >>>>>> that moral agent is a moral
> >>>>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
> >>>>> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
> >>>>> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted
> >>>>> text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
> >>>> self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
> >>>> the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
> >>>> a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
> >>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
> >>>> that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
> >>>> be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
> >>>> logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
> >>>> about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
> >>>> I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
> >>>> hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
> >>>> sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
> >>>> only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
> >>>> be an interesting move for him to make.
> >>> This is all a diversion. I'll take another stab at it.
> >>> In every decision to "go vegan" there is some form of the "cruelty-free"
> >>> belief.
> >> Yep.  It's the Denying the Antecedent fallacy:
>
> >>     If I eat meat, I cause cruelty to animals.
>
> >>     I do not eat meat;
>
> >>     therefore, I do not cause cruelty to animals ("cruelty free")
>
> >>> Implicit in this is the belief in a moral gulf between vegans
> >>> and non-vegans.
> >> That's exactly what "vegans" believe.  
>
> > No, they don't. None of them believe it.
>
> It's what *EVERY* "vegan", including you, started out believing.  It
> wasn't until you had it kicked back down your throat, with explanation,
> that you gave it up.
>

Incorrect. As I stated I was aware of the collateral deaths argument
during adolescence, before I even became vegetarian.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Fucking effete moron rupie trashes the language
Next: Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets