Ideals and exceptions (used to be Dietary costs )

[Guest guest]

> in Tibet they must survive...

 

Woah! A major underlying assumption there. If the planet does

not provide them food then maybe evolution is trying to kill them

off? Any supposition would make it very difficult for you to make

the metaphysical claim that Tibetans MUST survive.

 

(Oh dear doesn't that make me look like I watched Enterprise

last night, it's nothing to do with that though, honest!)

 

> they do not kill unnecessarily... they take only what they need...

 

Not taking more than you need is hardly fair on the animals

killed for the Tibetans. Why isn't it true that those animals must

survive that were killed because Tibetans must survive? You are

asserting here that the needs of one speices outweigh those of

all others, hmm. We seem to have a problem here. Unless we

make an exception of course.

 

Now the Tibetans can physically move to a place where they can

eat a vegan diet so you ARE making an exception for them. (Say

what you like about political barriers and national borders, but

that does not change the underlying ethic, and the structure of

the political world this way allows vegetables to be imported to

unsuited environments so it even includes its own solution).

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

> > in Tibet they must survive...

>

> Woah! A major underlying assumption there. If the planet does

> not provide them food then maybe evolution is trying to kill them

> off? Any supposition would make it very difficult for you to make

> the metaphysical claim that Tibetans MUST survive.

 

hmm... but the planet does provide them with food... just not food we would

agree they should have ...

 

> (Oh dear doesn't that make me look like I watched Enterprise

> last night, it's nothing to do with that though, honest!)

 

i missed it... so i didn't notice... :-)

 

> > they do not kill unnecessarily... they take only what they need...

>

> Not taking more than you need is hardly fair on the animals

> killed for the Tibetans. Why isn't it true that those animals must

> survive that were killed because Tibetans must survive? You are

> asserting here that the needs of one speices outweigh those of

> all others, hmm. We seem to have a problem here. Unless we

> make an exception of course.

 

no it is not fair on the animals...

 

they must survive too .. and the Tibetans do their best to help them ... up

to the point where they must think about their own survival and eat them...

 

logically .. don't exceptions to any rule disprove the rule? it's not about

making exceptions... it's about examining our rules...

 

> Now the Tibetans can physically move to a place where they can

> eat a vegan diet so you ARE making an exception for them. (Say

> what you like about political barriers and national borders, but

> that does not change the underlying ethic, and the structure of

> the political world this way allows vegetables to be imported to

> unsuited environments so it even includes its own solution).

 

hmm... yes they can move... being nomadic it is what they do... so are you

in favour of displacing thousands of people from their land just to reach an

ideal?

[Guest guest]

---In simple terms politics, nationality, country borders, only serve

to inhibit proper distribution of basic foods, Meat- eating is a

depravity which humans and animals need to be shaken out of, until

that happens we 'll all be living in less than life intended for us,

regardless of beliefs!

SP,

 

In , " mavreela " <nec.lists@m...> wrote:

> > in Tibet they must survive...

>

> Woah! A major underlying assumption there. If the planet does

> not provide them food then maybe evolution is trying to kill them

> off? Any supposition would make it very difficult for you to make

> the metaphysical claim that Tibetans MUST survive.

>

> (Oh dear doesn't that make me look like I watched Enterprise

> last night, it's nothing to do with that though, honest!)

>

> > they do not kill unnecessarily... they take only what they

need...

>

> Not taking more than you need is hardly fair on the animals

> killed for the Tibetans. Why isn't it true that those animals must

> survive that were killed because Tibetans must survive? You are

> asserting here that the needs of one speices outweigh those of

> all others, hmm. We seem to have a problem here. Unless we

> make an exception of course.

>

> Now the Tibetans can physically move to a place where they can

> eat a vegan diet so you ARE making an exception for them. (Say

> what you like about political barriers and national borders, but

> that does not change the underlying ethic, and the structure of

> the political world this way allows vegetables to be imported to

> unsuited environments so it even includes its own solution).

>

> Michael

[Guest guest]

> hmm... but the planet does provide them with food... just not

food we would

> agree they should have ...

 

Well it's a matter of opinion that the planet provides animals as

food, and not one I share.

 

> they must survive too .. and the Tibetans do their best to help

them ... up

> to the point where they must think about their own survival and

eat them...

 

Still doesn't make it right though.

 

> logically .. don't exceptions to any rule disprove the rule?

 

Depends on whether it's a rule in logic or a rule in ethics,

because ethical rules accept situations where there is no right

answer (or a logical truth) and so you have to pick the lesser of

two evils (logical falses).

 

> it's not about

> making exceptions... it's about examining our rules...

 

And in examing our rules we make exceptions.

 

> so are you

> in favour of displacing thousands of people from their land just

to reach an

> ideal?

 

To you it's an ideal, to others is a universal. And is it their land,

or does the land belong to no one? For someone critical of

national borders why do you make an exception for the

Tibetans?

 

Michael

(Whatever happened to capital letters, everyone will be m8ing

with each other next!)