>
yes, and not all of them are "nut"s.
> The fact that they exist does not make their practice desirable per
> se. If you want to make an argument in favor of fruitarinism this
> isnt't it.
i've already made it in other posts on this thread.
> You assume a paramecium can suffer based on what evidence?
i do not. but if miles wants to assume that is the case, based on the impossibility of proving they do not, then i see no wrong in extending the ethical line to include them.
> Minimizing all possible harm to
> the extent that this action becomes the primary guide for your
> actions isn't what everyone wishes to do.
yes, thats pretty obvious, isnt it?
> If I kill a thousand
> earthworms digging the foundation for a building that would house a
> theater I will not worry for one second about the worms loss.
so?
>
> another example of kelley's point about the US centrism of this list.
> forget that this sort of anecdotal silliness is hardly representative
> of the vegetarians around the world.
>
> That was the point of the post. Doug posted a story about a person who > attempted to make a vegetarian out
> of their cat. This anecdote points out the proliferation of such
> silliness in the US with many vegetarians but
> is not attempting to equate this behavior with vegetarianism in
> particular in the US or elsewhere. I would
> have thought that clear but apparently not to everyone.
definitely not to me. silliness in the US (or elsewhere) is not restricted to vegetarians and mention of such in a debate about the merits of vegetarianism and animal rights is a rhetorical device.
--ravi