You unethically, as always, ran away from the tough issues.

Try again.

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> But I believe that their deaths are a result of and part of the same
>>> mindset which is legitimized by the raising of livestock for food
>>> and other products.
>
>
>> You are colossally wrong. They are the result of your truck with
>> animal-killing farmers.
>
>
> So after I die, there will be no more CDs, I assume....

No, stupid bitch. After you die, you won't cause any
more CDs. "vegans" who are living after you're dead
will. Also after you die, these newsgroups will have
substantially less self serving bullshit in them.

> CDs are all _personally_ my fault, have no basis in social
> norms at all. My goodness, I had no idea I had such power....
> <sarcasm>
>
> Doesn't this contradict your claim my personal actions are merely
> an ineffectual gesture?

No, and you knew it and knew why, too. You aren't even
close to funny.

>
>>> I believe the system has to be attacked at
>>> its source -- the philosophical view of the nature of animals'
>>> rights.
>
>
>> And your abstinence from meat does this...exactly how?
>
>
> It has no effect on the philosophical attitudes of society
> in and of itself -- except for my influence on a few
> specific individuals I know personally. It has had some
> limited effect there, as in my changing the policies of
> one parish toward veal.

So there's no ethics-based reason for it, and no
concrete result. It is purely symbolic, intended to
make you feel good. It is not based on any principle
except hedonism, and clearly not on any ethical principle.

Why didn't you admit this years ago?

....

>
> I do believe we are making some progress -- limited and glacial,
> but some progress.

This belief is empirically wrong. The percentage of
vegetarians, let alone "vegans", is steady. The notion
that animals are not ours to use is not gaining ground.

> Things change slowly, but they do change.
>
> I can't figure out why my being vegan annoys you so much.

The "veganism" per se doesn't annoy me. I don't care
at all what you do and don't consume, and you already
knew that.

It's the rest of the politics, a politics I know in
detail merely from your pompous announcement that
you're "vegan", that annoys me. You get everything
wrong. As a democratic, rights-respecting libertarian,
I don't believe in doing anything to restrict you in
your self indulgent belief in wrong values. What I do
is to get in your face and show you to be self absorbed
and hypocritical liar. Neither one of us has any way
of knowing this, of course, but I'll bet I've had far
more influence on others in revealing the dishonesty of
your position than you have had in converting other
self-marginalized, self-alienated, mentally ill people
like you to "veganism".

> Would
> you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again?

I don't attack you personally, except to the extent
that your identity is irrationally tied up in advancing
pernicious doctrines that you have no intention of
following yourself. It's amazing you can't see that
your character is a fundamental part of the debate,
given the topic.

I don't care what you do and don't eat, and you've
always known that.

> Wouldn't that make me even more of a hypocrite, given my
> views (from your point of view)?

Slightly. There are two huge dopes here, "Zakhar" (not
his real name) and C. James Strutz (*ought* not be his
real name, but unfortunately is), who are largely
vegetarian for (the usual mushy) "ethical" reasons, but
who are not "vegans". They are bigger hypocrites than
"vegans", but not as if it matters.