punk wrote:
>>That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
>>for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
>>dead from a heart attack?
>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to have compassion or not for whomever I want,
> because Rick Etter, Usual Suspect, Radical Moderate, and Dutch all do
> the same. They

You have the RIGHT, but WHEN did any of the individuals you named wish
yuo to drop dead or suffer bodily harm in any form or fashion?

>>I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
>>than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
>>but sad when a cow died?
>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to do that. *I* do not hurt anybody by wishing
> anti-vegetarians like them dead. ALL that matters to THEM is THEIR
> right to torture and kill for no other reason than it tastes or feels
> good, even when they have plenty of choices. Their lives have no
> value.

More value than yours.

> THEY claim to be "pro-human". That makes them the GREATEST HYPOCRITES
> of ALL, because THEY ARE FURIOUSLY DETERMINED TO DO NOTHING BUT
> INSULT AND GIVE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, who are HUMAN BEINGS, ARE
> HARD TIME AND MAKE THEIR LIVES POOR AND MISERABLE.

You pussy! You've been asked repeatedly to back up your wild-assed
claims, and you can't. You've been asked repeatedly to address issues,
and you won't. Then you resort to the lowest and most base insults,
wishing harm -- indeed, DEATH -- upon others.

If you cannot support your claims or address issues, perhaps you should
tone down your overheated rhetoric until you can. Wishing harm upon
others like you did doesn't score you ANY points. Rubystars is hardly a
troll, and her questions about your twisted desires for Rick's demise
are fair. She deserves better answers than you've given, but I think
she's wise enough not to expect them from a hateful prat like you.

>>I've been reading/posting to this group on and off and I know Rick
>>posts things that make people angry and seems to stir people up, but
>>you shouldn't let him get under your skin. He just has a different
>>opinion than other people here, even if he is deliberately trying to
>>get reactions.
>
> Good. So then if I wish Rick Etter dead, or if some person wanted the
> entire human race wiped off the earth (such persons do exist, but none
> of them want humans exterminated for the benefit of animals -- usually
> they have some abstract religious reason), then THAT should not get
> under your skin, right?
>
> So please do NOT pretend that ANYthing *I* say "bothers" you.
> Because, based upon your anything goes attitude, I know that it does
> not, and that for you to say otherwise is a lie.

Your hateful attitude mixed with your misplaced pride will not let you
admit that you're just plain wrong. Rubystars is a very nice young lady.
Her questions were fair and deserve a better answer than this. Try
again, you hate-filled twerp.

>>Meat eating is the way that humans have lived since before we were
>>humans. I don't really see that as "forcing" it on the kids.
>
> Face the hard reality: EVERY kid is forced into existence by their
> parents. Even people of the most diverse political opinions agree
> on that.

Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. It's also not truly a
"reality." It *is* your opinion, but you've already demonstrated
yourself to be misanthropic (extremely so). Your spiteful bias isn't
shared universally.

>>is provided there. If meat wasn't provided, then people would have to
>>go off campus for lunch or bring a bagged lunch, because most people
>>don't want to go vegetarian.
>
> So? Let them.

Let them what?

>>That would be catering to the minority at
>>the expense of the majority if meat wasn't available.
>
> No. The animals are in the majority. Their PAIN is in the majority
> -- it simply annihilates in importance all these other petty little
> desires many meat-eaters have.

Tastes are not petty. It took millions of years of evolution for people
to acquire them. You're not going to thwart all that evolution with a
wave of your magic wand.

>>Now if there's
>>ever a time when meat eating is in the minority, then there may be a
>>better case for not having it available.
>
> That will occur only because of the efforts and dedicated work of
> people like me and other animal activists.

Bullshit. You and other animal activists are considered a joke by the
mainstream. You're marginalized. You're not even in the mainstream of
leftist thought, you little putz.

> It will never come about
> by any of your posts talking about what the majority wants.
> You are not saying anything new nor anything that needs to be said.

Neither are you, hate-meister.

> There are PLENTY of OTHER things the majority of humans
> wants which it DOES get: television, running water, electricity,
> a million other things in our daily lifestyles. Meat is only a small
> one for them, but a big one for the animals.

It's a bigger one for humans. All that evolution and taste. We're
predators, animals are our prey whether they're wild or domesticated.

>>We all use animals to one degree or another. I don't think it makes
>>someone a terrible person if they want to eat meat.
>>That makes you sound like a fanatic. Vegans and even vegetarians have
>>a bad reputation for being fanatical, for hating humans and loving
>
> And being a fanatic does not make a person terrible.

In your case, it does.

> If you tell me or anyone else that a meat-eater is not a bad
> person even if they have better choices, then I will tell you that
> NObody is a bad person. Period.

Non sequitur, but you rarely make coherent arguments.

>>animals more than humans. Wouldn't it be much better to ignore him, or
>>to be kind to him, rather than to seem so vicious?
>
> No -- because, again, if HE can state HIS opinion, then I can, too.

He gives you facts, you give him a death wish.

> But, your brain is so fanatically obsessed with telling pro-animal
> people what to say or not say or do or not do that nobody will listen
> to you or take you seriously.

More people take her seriously because her arguments aren't laced with
threats and wishes for harm. Your arguments aren't even worthy of
consideration since they lack facts and reason, all you have are your
hateful wishes for others.

> P.S. If a majority of adults wanted sex with children, obviously
> you would support their right to do it, wouldn't you, since majority
> rule is all that matters. And sex with children is not nearly as bad
> as deliberately torturing someone by forcing a feeding tube down their
> throat while keeping them in a cage their entire lives.

Non sequitur, jelly-head. Stop sniffing glue. And keep reading, lol.

> Even the Libertarian Party does not blindly approve of majority rule.

You moron, that's not a non-issue. The LP, like other political parties,
respects the political processes of our government which afford
protections to political minorities. That's especially true in their
case since they ARE a political minority. BTW, maybe you need to brush
up on the LP-USA's position on children and sex:
[W]e call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone,
including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of
goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality,
reproduction, birth control, or related medical or biological
technologies.
http://tinyurl.com/u7xh

There has long been a faction in the LP which supports abolishing
distinctions between minor and adult with respect to the law. The effect
would make child pornography legal, as well as sexual relations between
consulting "minors" and adults. That side has won out in the LP's platform.

> The LP does not say, "Get rid of homosexuality if a majority of people
> want no homosexuals in their country."

*No* political party says that, asswipe.