In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> usual suspect > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
> >>>>>>>>>>food
> >>>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
> >>>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
> >>>>>>>>food
> >>>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for
> >>>>>>>>so
> >>>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Drama queen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
> >>>>
> >>>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>I find you evasive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> >>>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
> >>>>
> >>>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>>>>>vegan is violating.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Easy: *their own*.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'll clarify,
> >>>>
> >>>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> >>>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> >>>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> >>>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> >>>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> >>>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> >>>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> >>>>parts.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> >>>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> >>>>>code.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> >>>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> >>>>>code?
> >>>>
> >>>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
> >>>
> >>>Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> >>>some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
> >>
> >>Vegans are responsible for their own consumption and the manner in which
> >>their own food is produced.
> >
> >
> > By what _moral_ principle are they responsible for the manner in which
> > their food is produced?
>
> *Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker. Read their
> literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they oppose the
> death of animals. Their consumption of mechanically-harvested foods,
> transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.
>
> >>They have a variety of options -- including
> >>growing their own food or paying farmers to grow in a manner consistent
> >>with "vegan ethics" -- but they choose instead to operate under the
> >>delusion that their diet is cruelty-free merely because they don't eat
> >>meat. Their consumption is as slothful as your abhorrent attempts to use
> >>logic, Ron.

Which vegan killed what animal, my little stud muffin?