On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on something makes you a liar
>>>or a hypocrite.
>>
>> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
>> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
>> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
>
>Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.

Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods
when pretending to be a vegan, or, like you, was he
intentionally deluding himself during that time? He
clearly stated he dislikes flesh, yet now he eats it.
How does learning from one's mistakes, as he claims
to have done,

1) change his tastes for certain foods?
2) change his perception that it was bad for him?
3) change his perception that it was bad for animals?
4) change his perception that it was bad for his
environment?
5) change his perception that it was bad for the World?
6) change his perception that veganism costs less,
regardless of socio-economic environs?
7) change his perception that it costs more to produce
dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables and
legumes?

Look at his quotes you snipped away and explain how
"learning from his mistakes" changed every position
his once held, including his dislike for flesh.

<restore>
"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long
and without serious health problems associated with
an animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

and

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

And that's just a start. Since being beaten into
submission by Jonathan, he not only changed his
stance on veganism and all that went with it, but his
interpretation of God's word as well. In response to
a comment from "Bart" on whether our dominion
over animals meant that we should eat them, 'usual
suspect' quoted Genesis 1:29-30 as THE ANSWER
to that question.

[start - Bart to usual suspect]
Bart said:
> So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> over the animal kingdom.

Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them? The
answer is found immediately following one of the verses
you quoted:

Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And God
said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed
which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose
fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every
beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything
that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given
every green herb for food"; and it was so.
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

From that, 'usual suspect' clearly believed our dominion
over animals never meant that we should eat them, but
he sings a different tune these days. How did learning
by his mistakes change his belief in God's word and the
bible?

He's also on record as stating;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

But now, since his mesalliance with meat pushers, his
view on what he considers humane treatment has
changed completely;

"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC."
usual suspect 2004-02-12

and

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

The list is endless. In fact I doubt that there's a single
position that he hasn't contradicted since his new
position as a meat pusher.

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

What a joke!

And then there's YOUR quotes which show the stark
inconsistencies of YOUR stance on the proposition of
animal rights over the years to consider as well;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-12

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-23

"I recently signed a petition online supporting an
'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. Date: 2003-09-18

[start ipse dixit]
> You've stated now that you believe animals do
> in fact hold rights against us and thus must be
> treated humanely.
[Dutch]
Correct
[end]
Dutch 2004-04-13

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004

"Animals are moral agents."
Dutch 2001-02-22

From those quotes there's no doubt that you believed
animals held certain rights against us, yet your other
quote (below) implies you don't believe animals hold
rights at all, and that a World of animals holding rights
is a laugh.

"They have no rights because the very idea
of a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch Date: 2001-08-07

Both of you are all over the place, but when the
evidence of your quotes are shown to prove it you
merely snip them away in embarrassment. What a
way to carry on. Why do they even bother?