Rush Limbaugh was addicted to drugs, drugs which he
obtained illegally, for much of the last 10 years,
during which he loudly and angrily denounced drug users
and, in particular, participants in the trade in
illegal drugs. His moral condemnation of drug users
was hypocritical, even evil.

Karen Winter claims that not recognizing the alleged
intrinsic moral worth of animals is immoral per se.
Modern commercial vegetable agriculture, the source of
most of Karen's food, is performed using methods that
universally do not recognize the alleged intrinsic
moral worth of animals; the methods indiscriminantly
kill animals, with no consequences for the hands-on
killers, and no consequences sought by consumers.
These collateral deaths must be considered, beyond
doubt, a violation of the rights that would necessarily
flow from a recognition of the inherent moral worth of
animals. By knowingly - KNOWINGLY - participating in
the market for commercial vegetables, Karen is
knowingly participating in the violation of the rights
she claims animals ought to have.

Karen is a massive hypocrite. Her initial denial of
her hypocrisy, and then her blaming of it on the
alleged moral failures of others, are evil.

The amusing -- if frustrating -- thing about Antis's constant
ignoring of social issues in favor of personal attack is that I
am honest, I do not claim any particular moral superiority, I
am not self-righteous, I do not attack non-vegetarians personally.
I follow the rules of civilized discussion and present ideas for
consideration. In return all I get is personal attack, false
claims about my opinions, and invective. I can only conclude
that Jonnie/Bill is too afraid to deal with what I write, and
must set up a vast smokescreen to evade the real issues.

All the unjust treatment of animals in our society is a result
of the lack of consideration of animals' rights and animals'
intrinsic worth which comes from our seeing animals as things,
as products, to be bought and sold. Everything else, including
CDs, comes from that system. I believe the system is immoral,
and should be abolished. You don't. Why not discuss that,
instead of providing nothing except personal attack?

Even if I began eating meat (which I would not), I would still
believe the systm which produces meat is immoral. Your only
answer is to kill the messenger, not read the message.

Re Rush Limbaugh: are you saying Rush was wrong in his views on
drug users? Should those who agree with him stop agreeing
with him because his personal actions do not reflect his
social views? Conservatives have been saying Rush is right,
but shouldn't be punished because they like him personally.
Liberals have been more concerned with whether Rush's social
views are correct or not. IOW, conservatives see nothing but
personalities, while liberals are concerned with issues,
social policy, ideas. It's a difference we see here as well
between vegetarians/ARists/vegans as opposed to those who
dislike them. Antis attack people; AR/vegans deal with ideas.

Rat

<snip>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
> The amusing -- if frustrating -- thing about Antis's constant
> ignoring of social issues in favor of personal attack is that I
> am honest, I do not claim any particular moral superiority, I
> am not self-righteous, I do not attack non-vegetarians personally.

What about this gratuitous comment?

"We know, of course, why Dutch has a particular problem with this concept."

You're doing it again, claiming that your approach, your form of argument is
morally superior to your opponents'.

Self-congratulation is a reflex with ARAs, you just can't help yourself.

[..]

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> The amusing -- if frustrating -- thing about Antis's constant
> ignoring of social issues in favor of personal attack

To the extent you are attacked, it's because your
character is germane to the issue, and we can easily
see that your character stinks, in very specific ways.

You are advocating something you claim would represent
social "progress". You are advocating a drastic
diminution of the rights of humans, for something you
can't defend intellectually. When it is shown that
what you are advocating is not supported by theory or
facts, you start lying about it.

> is that I am honest,

You are not honest. When confronted with the
inadequacy of any "theory" behind the radical change
you advocate, you resort to lying.

Furthermore, you are a hypocrite. You claim to be
abiding by some principle that you wish to impose on
everyone, and we quickly see that you aren't.

> I do not claim any particular moral superiority,

The lying starts in the first sentence. You DO claim
moral superiority.

> I am not self-righteous,

You are self righteous in the extreme.

> I do not attack non-vegetarians personally.

Yes, you do.

> I follow the rules of civilized discussion and present ideas for
> consideration.

Let's ask John Mercer his opinion about the civilized
behavior aspect of your discourse.

> In return all I get is personal attack,

See above.

> false claims about my opinions,

No.

> and invective. I can only conclude
> that Jonnie/Bill is too afraid to deal with what I write,

I deal with what you write.

> and must set up a vast smokescreen to evade the real issues.
>
> All the unjust treatment

Raising animals destined for human consumption is not
unjust.

> of animals in our society is a result
> of the lack of consideration of animals' rights and animals'
> intrinsic worth which comes from our seeing animals as things,
> as products, to be bought and sold.

No. It isn't due to their potential status as
property. You are simply wrong about that.

> Everything else, including CDs, comes from that system.

No, that's completely false. Because you know it's
false, your claim is a lie. CDs are not related in any
way to property status of food animals.

> I believe the system is immoral,
> and should be abolished. You don't. Why not discuss that,
> instead of providing nothing except personal attack?

Because your belief that it is immoral is wrong and is
knowledgably rejected by the massive majority. Because
you are lying about not considering yourself morally
superior, about not being self righteous. Because you
do not exhibit the respect for animals' alleged
intrinsic worth that you are using as your gambit for
trying to impose your views on others.

Your character is an issue in this, whether you like it
or not. If you were selling aluminum siding on the
utilitarian merits of the siding, your character would
be irrelevant to an objective consideration of the
merits of the product. When you're selling a radical
morality that people have already rejected, your
character is at issue. Your character stinks. You're
a liar and a hypocrite.

>
> Even if I began eating meat (which I would not), I would still
> believe the systm which produces meat is immoral. Your only
> answer is to kill the messenger, not read the message.
>
> Re Rush Limbaugh: are you saying Rush was wrong in his views on
> drug users?

Yes. You already knew that.

> Should those who agree with him stop agreeing
> with him because his personal actions do not reflect his
> social views?

They certainly should stop agreeing with his moral
reasoning about why drug _users_ are bad people.

....

Bill wrote:

<snip>
> Raising animals destined for human consumption is not unjust.

This has potential. Why not, in your opinion?

<snip>

>> of animals in our society is a result
>> of the lack of consideration of animals' rights and animals'
>> intrinsic worth which comes from our seeing animals as things,
>> as products, to be bought and sold.

> No. It isn't due to their potential status as property. You are simply
> wrong about that.

Why? Have you read Francione's book on the subject?

>> Everything else, including CDs, comes from that system.

> No, that's completely false.

Why?

<snip>

>CDs are not related in any way to property status of food animals.

Why not? I think Francione makes a persuasive case they are.


>> I believe the system is immoral,
>> and should be abolished. You don't. Why not discuss that,
>> instead of providing nothing except personal attack?

> Because your belief that it is immoral is wrong

Why?
> and is knowledgably
> rejected by the massive majority.

Why is that significant in ethical terms?


> They certainly should stop agreeing with his moral reasoning about why
> drug _users_ are bad people.

But then, as I noted, I have never said that meat-eaters or
users of animal products are necessarily bad people.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Raising animals destined for human consumption is not unjust.
>
>
> This has potential. Why not, in your opinion?

I'm not interested in going over old ground with you,
bitch. You aren't saying anything new, and what you
said over several years was entirely unpersuasive and
shot full of holes.

Let's answer this one question, though, with a
redirection. The burden is not on me to show that it
is just, as you are the one seeking to implement a
radical change. You need to show that it *is* unjust,
and why, in a way that is persuasive. You never came
close before, and I doubt you will now. You're a waste
of time, and you shouldn't be back here.

>
> <snip>
>
>>> of animals in our society is a result
>>> of the lack of consideration of animals' rights and animals'
>>> intrinsic worth which comes from our seeing animals as things,
>>> as products, to be bought and sold.
>
>
>> No. It isn't due to their potential status as property. You are
>> simply wrong about that.
>
>
> Why? Have you read Francione's book on the subject?
>
>>> Everything else, including CDs, comes from that system.
>
>
>> No, that's completely false.
>
>
> Why?
>
> <snip>
>
>>CDs are not related in any way to property status of food animals.
>
> Why not? I think Francione makes a persuasive case they are.

Francione doesn't address CDs.

Bill wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:
> <snip>

>>> Raising animals destined for human consumption is not unjust.

>> This has potential. Why not, in your opinion?

> I'm not interested in going over old ground with you, bitch.

I'm sure you aren't, Jonnie. You devolve into personal
attack as quickly as possible, and never rise above it
again.

> You aren't
> saying anything new, and what you said over several years was entirely
> unpersuasive and shot full of holes.

You were never able to prove it wrong, which was why you
turned to personal attack, lies, and curse-words.

> Let's answer this one question, though, with a redirection. The burden
> is not on me to show that it is just, as you are the one seeking to
> implement a radical change.

If you state categorically that it is not unjust, then the
burden is on you to support your statement.

> You need to show that it *is* unjust, and
> why, in a way that is persuasive. You never came close before, and I
> doubt you will now. You're a waste of time, and you shouldn't be back
> here.

Scared to death of me, aren't you, Jonnie? Why are you in
such a lather to get me to leave? If I'm a waste of time,
why are you responding?

<snip>

>>> CDs are not related in any way to property status of food animals.

>> Why not? I think Francione makes a persuasive case they are.

> Francione doesn't address CDs.

He does. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't read
his books, I suspect.

Rat

Could you folks PLEASE stop x-posting this stuff to alt.food.vegan? THANKS!

Fritz

My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "the assumption or postulation
of moral standards to which one's own behaviour does not conform.
I find her distinctions between the injustices caused in commercial
crop agriculture and those casued in animal agriculture somewhat
contrived but I have seen no evidence that she fails to conform
to her own moral standards.

There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
people, on both sides of the debate following her example.

"Purple" > wrote in message
om...
> My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "the assumption or postulation
> of moral standards to which one's own behaviour does not conform.
> I find her distinctions between the injustices caused in commercial
> crop agriculture and those casued in animal agriculture somewhat
> contrived but I have seen no evidence that she fails to conform
> to her own moral standards.
==================
She claims not to cause unnecessary animal death and suffering. Of course,
she defines that as only meat animals.
She does nothing to alleviate the massive numbers she contributes to for her
selishness, conveninece, and entertainment.
throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.


>
> There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
> for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
> consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
> to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
> herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
> people, on both sides of the debate following her example.
==================
ROTFLMAO Which ones, holding on to lys and delusions? What a hoot!

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Purple" > wrote in message
> om...
> > My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "the assumption or postulation
> > of moral standards to which one's own behaviour does not conform.
> > I find her distinctions between the injustices caused in commercial
> > crop agriculture and those casued in animal agriculture somewhat
> > contrived but I have seen no evidence that she fails to conform
> > to her own moral standards.
> ==================
> She claims not to cause unnecessary animal death and suffering. Of course,
> she defines that as only meat animals.
> She does nothing to alleviate the massive numbers she contributes to for her
> selishness, conveninece, and entertainment.
> throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.

AIUI Karen's moral code is not ruled by the utilitarian principle, you
appear to be invoking. It reads more like a set of rules. Thou shalt
not
eat meat from animals, which were killed by man seems to be part of
her
moral code. Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
pesticides doesn't.

Personally
I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which
causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not,
as long as the consequences of the action are known in advance, so
enjoy
your steaks from grass reared cattle. I'm sure my diet includes worse
items.
Purely out of curiousity are you opposed to AW or just AR?

> > There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
> > for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
> > consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
> > to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
> > herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
> > people, on both sides of the debate following her example.
> ==================
> ROTFLMAO Which ones, holding on to lys and delusions? What a hoot!

"Purple" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Purple" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "the assumption or postulation
> > > of moral standards to which one's own behaviour does not conform.
> > > I find her distinctions between the injustices caused in commercial
> > > crop agriculture and those casued in animal agriculture somewhat
> > > contrived but I have seen no evidence that she fails to conform
> > > to her own moral standards.
> > ==================
> > She claims not to cause unnecessary animal death and suffering. Of
course,
> > she defines that as only meat animals.
> > She does nothing to alleviate the massive numbers she contributes to for
her
> > selishness, conveninece, and entertainment.
> > throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.
>
> AIUI Karen's moral code is not ruled by the utilitarian principle, you
> appear to be invoking. It reads more like a set of rules. Thou shalt
> not
> eat meat from animals, which were killed by man seems to be part of
> her
> moral code. Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
> pesticides doesn't.
=======================
That's the simple rule for simple minds that vegans follow. That's the
hypocrisy. Choosing to abhor only the death and suffering of animals that
she doesn't have any effect on, and claiming that that choice 'makes a
difference'.


>
> Personally
> I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which
> causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not,
=======================
That's what makes her, and other vegans on usenet, the hypocrites that they
are. they target only one set of animals as being killed,
while ignoring another whole set.


> as long as the consequences of the action are known in advance, so
> enjoy
> your steaks from grass reared cattle. I'm sure my diet includes worse
> items.
> Purely out of curiousity are you opposed to AW or just AR?
=================
just AR as it is preached on usenet. Besides, animals have no rights.


>
> > > There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
> > > for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
> > > consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
> > > to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
> > > herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
> > > people, on both sides of the debate following her example.
> > ==================
> > ROTFLMAO Which ones, holding on to lys and delusions? What a hoot!

rick etter wrote:

<snip>
=============
>>>She claims not to cause unnecessary animal death and suffering. Of

No, I don't claim that. We ALL cause unnecessary animal death and
suffering, Rick. We all cause (using the same criteria you give)
unnecessary human death and suffering.

> course,

>>>she defines that as only meat animals.
>>>She does nothing to alleviate the massive numbers she contributes to for
> her
>>>selishness, conveninece, and entertainment.

I've mentioned steps I take in the past. You ignore them.

>>>throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.

What sanctimonious hyprocricy?

>>AIUI Karen's moral code is not ruled by the utilitarian principle, you
>>appear to be invoking. It reads more like a set of rules.

You are correct my moral code is not primarily utilitarian,
although I use utilitarian calculations in some areas of
decision-making. It is not simply a set of rules, however.

> Thou shalt
>>not
>>eat meat from animals, which were killed by man seems to be part of
>>her
>>moral code.

Yes, just as "Thou shalt not eat meat from humans killed by man" is
a part of my moral code, and for similar reasons -- it is the
injustice of the killing, not the meat-eating per se which is the
issue. If I were stranded in a cabin with another person who died
of natural causes, I would have no ethical objections to
cannibalism in and of itself (there would be no injustice toward
the dead person). Of course, with humans, one has to consider
the remaining relatives, and I would have an aesthetic revulsion
toward eating a human -- but those are other issues.

Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
>>pesticides doesn't.

Not in and of itslf. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies
for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but,
again, that is another issue from AR.

> =======================
> That's the simple rule for simple minds that vegans follow. That's the
> hypocrisy. Choosing to abhor only the death and suffering of animals that
> she doesn't have any effect on,

Er.. has it occurred to you, Rick, that I don't have a direct effect
because I choose to act in such a way as to avoid it? It doesn't
happen by accident. And, certainly, I abhor all unjust death and
all suffering.

and claiming that that choice 'makes a
> difference'.

I believe it does, for reasons I have given.

>>Personally
>>I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which
>>causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not,

Probably because you don't view animals and agriculture the way I
do.

> =======================
> That's what makes her, and other vegans on usenet, the hypocrites that they
> are. they target only one set of animals as being killed,
> while ignoring another whole set.

Which vegans here on usenet have claimed animals killed and caused
suffering in vegetable production are not significant? Who has
ignored them? We recognize they exist; we deplore them. 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. I believe the system has to be attacked at
its source -- the philosophical view of the nature of animals'
rights.

>>as long as the consequences of the action are known in advance, so
>>enjoy
>>your steaks from grass reared cattle. I'm sure my diet includes worse
>>items.
>>Purely out of curiousity are you opposed to AW or just AR?

> =================
> just AR as it is preached on usenet. Besides, animals have no rights.

Which is the philosophical position AR opposes.

I've never seen Rick give any good reason why he believes animals
have no rights. Perhaps he will enlighten us now as to why he
believes this.

>>>>There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
>>>>for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
>>>>consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
>>>>to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
>>>>herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
>>>>people, on both sides of the debate following her example.

>>>==================
>>>ROTFLMAO Which ones, holding on to lys and delusions? What a hoot!

Rat

There IS a difference.

There is NO hypocrisy in condemning those who do MORE cruelty
to animals or advance harm to their bodies or society
through drug use -- NOT less.

This is what makes Rush Limbaugh a TOTAL hypocrite.
He condemned pot smokers, even those whose pot smoking caused
no damage to themselves and cost insurers and drug rehab units,
demanding extremist prison sentences for them,
who did less damage to society financially than his coked up
fanatic drug habit. He even condemned those who themselves took
no illegal drugs, just because they believed in legalizing drugs
for others. Thus, he condemned those who are 100% pure, drug-wise.

I have not heard of this Karen Winter, but from what you describe,
she kills FAR fewer animals, and those she does, more humanely,
than ANYone she condemns. More importantly, she is working in
the right direction, willing to work with others to find out ways
to further reduce killing animals by advancing technology.

Obviously you would condemn WWII veterans for being hypocrites
because some of them killed innocent civilians accidentally in war
while they were trying to fight the Nazis.

"piddock" > wrote

> There is NO hypocrisy in condemning those who do MORE cruelty
> to animals

When did you ever attempt to measure the cruelty you cause to animals?

> This is what makes Rush Limbaugh a TOTAL hypocrite.
> He condemned pot smokers, even those whose pot smoking caused
> no damage to themselves

That's another fallacy, pot does tremendous damage to the body and the mind.

-snip inane rant-

"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
> That's another fallacy, pot does tremendous damage to the body and the mind.

Proof?

Odd how you question and demand proof for the obvious fact that
an enormous percentage of trees on this planet have been cut down
for cattle grazing all for needless meat-eating by humans.

"tortrix" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote

> > That's another fallacy, pot does tremendous damage to the body and the
mind.
>
> Proof?

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/h...-marijuana.htm
http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/download44.html

Marijuana adversely affects sleep patterns, social and cognitive functioning
on many levels, and causes severe lung damage, just for STARTERS.

> Odd how you question and demand proof for the obvious fact that
> an enormous percentage of trees on this planet have been cut down
> for cattle grazing all for needless meat-eating by humans.

What a bunch of crap.

What's odd is how so many lazy dimwits like you can toss away their very
humanity in favour of cheap rushes like those obtained from drugs and
self-serving "causes".

piddock wrote:

> There IS a difference.

None.

>
> There is NO hypocrisy in condemning those who do MORE cruelty
> to animals or advance harm to their bodies or society
> through drug use -- NOT less.

There is hypocrisy when the critics are not abiding by
their absolutist claims.