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.

....

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

Fritz

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

"Rat & Swan" > wrote

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

Just because you (barely) resist the urge makes you right?

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> 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,

No, I'm not. You lost substantially, and you're a liar.

>> 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,

Yes, I and several others did prove it wrong.


>> 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.

The burden is on you to show that it is unjust. Until
you persuasively do so, then by presumption it is just.

>
>> 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,

No. Bored to death.

>
> <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.

He doesn't.

Run away, Billie/Jonnie, run away....

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Run away, Billie/Jonnie, run away....

There's no running away, except by you. Also a lot of
unethical snipping away, too.

You are fundamentally an immoral person.

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

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>

>>>> 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.

They're empty. It's just feelgoodism, that's all.
"Buying locally" doesn't mean a thing.

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

The sanctimonious hypocrisy of claiming you abide by a
principle when what you abide by is nothing but a
consumption rule.

>
>>> 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.

It IS a set of rules. There is no principle.


>> 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.

No, you don't. You CAUSE a lot of it, unjust death and
suffering that is avoidable.

>> and claiming that that choice 'makes a difference'.
>
>
> I believe it does, for reasons I have given.

It doesn't. You don't do anything to reduce or
eliminate collateral animal death.


>>> 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.

You don't view them through any principle. You view
them as a cheap means for self exaltation.

>
>> =======================
>> 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?

Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
concrete to stop killing them? None.

> Who has ignored them?

You. ALL "vegans" ignore them.

> We recognize they exist; we deplore them.

Empty hand-wringing; cheap verbiage.

> 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.

> 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 doesn't. It's a cheap, easy gesture, and it's ALL
you do, BECAUSE it's cheap and easy, and makes you feel
good about yourself, nothing more. You refuse to make
the corresponding gesture for collateral deaths because
it's costly and hard.

Neither gesture does a thing to attack the
philosophical view of the prevailing society. You do
the one because it's cheap and easy and you
irrationally feel better about yourself for doing it.
That's all "veganism" is.

>
>>> 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.

You've lost.

>
> 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!

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....
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?

>> 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.

<snip>

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

>> Which is the philosophical position AR opposes.

> You've lost.

Empty words, Jonnie, empty words. You won't even discuss
your philosophical position. There's a big world out there,
full of AR supporters and vegetarians/vegans. You can't make us
disappear by typing at us....

I do believe we are making some progress -- limited and glacial,
but some progress. Things change slowly, but they do change.

I can't figure out why my being vegan annoys you so much. Would
you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again?
Wouldn't that make me even more of a hypocrite, given my
views (from your point of view)?

Rat
<snip>

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.

"Bill" > wrote in message . net...
>
> Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
> concrete to stop killing them? None.
>
Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
concrete to start killing them? None.

The farmer kills them, so he alone is fully responsible
for every last one of them.

Derek wrote:
> "Bill" > wrote in message . net...
>
>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
>>concrete to stop killing them? None.
>>
>
> Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
> concrete to start killing them? None.

All of them, every time they buy vegetables from a
farmer *after* they've learned about collateral deaths.

"Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message .net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message . net...
> >
> >>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
> >>concrete to stop killing them? None.
> >
> > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
> > concrete to start killing them? None.
>
> All of them

False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
collateral deaths in agriculture.

Derek wrote:

> "Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message .net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message . net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
>>>>concrete to stop killing them? None.
>>>
>>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
>>>concrete to start killing them? None.
>>
>>All of them
>
>
> False.

No, true.

> Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
> collateral deaths in agriculture.

"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
of animals, if there is anything wrong with it at all.
You don't need to trade with the farmer; you choose
to do so, rewarding him each and every time.

This is not in honest dispute.

Derek wrote:

<snip>

> False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
> collateral deaths in agriculture.

I agree. It is the farmers' choice to use the methods
he does, just as it is a drug-dealer's choice to deal
drugs.

Rat

Bill wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

> Slightly.

<snip>

So -- even by your standards, not buying/eating meat and other
animal products is in accord with my ethical views, and makes me
less of a hypocrite than I would be if I ate meat, bought
leather, etc. You agree it is an ethical advance for ME to
be vegan, and more in accord with my ethical views than for
me not to be vegan. Which is my position. What you claim is
that I do not do as much as I possibly could to act completely
in accord with my ethical views by avoiding all products which
may have an (undetermined, possible)number of collateral deaths
associated with their production. I agree.

So, since we agree on this point, could you stop attacking me
personally, and give us your reasons why you feel raising and
slaughtering animals for food and other products is not unethical?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours, Jonnie....

Rat

"Bill" > wrote in message . net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message .net...
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>>"Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message . net...
> >>>
> >>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
> >>>>concrete to stop killing them? None.
> >>>
> >>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
> >>>concrete to start killing them? None.
> >>
> >>All of them
> >
> > False.
>
> No, true.
>
It cannot be. Logic insists farmers cause them, so they
are to blame.

> > Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
> > collateral deaths in agriculture.
>
> "vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
> of animals, if there is anything wrong with it at all.

There's plenty wrong with it, and farmers are to blame,
buckpasser.

> You don't need to trade with the farmer; you choose
> to do so, rewarding him each and every time.
>
I only reward him for what I buy from him. I do not buy
the deaths he causes, so they are his.

> This is not in honest dispute.
>
I'm disputing it.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Derek wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
> > collateral deaths in agriculture.
>
> I agree. It is the farmers' choice to use the methods
> he does, just as it is a drug-dealer's choice to deal
> drugs.
>
The way I see it; farmers, pushers and slavers are free to
use alternative means to make their way in the World, and
if their chosen way causes any harms, then they must take
full responsibility for their autonomous actions or stay in bed.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Derek wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
>> collateral deaths in agriculture.
>
>
> I agree.

Of course you do. You're as big a moral fraud as Dreck.

> It is the farmers' choice to use the methods
> he does,

Just as it is your free choice to buy from him.

We already know why you make the cheap and easy
symbolic gesture of not eating meat, but refuse to make
the costly and difficult symbolic gesture of not
abstaining from animal-killing vegetables. It has
nothing to do with principle, unless hedonistic self
interest may be called a principle.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Would
>>> you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again?
>
>
> <snip>

You unethical bitch. Why do you leave your question,
but snip out the answer?

<restore>
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.

And again:

<repost>
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.

>
>
> <snip>
>
> So -- even by your standards, not buying/eating meat and other
> animal products is in accord with my ethical views, and makes me
> less of a hypocrite than I would be if I ate meat, bought
> leather, etc.

Your pseudo-ethical behavior is not based any
principle, so it doesn't matter what your views are.

> You agree it is an ethical advance for ME to
> be vegan,

No, just marginally more consistent. You miss "ethical
advance" by an infinite margin.

> and more in accord with my ethical views

We aren't concerned with you being in accord with your
subjective ethical views, bitch, because no matter what
kind of pseudo-philosophical basis you try to give to
your views, your behavior is not in accord with any
principle, except that of the pursuit of ease and cheap
food.

You're dancing an ugly dance. You simply can't
reconcile, in a principled manner, that you engage in
one empty, symbolic gesture but not another, when both
of them are equally empty and symbolic, with no
practical effect.

You shouldn't have come back. You're a waste.

Derek wrote:

> "Bill" > wrote in message . net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message .net...
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message . net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
>>>>>>concrete to stop killing them? None.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
>>>>>concrete to start killing them? None.
>>>>
>>>>All of them
>>>
>>>False.
>>
>>No, true.
>>
>
> It cannot be.

It is.

> Logic insists farmers cause them,

No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot.

> so they are to blame.

You are as well, if there's anything wrong with
collateral deaths, which your view of animals necessitates.

>
>
>>>Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
>>>collateral deaths in agriculture.
>>
>>"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
>>of animals, if there is anything wrong with it at all.
>
>
> There's plenty wrong with it, and farmers are to blame,

Then so are you.

>
>
>> You don't need to trade with the farmer; you choose
>>to do so, rewarding him each and every time.
>>
>
> I only reward him for what I buy from him. I do not buy
> the deaths he causes, so they are his.

You pay him for having farmed, period. You get all of
it. The collateral deaths are morally inseparable from
the food.

This is established beyond reasonable dispute.

>
>
>>This is not in honest dispute.

Ipse dixit wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:13:33 GMT, Bill > wrote:
>
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message .net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message . net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
>>>>>>concrete to stop killing them? None.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
>>>>>concrete to start killing them? None.
>>>>
>>>>All of them
>>>
>>>
>>>False.
>>
>>No, true.
>>
>
> How do you intend prove this assumption to anyone's satisfaction.

It's been done, hundreds of times. Search for it.

> Repeating your claim ad nauseam only proves that your claim has
> no factual basis.

Non sequitur.

>
>
>>>Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
>>>collateral deaths in agriculture.
>>
>>"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
>>of animals, if there is anything wrong with it at all.
>
>
> There isn't, morally speaking, so why pretend there is?

"vegans" claim there is.

>
>
>> You don't need to trade with the farmer; you choose
>>to do so, rewarding him each and every time.
>>
>
> For what do vegans reward farmers: their produce or the intentional
> deaths often cause by them while producing it?

All of it. The collateral deaths are morally
indivisible from the food, GIVEN that "vegans", at
least those who have spent any time here, know about them.

>
>
>>This is not in honest dispute.

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.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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.
=========================
yes, you do. You claim to 'take steps', yet your actions tell a different
story. the only 'steps' you take are the ones demanded by your simple rule,
'eat no meat'. the rest is just hot air.


>
> > 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.
===========================
You take no real steps... Just follow the simple minds rule...



>
> >>>throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.
>
> What sanctimonious hyprocricy?
====================
Yours. The one your posts drip with, idiot.

>
> >>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.
==================
Organic does not equal pesticide nor machine free veggies, you ignorant
dolt.


>
> > =======================
> > 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?
======================
No, you don't. Each of your ignorant spews to usenet proves that you take
few, if any steps, except your simple minds rule...


It doesn't
> happen by accident. And, certainly, I abhor all unjust death and
> all suffering.
==================
just a statement, not backed up by your actions. Your posts prove that,
killer.


>
> and claiming that that choice 'makes a
> > difference'.
>
> I believe it does, for reasons I have given.
====================
You've given no reasons, except your simple minds rule.

>
> >>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?
==============================
Are you really this stupid, or do you deliberately ignore what your fellow
vegans even deny?



Who has
> ignored them? We recognize they exist; we deplore them.
====================
No, you don't. You just say it, you don't live it. There's a big
difference.


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.
==================
That's just your current excuse for continuing your contributions to death
and suffering. A real vegan, there are none on usenet, would not worry
about what could be done in some future fanatsy state, but worry forst about
their own massive contributions to the death and suffering they cause right
now!


>
> >>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.
======================
No, it's a position you also support and live by. each and every one of
your ignorant usenet spews proves that you do not believe animals have
rights.



>
> 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.
==========================
If they did, the cat wouldn't kill and eat the mouse....


>
> >>>>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
>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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....
> 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>
=================================
Yes, you have the power to stop *your* contributions to animal death and
suffering 'right now'! You won't take that chance, because you are too
lazy, selfish, and convenience oriented. Like all vegans here on usenet,
you mouth the word, yet speak the opposite with your actions.


>
> Doesn't this contradict your claim my personal actions are merely
> an ineffectual gesture?
=======================
No, that your 'claims' of any actions are ineffectual. That's because you
ultimately take no real action.


>
> >> 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.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> just AR as it is preached on usenet. Besides, animals have no rights.
>
> >> Which is the philosophical position AR opposes.
>
> > You've lost.
>
> Empty words, Jonnie, empty words. You won't even discuss
> your philosophical position. There's a big world out there,
> full of AR supporters and vegetarians/vegans. You can't make us
> disappear by typing at us....
>
> I do believe we are making some progress -- limited and glacial,
> but some progress. Things change slowly, but they do change.
>
> I can't figure out why my being vegan annoys you so much. Would
> you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again?
> Wouldn't that make me even more of a hypocrite, given my
> views (from your point of view)?
>
> Rat
> <snip>
>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Derek wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
> > collateral deaths in agriculture.
>
> I agree. It is the farmers' choice to use the methods
> he does, just as it is a drug-dealer's choice to deal
> drugs.
=======================
LOL And, just like the drug dealer, you supply the reward for the farmer to
keep killing. It is your actions that keep him in the business he's in.
You have other choices, yet you choose the ones that are the cheapest, most
conveninet, and cause animal death and suffering.



>
> Rat
>

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill" > wrote in message
. net...
> > Derek wrote:
> > > "Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message
.net...
> > >>Derek wrote:
> > >>>"Bill/Jonathan Ball/etc. etc." > wrote in message
. net...
> > >>>
> > >>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
> > >>>>concrete to stop killing them? None.
> > >>>
> > >>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
> > >>>concrete to start killing them? None.
> > >>
> > >>All of them
> > >
> > > False.
> >
> > No, true.
> >
> It cannot be. Logic insists farmers cause them, so they
> are to blame.
======================
Nope. Your pal, Aristotle, has even told you, in english, that you are
complicit, killer.


>
> > > Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
> > > collateral deaths in agriculture.
> >
> > "vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
> > of animals, if there is anything wrong with it at all.
>
> There's plenty wrong with it, and farmers are to blame,
> buckpasser.
==================
No, it's your passing the bucks over to the farmer as a rewrd for his
actions that make you complicit, hypocrite.


>
> > You don't need to trade with the farmer; you choose
> > to do so, rewarding him each and every time.
> >
> I only reward him for what I buy from him. I do not buy
> the deaths he causes, so they are his.
=======================
Nope. Check with Ari again, fool.


>
> > This is not in honest dispute.
> >
> I'm disputing it.
>
>

rick etter wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>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.
>
> =========================
> yes, you do. You claim to 'take steps', yet your actions tell a different
> story. the only 'steps' you take are the ones demanded by your simple rule,
> 'eat no meat'. the rest is just hot air.

Exactly. The "steps" she takes are vacuous: she says
she "buys locally", as if farmers who produce near
where she lives take any more care not to plough up
burrowing mammmals and other animals than farmers
thousands of miles away.

>
>
>
>>>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.
>
> ===========================
> You take no real steps... Just follow the simple minds rule...

She takes NO meaningful steps to try to stop
contributing to collateral animal deaths.

>
>
>
>
>>>>>throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.
>>
>> What sanctimonious hyprocricy?
>
> ====================
> Yours. The one your posts drip with, idiot.
>
>
>>>>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.
>
> ==================
> Organic does not equal pesticide nor machine free veggies, you ignorant
> dolt.

Note the bitch didn't say she *buys* only or even
mostly organic, "non-agribusiness" (the *real* agenda)
veggies. I "prefer" $300-per-person meat including
dinners at three-star restaurants in Paris, but I don't
eat them.

She is laughably transparent, and really shitty at the
sophistry game.

>
>
>
>>>=======================
>>>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?
>
> ======================
> No, you don't. Each of your ignorant spews to usenet proves that you take
> few, if any steps, except your simple minds rule...

In terms of avoiding complicity in animal collateral
deaths, she takes NO concrete, meaningful steps. She
runs her mouth; that's all.

>> It doesn't happen by accident.

Note that she's waiting for the collateral death issue
to resolve itself, AS IF by accident; certainly with no
meaningful contribution from her.

>> And, certainly, I abhor all unjust
>> death and all suffering.
>
> ==================
> just a statement, not backed up by your actions. Your posts prove that,
> killer.
>
>
>
>>> and claiming that that choice 'makes a difference'.
>>
>> I believe it does, for reasons I have given.
>
> ====================
> You've given no reasons, except your simple minds rule.

She's given dishonest excuses for INaction, not reasons
why her inaction 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,
>>
>> 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?
>
> ==============================
> Are you really this stupid, or do you deliberately ignore what your fellow
> vegans even deny?
>
>
>
>> Who has ignored them? We recognize they exist; we deplore them.
>
> ====================
> No, you don't. You just say it, you don't live it. There's a big
> difference.
>
>
>> 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.

This is what I mean about her blaming her utter
passivity regarding collateral deaths on others'
alleged moral failure. If they don't see things her
way, then she claims to have no choice in the matter of
whether or not she participates in animal-killing
market processes. She's lying, of course, and it is
despicable for her to blame her moral failure on others.

>> I believe the system has to be attacked at
>> its source -- the philosophical view of the nature of animals'
>> rights.
>
> ==================
> That's just your current excuse for continuing your contributions to death
> and suffering. A real vegan, there are none on usenet, would not worry
> about what could be done in some future fanatsy state, but worry forst about
> their own massive contributions to the death and suffering they cause right
> now!

That would be costly and difficult. "vegans" are
obsessed with cheap and easy symbolic enhancements to
their public image and dangerously damaged psyches.

>
>
>
>>>>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.
>
> ======================
> No, it's a position you also support and live by. each and every one of
> your ignorant usenet spews proves that you do not believe animals have
> rights.
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> ==========================
> If they did, the cat wouldn't kill and eat the mouse....

Pretty succinct.

Ipse dixit wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:29:31 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
>>>collateral deaths in agriculture.
>>
>> I agree. It is the farmers' choice to use the methods
>> he does, just as it is a drug-dealer's choice to deal
>> drugs.
>>
>> Rat
>
>
> Either are free to drive a cab for a living, Rat. ;-)

Karen Winter is free to withdraw from the market for
commercially grown produce. She CHOOSES to buy from
animal-killing farmers, knowing in advance that their
methods kill animals.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:29:31 -0700, Rat & Swan >
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Derek wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human
> >> collateral deaths in agriculture.
> >
> > I agree. It is the farmers' choice to use the methods
> > he does, just as it is a drug-dealer's choice to deal
> > drugs.
> >
> > Rat
>
> Either are free to drive a cab for a living, Rat. ;-)
=====================
And that is free from causeing any animal deaths and suffering how?