"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:

> 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

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.

Bill wrote:

> You unethically, as always, ran away from the tough issues.

I've discussed the issues, and continue to do so.

>> <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.

So then, CDs in general are NOT the result of my personal actions.
As I said: they are a result of social attitudes of many people,
and cannot be ended by one person's action.

> After you die, you won't cause any
> more CDs. "vegans" who are living after you're dead
> will.

Vegans, including myself, don't cause CDs. I've been more than
fair, and bent over backward to be honest and accept the
limited degree of responsibility I do bear, to disprove your
personal attack on my supposed "hypocricy" by agreeing I help
to provide a motive for farmers to cause CDs. But the customer
does not cause the producer to use any particular methods; he only
provides a motive for the producer to provide a product.

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.

So -- if my actions have no effect, how can they be a cause of
anything? You contradict yourself. On the one hand, I am
supposed to be tremendously powerful, causing vast numbers of
CDs all by myself. On the other, my not buying meat, leather,
and other animal products is supposed to have no effect at all.
This is logically impossible.

You aren't even
> close to funny.

Actually, I thought that remark was hilarious....

>>>> 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,

I didn't say that.

> and no
> concrete result.

I didn't say that either. It has had limited concrete results,
it just hasn't changed society-wide practices.

> It is purely symbolic,

Not purely.

> intended to
> make you feel good.

Certainly. Acting on ethical principle usually makes one feel good.

> It is not based on any principle
> except hedonism, and clearly not on any ethical principle.

You are wrong about that.

> 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.

I see the evidence differently.

>> 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".

Believe what you like, Jonnie.

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

> I don't attack you personally,

*chuckle*

> 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.

When you can't argue the facts, Jonnie, attack your
opponents' character. A classic dodge for a poster
with no substantial argument. People see through
this tactic, you know. You don't fool anyone.

> 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.

So, as I noted, it IS more consistent, more in accord with
my ethical views, to be vegan -- you admit it. The
alternative would be less consistent -- you admit it.
So there is an ethical reason for me to be vegan -- you
admit it. You cannot escape, Jonnie. You know why I am
vegan, really, and you admit I have a good, ethically-based
reason for being vegan.

Now, can we move beyond personal attack, since you've
conceded my point?

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>
>

"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.

You have no basis for changing the thread title to
anything about buckpassing by an opponent of "ar",
fatso. It is "aras", chiefly you, who are passing the
buck. You are morally complicit in the animal deaths
brought about by the food you eat, right up to your
eyebrows. It is only because you are a lifelong
swindler and buckpasser and moral shirker that you are
frantically, desperately trying to deny moral complicity.

You fail.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:40:03 GMT, Bill > wrote:

>You have no basis for changing the thread title to
>anything about buckpassing by an opponent of "ar",
>fatso. It is "aras", chiefly you, who are passing the
>buck. You are morally complicit in the animal deaths
>brought about by the food you eat, right up to your
>eyebrows.

You're an arse jon. We all wait in deep anticipation of the revelation
you have for us all, instead you sound more and more like dick eatter
everyday, is he one of your sock puppets?

The longer you keep babbling, doesn't mean it will ever come true
dwarfie.





**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

"Derek" > wrote
>
> "Bill" > wrote
> >
> > 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.

The "farmer" is the person who owns the land, he seldom does the killing.
With larger operations it's usually an employee that does it. I'm a farmer
and I only see my land a week a year at most.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Derek" > wrote
> >
> > "Bill" > wrote
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> The "farmer" is the person who owns the land,

Non sequitur.

> he seldom does the killing.
> With larger operations it's usually an employee that does it.

Then he is responsible. Whichever way you look at it,
the moral agent who causes the deaths, or demands that
they be caused is responsible.

> I'm a farmer

No, you aren't. You're a street sweeper.

> and I only see my land a week a year at most.
>
Get out more. Step outside -- the graphics are amazing.

"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
>

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.

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
> rick etter wrote:

[snip]
>
> >>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.

OK.

> > 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.

Sure.

> 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.

Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will
lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act?

> > =======================
> > 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.

I view animals as sentient beings with the capacity to experience
a range of emotions, whose lives are important to them, any in many
cases to their friends as well. I see agriculture as a way of growing
food to keep us alive with. How do you view animals and agriculture?

[snip]
>
> >>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.

I strongly believe that animals have the right to be treated compassionately.
Would you disagree with this?

[snip]

Purple wrote:

> Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...

<snip>

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

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

> Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will
> lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act?

Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths --
the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it
does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights. When
you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the
side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other
plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to
kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects
have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong. If there is another
option, such as the use of ladybugs to eat harmful insect pests,
that would, of course, be preferable to using chemical poisons.
Enclosing the vegetables to keep out animals would be another
possible option. IMO, the farmer has an obligation to use the least
destructive methods to protect his crop that he can, whether against
humans, non-human animals, or "weeds" -- not only so as
to avoid poisoning humans or animals, but to avoid polluting the
environment. Humans becomes CDs too, either directly, or through
environmental pollution. That is why I buy locally-grown organic
produce whenever possible.

<snip>

>>>>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.

> I view animals as sentient beings with the capacity to experience
> a range of emotions, whose lives are important to them, any in many
> cases to their friends as well. I see agriculture as a way of growing
> food to keep us alive with. How do you view animals and agriculture?

Much the same. But I see a difference between a system which defines
animals as things, as objects, as property, and which controls their
entire lives from conception to death, often in ways which frustrate
most of their natural behaviors and cause them great suffering, and
accidental death. The analogy I often use is between slavery and
bad labor conditions. That workers died in the Triangle Waist fire,
or in mines and mills was indeed tragic. That they still die in
sweatshops and chicken processing plants and pesticide-poisoned fields
is still tragic. We need to change the methods in those sweatshops,
mines, mills, and chicken-processing plants. But, except for the
chicken-processing plants, there's no reason to stop producing the
product. Slavery, no matter how pleasant, remains inherently immoral.
Obviously, it is better for the slave to be well-treated, just as it
is better for the chicken to scratch around in a comfortable barnyard
than to spend her life in a battery cage. But treating slaves well
does not make slavery just.

> [snip]
> I strongly believe that animals have the right to be treated compassionately.
> Would you disagree with this?

Not I.

Rat

Sorry for not replying sooner. I have only just noticed this post.

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
> Purple wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
> >>>>pesticides doesn't.
>
> >>Not in and of itself. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies
> >>for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but,
> >>again, that is another issue from AR.
>
> > Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will
> > lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act?
>
> Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths --
> the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it
> does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights.

I understand where you are coming from but I am a firm believer that
it is the consequences that matter. If you knowingly endanger life's than
I consider that you are morally responsible for the number of life's
you endanger*the probability of that life being lost. Thus the morality
of spraying a crop with pesticides and slaughtering a farm animal
is quantitatively different but not qualitatively different.

> When
> you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the
> side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other
> plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to
> kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects
> have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong.

I believe there is enough evidence of sentience among insects that they
shouldn't be totally disregarded from any moral decision.

> If there is another
> option, such as the use of ladybugs to eat harmful insect pests,
> that would, of course, be preferable to using chemical poisons.
> Enclosing the vegetables to keep out animals would be another
> possible option. IMO, the farmer has an obligation to use the least
> destructive methods to protect his crop that he can, whether against
> humans, non-human animals, or "weeds" -- not only so as
> to avoid poisoning humans or animals, but to avoid polluting the
> environment.

I agree wholeheartedly.

> Humans becomes CDs too, either directly, or through
> environmental pollution. That is why I buy locally-grown organic
> produce whenever possible.

Good for you!

> <snip>
>
> >>>>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.
>
> > I view animals as sentient beings with the capacity to experience
> > a range of emotions, whose lives are important to them, any in many
> > cases to their friends as well. I see agriculture as a way of growing
> > food to keep us alive with. How do you view animals and agriculture?
>
> Much the same. But I see a difference between a system which defines
> animals as things, as objects, as property, and which controls their
> entire lives from conception to death, often in ways which frustrate
> most of their natural behaviors and cause them great suffering, and
> accidental death.

I see this difference too but I prefer some sort of middle way whereby
animals have a much higher status than machines but can still be bought
sold and used responsibly.

> The analogy I often use is between slavery and
> bad labor conditions. That workers died in the Triangle Waist fire,
> or in mines and mills was indeed tragic. That they still die in
> sweatshops and chicken processing plants and pesticide-poisoned fields
> is still tragic. We need to change the methods in those sweatshops,
> mines, mills, and chicken-processing plants. But, except for the
> chicken-processing plants, there's no reason to stop producing the
> product. Slavery, no matter how pleasant, remains inherently immoral.

This is where we disagree. I say slavery is OK so long as the slave is
happy to be a slave. A human is likely to feel the emotional need to
own themselves and design their own life but if an animal is given the
freedom to express their natural behaviours, friends to socialise with,
is well fed, has good veterinary care and a comfortable place to rest
they won't care that they are enslaved so why should we?

> Obviously, it is better for the slave to be well-treated, just as it
> is better for the chicken to scratch around in a comfortable barnyard
> than to spend her life in a battery cage. But treating slaves well
> does not make slavery just.
>
> > [snip]
> > I strongly believe that animals have the right to be treated compassionately.
> > Would you disagree with this?
>
> Not I.
>
> Rat

"Purple" > wrote in message om...
>
> This is where we disagree. I say slavery is OK so long
> as the slave is happy to be a slave.

Then, assuming you had a retarded daughter, and
I'm not for one moment suggesting you have or trying
to flame, it's quite possible she would be content while
being held as a slave. That being so, what objection
would you offer to your daughter's slaver who uses her
as a prostitute for his own personal sexual satisfaction
and economic gain as her pimp?

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths --

It will most certainly result in animal deaths, as insects are
animals. Frogs, lizards, birds, and other small animals in the field
may also die. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but I think we
have to be honest here.

> the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it
> does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights. When
> you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the
> side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other
> plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to
> kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects
> have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong.

I don't think it would be wrong either. Fungi aren't animals or
plants, by the way. They're in a separate kingdom. BTW does your
comment in regards to insects mean you eat honey? I'm just curious
because many vegans don't eat honey.

> If there is another
> option, such as the use of ladybugs to eat harmful insect pests,
> that would, of course, be preferable to using chemical poisons.

At least the damage would be more targeted toward the insects.

> Enclosing the vegetables to keep out animals would be another
> possible option. IMO, the farmer has an obligation to use the least
> destructive methods to protect his crop that he can, whether against
> humans, non-human animals, or "weeds" -- not only so as
> to avoid poisoning humans or animals, but to avoid polluting the
> environment. Humans becomes CDs too, either directly, or through
> environmental pollution. That is why I buy locally-grown organic
> produce whenever possible.

Of course, you realize that organic produce actually produces less per
farm than mass-produced fruits and vegetables, right? It may be more
healthy or tasty for an individual to eat organic, but if all farmers
followed these methods, there would be massive crop losses, and that
would result in more world hunger.

I'm not against organic farming though at all, I think it's a good
thing, but I don't think that most farms should take it up.

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m...

> Of course, you realize that organic produce actually produces less per
> farm than mass-produced fruits and vegetables, right? It may be more
> healthy or tasty for an individual to eat organic, but if all farmers
> followed these methods, there would be massive crop losses, and that
> would result in more world hunger.

Compare the yields here; http://tinyurl.com/uvdi , bearing in mind;

'2. Lower yields are experienced during the transition to organic production

Most researchers agree that yields tend to drop for three to five
years during the conversion from industrial to organic approaches (Dabbert
and Madden, 1986; US Congress, 1983; Hanson et al, 1990; Lampkin,
1989; Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). This is because it takes time for the soil
to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture. It
also takes time for operators to learn organic crop management techniques.
Some of the lower organic crop yield estimates cited in Exhibit III-1
may have been from industrial farms in transition to organic production.

Given that organic production relies on soil fertility and a healthy,
diverse soil ecosystem, the yield reductions experienced in the initial
phases of transition from industrial practices tend to be eliminated over
time (Sparling et al, 1992; pers. comm. Cornwoman; pers. comm. Tourte).
We note that the economic transition time can be twice as long as the
biological transition time; it can take an extra four years for the
farmer to fully recoup the financial losses that occurred during the
transition (Hanson et al, 1990). This transition period can be shortened
significantly with creativity (e.g. substituting crops, enhancing farm
gate sales efforts).

3. Organic crop yields are less variable than industrial yields

Organic crop yields are reportedly less variable than industrial
methods (Hanson et al, 1990). As well, growing season precipitation is
an important factor influencing crop yields and organic crop production
systems appear to perform better than industrial farming systems under
drought conditions (Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). Thus, sustainable crop
production provides a benefit to risk-averse farmers.

Based on the above, it appears that with strong farm management, small
scale, organic crop production can produce competitive and even superior
yields to industrially grown crops. Furthermore, just as research has
resulted in an improvement in yields for industrial crops (e.g. winter
wheat), there is likely to be similar improvement in yields for organic
crops as more research is conducted and organic farming methods
become more commonplace (Lampkin, 1989).
...'
http://www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosy...er3.htm#eiii-1

Also;

Farmers Throw Away Ploughs - Crop Yields Soar
1-17-01

Farmers across the developing world are throwing
away their ploughs in a dramatic example of "sustainable"
farming, a practice that is now sending crop yields soaring
on millions of farms.

The findings come from the largest ever study of sustainable
agriculture, released at a conference in London on Monday
The report's author, Jules Pretty of the University of Essex,
says sustainable agriculture is now defying its reputation as
a worthy enterprise with little chance of feeding millions
of starving people. He says sustainable farming has been
the most effective way of raising farm yields in the past
decade and that farming without tilling is among the most
widely adopted forms.

Pretty says the growth is very exciting: "If it spreads we
can make substantial inroads in reducing hunger."

Nature versus nurture

Sustainable agriculture deliberately lowers manmade
inputs such as chemicals, while maximising nature's input.
It replaces fertilisers with plants that fix nitrogen in the
soil and pesticides with natural enemies of pests.

And it is catching on. It now covers three per cent of third
world fields, an area the size of Italy. Its methods are
having big impacts on farm yields, with typical increases
of 40 to 100 per cent.

"Sustainable farming has grown in the past decade from
being the preserve of a few enthusiasts into a broad
movement involving governments and the private sector",
says Pretty, whose study collected data on 200 projects
in 52 countries and was commissioned by the UK
government's Department for International Development.
"It is cheap, uses locally available technology and often
improves the environment," he says. "Above all it most
helps the people who need it - poor farmers and their
families, who make up the majority of the world's hungry
people."

Weed killer

In Latin America, small farmers left behind by past
farming revolutions have seen yields of grain and beans
rise by two-thirds using "green" methods, says Miguel
Altieri of the University of California, Berkeley.

The most widespread new technique is farming without
ploughing. In Argentina a third of fields now never see
a plough - farmers get rid of weeds by planting off-season
crops that kill them.

Besides relieving them of one of the most tedious jobs
on the farm, abandoning the plough improves soil quality
and raises crop yields. It even helps curb global warming
by accumulating carbon in the soil.

"In a short time, farmers saw reduced costs and greater
productivity, increased income and a better environment,"
said Lauro Bassi, an agronomist from Santa Catarina in
southern Brazil, where zero-tillage has been widely
adopted "For us zero-tillage is like a social movement."

Correspondence about this story should be directed to


https://www.newscientist.com/dailyne...p?id=ns9999325

> I'm not against organic farming though at all, I think it's a good
> thing, but I don't think that most farms should take it up.

Think again.

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
> Purple wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
> >>>>pesticides doesn't.
>
> >>Not in and of itself. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies
> >>for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but,
> >>again, that is another issue from AR.
>
> > Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will
> > lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act?
>
> Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths --
> the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it
> does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights. When
> you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the
> side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other
> plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to
> kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects
> have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong

If you saw tox tests performed on agri chemicals, you would realize
exactly how "wrong" it is. I worked developing agrichemicals, and
alternatives for them, for 15 years. The ultimate tox tests were done
on beagles and rhesus monkeys. There is absolutely *nothing* "right"
about pesticides.

-L.