"Ron" > wrote

> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>> humane slaughter which they object.
>
> Killed, of course, by meat eaters.

Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to do
his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the street
and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
crime when it is committed.

> When the vegan buys the ingredients
> for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who
> rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such
> products, continues to kill.

Farmers kill animals, regardless of their personal diets.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >> humane slaughter which they object.
> >
> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>
> Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to do
> his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the street
> and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
> crime when it is committed.

It's the lesser "evil". Animal killers are one step from being human
killers. Better them than me. It's unfortunate, but a reality of being
human. I often would like to ask someone who raises livestock (kills
animals en masse) how it feels when they kill one animal after another.

> > When the vegan buys the ingredients
> > for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who
> > rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such
> > products, continues to kill.
>
> Farmers kill animals, regardless of their personal diets.

Farmers are killers though. They are the one's I leave to kill animals.
I use their supplies so that they will confine their violence and
aggression to other animals. Any law that would prohibit the mass
killing of those animals would only leave those who are that
bloodthirsty to take it out on their spouses, children and the community.

"Ron" > wrote
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > usual suspect > wrote:
>> >
>> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>> >> humane slaughter which they object.
>> >
>> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>> Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
>> do
>> his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
>> street
>> and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>> crime when it is committed.
>
> It's the lesser "evil".

No it's not.

> Animal killers are one step from being human
> killers. Better them than me. It's unfortunate, but a reality of being
> human. I often would like to ask someone who raises livestock (kills
> animals en masse) how it feels when they kill one animal after another.

How does it feel to supply the motive for them to do it? It would be about
the same.

>> > When the vegan buys the ingredients
>> > for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who
>> > rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such
>> > products, continues to kill.
>>
>> Farmers kill animals, regardless of their personal diets.
>
> Farmers are killers though. They are the one's I leave to kill animals.
> I use their supplies so that they will confine their violence and
> aggression to other animals. Any law that would prohibit the mass
> killing of those animals would only leave those who are that
> bloodthirsty to take it out on their spouses, children and the community.

You mean without farmers to do your dirty work you'd have to eat your own
family?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >> >> humane slaughter which they object.
> >> >
> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>
> >> Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
> >> do
> >> his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
> >> street
> >> and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
> >> crime when it is committed.
> >
> > It's the lesser "evil".
>
> No it's not.
>
> > Animal killers are one step from being human
> > killers. Better them than me. It's unfortunate, but a reality of being
> > human. I often would like to ask someone who raises livestock (kills
> > animals en masse) how it feels when they kill one animal after another.
>
> How does it feel to supply the motive for them to do it? It would be about
> the same.

If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy and
can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills and
relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile and
passing responsibility for their own actions.

Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who
delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict that
aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue.
As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or
some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the
community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses.

> >> > When the vegan buys the ingredients
> >> > for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who
> >> > rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such
> >> > products, continues to kill.
> >>
> >> Farmers kill animals, regardless of their personal diets.
> >
> > Farmers are killers though. They are the one's I leave to kill animals.
> > I use their supplies so that they will confine their violence and
> > aggression to other animals. Any law that would prohibit the mass
> > killing of those animals would only leave those who are that
> > bloodthirsty to take it out on their spouses, children and the community.
>
> You mean without farmers to do your dirty work you'd have to eat your own
> family?

Not at all. If everyone were to suddenly stop eating meat then, those
who are also violent and aggressive to begin with, those who have done
nothing to ensure they could survive without this industry would be even
more desperate. What skills and value to the community does one have
when their only skill really is the ability to inflict pain, suffering
and death.

Who would those killers of animals take out their aggression on if they
didn't have the animals that they do have that they can slaughter with
impugnity now? Of course, a farmer who wanted to have fun, food and
profit from keeping a farm of dogs, slaughtering and selling them would
face a different outcome. The farmer will get theirs. It is more a
question that we find treatment and cures for the violent tendencies
that farmers (and often males) display.

"Ron" > wrote

> If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy and
> can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills and
> relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile and
> passing responsibility for their own actions.

Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market?

>
> Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who
> delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict that
> aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue.
> As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or
> some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the
> community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses.

Right, a process admittedly supported by you.


[..]

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy and
> > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills and
> > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile and
> > passing responsibility for their own actions.
>
> Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market?

You do, Dutch. I'm not responsible for my own actions under your
theoretical constructs. Someone else _must_ be responsible for my
demand. How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions. If the
killer of animals isn't responsible for their actions then, how did I
become responsible for my actions?

> > Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who
> > delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict that
> > aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue.
> > As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or
> > some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the
> > community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses.
>
> Right, a process admittedly supported by you.

Yup. Support it, hell, I'm willing to see government grants for former
and potential killers to keep them away from others.

Better the cow gets it, than the famer's wife, kid, or someone in a
nearby town. Someone who has to kill that much is just plain mentally
ill and needs help.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy and
>> > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills and
>> > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile and
>> > passing responsibility for their own actions.
>>
>> Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market?
>
> You do, Dutch.

Bad answer.

> I'm not responsible for my own actions under your
> theoretical constructs.

Nope, wrong again.

> Someone else _must_ be responsible for my
> demand.

Nope, it's you.

> How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions.

How could anyone else?

If the
> killer of animals isn't responsible for their actions

They are.

> then, how did I
> become responsible for my actions?

You always were.

>> > Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who
>> > delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict
>> > that
>> > aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue.
>> > As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or
>> > some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the
>> > community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses.
>>
>> Right, a process admittedly supported by you.
>
> Yup. Support it, hell, I'm willing to see government grants for former
> and potential killers to keep them away from others.

Nonsense

>
> Better the cow gets it, than the famer's wife, kid, or someone in a
> nearby town. Someone who has to kill that much is just plain mentally
> ill and needs help.

tripe

"Ron" > wrote in message ...

> Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who
> delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict that
> aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue.
> As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or
> some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the
> community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses.

Surely a society which condones violence against the most vulnerable
- animals (as children have at least more legal protection), is actually
perpetuating the view that (when it is carried out to meet the person's
desires, wants or needs), violence, abuse and taking life is acceptable?

....

'Research Into the Violence Link: Notes for Humane Education

The link between cruelty to animals and violence toward people has
been well established. Randall Lockwood and Frank Ascione's recent
book, Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in
Research and Application compiles overwhelming research evidence
that cruelty to animals is a symptom of deep psychological problems.
It's a clear indicator that violence and abuse toward people is happening
as well. In children and adolescents, a pattern of recurrent cruelty to
animals is a predictor of later aggression toward other people.
...
Properly conceived and executed, humane education programs improve
the treatment of both animals and people. Humane education not only
provides knowledge about animals and their care but develops empathy,
respect, sensitivity, responsibility, self control and self esteem. Including
humane education as part of the regular school curriculum makes sure all
children learn appropriate behaviours, not just those fortunate enough to
come from stable, caring home environments.

The research is clear on the transference and escalation of aggression
from animals to people. It also shows what causes that aggression --
and some of those causes can be prevented with humane education.
Furthermore, there is research that shows that improved attitudes toward
animals generalize to people. If children learn to treat animals well, they're
more likely to treat people well too. If children are allowed to vent their
aggression on animals, they will learn to vent it on other people as well.
...
Empathy, the ability to mentally put oneself in another's shoes and
understand their perspective, is key to peaceful coexistence. Lack
of empathy allows abuse to happen because to the unempathetic
abuser, the victim is just an object, not a feeling being. Thus the
development of empathy for others, human and nonhuman, must be
an integral part of humane education.
...
http://www.animalink.ab.ca/HumaneEdu...olencelink.htm

(Those individuals who are a potential threat to society need treatment.)

"Ron" > wrote in message ...

> Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who
> delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict that
> aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue.
> As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or
> some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the
> community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses.

Surely a society which condones violence against the most vulnerable
- animals (as children have at least more legal protection), is actually
perpetuating the view that (when it is carried out to meet the person's
desires, wants or needs), violence, abuse and taking life is acceptable?

....

'Research Into the Violence Link: Notes for Humane Education

The link between cruelty to animals and violence toward people has
been well established. Randall Lockwood and Frank Ascione's recent
book, Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in
Research and Application compiles overwhelming research evidence
that cruelty to animals is a symptom of deep psychological problems.
It's a clear indicator that violence and abuse toward people is happening
as well. In children and adolescents, a pattern of recurrent cruelty to
animals is a predictor of later aggression toward other people.
...
Properly conceived and executed, humane education programs improve
the treatment of both animals and people. Humane education not only
provides knowledge about animals and their care but develops empathy,
respect, sensitivity, responsibility, self control and self esteem. Including
humane education as part of the regular school curriculum makes sure all
children learn appropriate behaviours, not just those fortunate enough to
come from stable, caring home environments.

The research is clear on the transference and escalation of aggression
from animals to people. It also shows what causes that aggression --
and some of those causes can be prevented with humane education.
Furthermore, there is research that shows that improved attitudes toward
animals generalize to people. If children learn to treat animals well, they're
more likely to treat people well too. If children are allowed to vent their
aggression on animals, they will learn to vent it on other people as well.
...
Empathy, the ability to mentally put oneself in another's shoes and
understand their perspective, is key to peaceful coexistence. Lack
of empathy allows abuse to happen because to the unempathetic
abuser, the victim is just an object, not a feeling being. Thus the
development of empathy for others, human and nonhuman, must be
an integral part of humane education.
...
http://www.animalink.ab.ca/HumaneEdu...olencelink.htm

(Those individuals who are a potential threat to society need treatment.)

Ron wrote:
>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>
>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to do
>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the street
>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>>crime when it is committed.
>
> It's the lesser "evil".

How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.