"LordSnooty" wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vtq8014vrrcj8tc92hu@earthlink. net...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

WD West wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
stunted your mental ability?

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

No, your a troll, there is nothing smarmy about being right.

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

Indeed.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Indeed, this is true.

The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
eat any of the animals.

Nonsense no nuts.

Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
support yourself?

All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
degree or another, even those who have been forced to
acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.

You're a prat. If you know of any proof that a specific product,
produced by a specific company for vegetarians was the direct cause of
wildlife deaths, I'm sure the world would be on your side, you're a
liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
puppets.

My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all.

That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
ethics at all.

Prat.

I agree, but only a little prat
pumilius pumilio
non compos mentis
persona non grata

Up your flue ~~jonnie~~ you nymshifting pixie.





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