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?

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.

"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.

Sure, just as it's a thief's choice to steal, he bears full responsibility
for his crimes, just as his customers bear full responsiblity for the crime
of buying stolen goods.

You're the farmers' willing customer.

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.

Ipse dixit wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:37:47 GMT, Bill wrote:


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


Karen Winter = Rat & Swan?

Yes.



is free to withdraw from the market for
commercially grown produce. She CHOOSES to buy from
animal-killing farmers


Aha. "animal-killing farmers"

Yes. She knows they kill animals, but she buys from
them anyway. That makes her morally complicit, if she
believes the killing of the animals is wrong.

She is in no position to claim to be behaving "more
ethically", when all she does is follow the purely
symbolic, morally empty gesture of not eating meat, and
bragging about her diet not including meat.



knowing in advance that their
methods kill animals.


And? So?

See above, dummy.

"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.