Rush Limbaugh was addicted to drugs, drugs which he
obtained illegally, for much of the last 10 years,
during which he loudly and angrily denounced drug users
and, in particular, participants in the trade in
illegal drugs. His moral condemnation of drug users
was hypocritical, even evil.

Karen Winter claims that not recognizing the alleged
intrinsic moral worth of animals is immoral per se.
Modern commercial vegetable agriculture, the source of
most of Karen's food, is performed using methods that
universally do not recognize the alleged intrinsic
moral worth of animals; the methods indiscriminantly
kill animals, with no consequences for the hands-on
killers, and no consequences sought by consumers.
These collateral deaths must be considered, beyond
doubt, a violation of the rights that would necessarily
flow from a recognition of the inherent moral worth of
animals. By knowingly - KNOWINGLY - participating in
the market for commercial vegetables, Karen is
knowingly participating in the violation of the rights
she claims animals ought to have.

Karen is a massive hypocrite. Her initial denial of
her hypocrisy, and then her blaming of it on the
alleged moral failures of others, are evil.

The amusing -- if frustrating -- thing about Antis's constant
ignoring of social issues in favor of personal attack is that I
am honest, I do not claim any particular moral superiority, I
am not self-righteous, I do not attack non-vegetarians personally.
I follow the rules of civilized discussion and present ideas for
consideration. In return all I get is personal attack, false
claims about my opinions, and invective. I can only conclude
that Jonnie/Bill is too afraid to deal with what I write, and
must set up a vast smokescreen to evade the real issues.

All the unjust treatment of animals in our society is a result
of the lack of consideration of animals' rights and animals'
intrinsic worth which comes from our seeing animals as things,
as products, to be bought and sold. Everything else, including
CDs, comes from that system. I believe the system is immoral,
and should be abolished. You don't. Why not discuss that,
instead of providing nothing except personal attack?

Even if I began eating meat (which I would not), I would still
believe the systm which produces meat is immoral. Your only
answer is to kill the messenger, not read the message.

Re Rush Limbaugh: are you saying Rush was wrong in his views on
drug users? Should those who agree with him stop agreeing
with him because his personal actions do not reflect his
social views? Conservatives have been saying Rush is right,
but shouldn't be punished because they like him personally.
Liberals have been more concerned with whether Rush's social
views are correct or not. IOW, conservatives see nothing but
personalities, while liberals are concerned with issues,
social policy, ideas. It's a difference we see here as well
between vegetarians/ARists/vegans as opposed to those who
dislike them. Antis attack people; AR/vegans deal with ideas.

Rat

snip

"Rat & Swan" wrote

The amusing -- if frustrating -- thing about Antis's constant
ignoring of social issues in favor of personal attack is that I
am honest, I do not claim any particular moral superiority, I
am not self-righteous, I do not attack non-vegetarians personally.

What about this gratuitous comment?

"We know, of course, why Dutch has a particular problem with this concept."

You're doing it again, claiming that your approach, your form of argument is
morally superior to your opponents'.

Self-congratulation is a reflex with ARAs, you just can't help yourself.

[..]

Rat & Swan wrote:

The amusing -- if frustrating -- thing about Antis's constant
ignoring of social issues in favor of personal attack

To the extent you are attacked, it's because your
character is germane to the issue, and we can easily
see that your character stinks, in very specific ways.

You are advocating something you claim would represent
social "progress". You are advocating a drastic
diminution of the rights of humans, for something you
can't defend intellectually. When it is shown that
what you are advocating is not supported by theory or
facts, you start lying about it.

is that I am honest,

You are not honest. When confronted with the
inadequacy of any "theory" behind the radical change
you advocate, you resort to lying.

Furthermore, you are a hypocrite. You claim to be
abiding by some principle that you wish to impose on
everyone, and we quickly see that you aren't.

I do not claim any particular moral superiority,

The lying starts in the first sentence. You DO claim
moral superiority.

I am not self-righteous,

You are self righteous in the extreme.

I do not attack non-vegetarians personally.

Yes, you do.

I follow the rules of civilized discussion and present ideas for
consideration.

Let's ask John Mercer his opinion about the civilized
behavior aspect of your discourse.

In return all I get is personal attack,

See above.

false claims about my opinions,

No.

and invective. I can only conclude
that Jonnie/Bill is too afraid to deal with what I write,

I deal with what you write.

and must set up a vast smokescreen to evade the real issues.

All the unjust treatment

Raising animals destined for human consumption is not
unjust.

of animals in our society is a result
of the lack of consideration of animals' rights and animals'
intrinsic worth which comes from our seeing animals as things,
as products, to be bought and sold.

No. It isn't due to their potential status as
property. You are simply wrong about that.

Everything else, including CDs, comes from that system.

No, that's completely false. Because you know it's
false, your claim is a lie. CDs are not related in any
way to property status of food animals.

I believe the system is immoral,
and should be abolished. You don't. Why not discuss that,
instead of providing nothing except personal attack?

Because your belief that it is immoral is wrong and is
knowledgably rejected by the massive majority. Because
you are lying about not considering yourself morally
superior, about not being self righteous. Because you
do not exhibit the respect for animals' alleged
intrinsic worth that you are using as your gambit for
trying to impose your views on others.

Your character is an issue in this, whether you like it
or not. If you were selling aluminum siding on the
utilitarian merits of the siding, your character would
be irrelevant to an objective consideration of the
merits of the product. When you're selling a radical
morality that people have already rejected, your
character is at issue. Your character stinks. You're
a liar and a hypocrite.


Even if I began eating meat (which I would not), I would still
believe the systm which produces meat is immoral. Your only
answer is to kill the messenger, not read the message.

Re Rush Limbaugh: are you saying Rush was wrong in his views on
drug users?

Yes. You already knew that.

Should those who agree with him stop agreeing
with him because his personal actions do not reflect his
social views?

They certainly should stop agreeing with his moral
reasoning about why drug _users_ are bad people.

....

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

Fritz

Bill wrote:

snip
Raising animals destined for human consumption is not unjust.

This has potential. Why not, in your opinion?

snip

of animals in our society is a result
of the lack of consideration of animals' rights and animals'
intrinsic worth which comes from our seeing animals as things,
as products, to be bought and sold.

No. It isn't due to their potential status as property. You are simply
wrong about that.

Why? Have you read Francione's book on the subject?

Everything else, including CDs, comes from that system.

No, that's completely false.

Why?

snip

CDs are not related in any way to property status of food animals.

Why not? I think Francione makes a persuasive case they are.


I believe the system is immoral,
and should be abolished. You don't. Why not discuss that,
instead of providing nothing except personal attack?

Because your belief that it is immoral is wrong

Why?
and is knowledgably
rejected by the massive majority.

Why is that significant in ethical terms?


They certainly should stop agreeing with his moral reasoning about why
drug _users_ are bad people.

But then, as I noted, I have never said that meat-eaters or
users of animal products are necessarily bad people.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:



Bill wrote:

snip

Raising animals destined for human consumption is not unjust.


This has potential. Why not, in your opinion?

I'm not interested in going over old ground with you,
bitch. You aren't saying anything new, and what you
said over several years was entirely unpersuasive and
shot full of holes.

Let's answer this one question, though, with a
redirection. The burden is not on me to show that it
is just, as you are the one seeking to implement a
radical change. You need to show that it *is* unjust,
and why, in a way that is persuasive. You never came
close before, and I doubt you will now. You're a waste
of time, and you shouldn't be back here.


snip

of animals in our society is a result
of the lack of consideration of animals' rights and animals'
intrinsic worth which comes from our seeing animals as things,
as products, to be bought and sold.


No. It isn't due to their potential status as property. You are
simply wrong about that.


Why? Have you read Francione's book on the subject?

Everything else, including CDs, comes from that system.


No, that's completely false.


Why?

snip

CDs are not related in any way to property status of food animals.

Why not? I think Francione makes a persuasive case they are.

Francione doesn't address CDs.

Bill wrote:

Rat & Swan wrote:
snip

Raising animals destined for human consumption is not unjust.

This has potential. Why not, in your opinion?

I'm not interested in going over old ground with you, bitch.

I'm sure you aren't, Jonnie. You devolve into personal
attack as quickly as possible, and never rise above it
again.

You aren't
saying anything new, and what you said over several years was entirely
unpersuasive and shot full of holes.

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

Let's answer this one question, though, with a redirection. The burden
is not on me to show that it is just, as you are the one seeking to
implement a radical change.

If you state categorically that it is not unjust, then the
burden is on you to support your statement.

You need to show that it *is* unjust, and
why, in a way that is persuasive. You never came close before, and I
doubt you will now. You're a waste of time, and you shouldn't be back
here.

Scared to death of me, aren't you, Jonnie? Why are you in
such a lather to get me to leave? If I'm a waste of time,
why are you responding?

snip

CDs are not related in any way to property status of food animals.

Why not? I think Francione makes a persuasive case they are.

Francione doesn't address CDs.

He does. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't read
his books, I suspect.

Rat

"Rat & Swan" wrote

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

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

Rat & Swan wrote:


Bill wrote:

Rat & Swan wrote:
snip


Raising animals destined for human consumption is not unjust.


This has potential. Why not, in your opinion?


I'm not interested in going over old ground with you, bitch.


I'm sure you aren't,

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

You aren't
saying anything new, and what you said over several years was entirely
unpersuasive and shot full of holes.


You were never able to prove it wrong,

Yes, I and several others did prove it wrong.


Let's answer this one question, though, with a redirection. The
burden is not on me to show that it is just, as you are the one
seeking to implement a radical change.


If you state categorically that it is not unjust, then the
burden is on you to support your statement.

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


You need to show that it *is* unjust, and why, in a way that is
persuasive. You never came close before, and I doubt you will now.
You're a waste of time, and you shouldn't be back here.


Scared to death of me, aren't you,

No. Bored to death.


snip

CDs are not related in any way to property status of food animals.


Why not? I think Francione makes a persuasive case they are.


Francione doesn't address CDs.


He does.

He doesn't.

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

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:



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

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

You are fundamentally an immoral person.

My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "the assumption or postulation
of moral standards to which one's own behaviour does not conform.
I find her distinctions between the injustices caused in commercial
crop agriculture and those casued in animal agriculture somewhat
contrived but I have seen no evidence that she fails to conform
to her own moral standards.

There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
people, on both sides of the debate following her example.

"Purple" wrote in message
om...
My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "the assumption or postulation
of moral standards to which one's own behaviour does not conform.
I find her distinctions between the injustices caused in commercial
crop agriculture and those casued in animal agriculture somewhat
contrived but I have seen no evidence that she fails to conform
to her own moral standards.
==================
She claims not to cause unnecessary animal death and suffering. Of course,
she defines that as only meat animals.
She does nothing to alleviate the massive numbers she contributes to for her
selishness, conveninece, and entertainment.
throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.



There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
people, on both sides of the debate following her example.
==================
ROTFLMAO Which ones, holding on to lys and delusions? What a hoot!

"rick etter" wrote in message ...
"Purple" wrote in message
om...
My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "the assumption or postulation
of moral standards to which one's own behaviour does not conform.
I find her distinctions between the injustices caused in commercial
crop agriculture and those casued in animal agriculture somewhat
contrived but I have seen no evidence that she fails to conform
to her own moral standards.
==================
She claims not to cause unnecessary animal death and suffering. Of course,
she defines that as only meat animals.
She does nothing to alleviate the massive numbers she contributes to for her
selishness, conveninece, and entertainment.
throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.

AIUI Karen's moral code is not ruled by the utilitarian principle, you
appear to be invoking. It reads more like a set of rules. Thou shalt
not
eat meat from animals, which were killed by man seems to be part of
her
moral code. Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
pesticides doesn't.

Personally
I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which
causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not,
as long as the consequences of the action are known in advance, so
enjoy
your steaks from grass reared cattle. I'm sure my diet includes worse
items.
Purely out of curiousity are you opposed to AW or just AR?

There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
people, on both sides of the debate following her example.
==================
ROTFLMAO Which ones, holding on to lys and delusions? What a hoot!