wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
If something is in their view "good", then anything
is justified in achieving that good. To "aras" like
Matt Ball, eliminating the use of animals in medical
research and testing is "good", so they feel justified
in burning down laboratories and murdering the researchers.

"ar" is a criminal enterprise. It is correct and
justified that "ar" groups are on the terrorist watch
lists of virtually all western nations.

wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
If something is in their view "good", then anything
is justified in achieving that good. To "aras" like
Matt Ball, eliminating the use of animals in medical
research and testing is "good", so they feel justified
in burning down laboratories and murdering the researchers.

"ar" is a criminal enterprise. It is correct and
justified that "ar" groups are on the terrorist watch
lists of virtually all western nations.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:

wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:

wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

"Reynard" wrote
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos
wrote:

wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

"Reynard" wrote
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos
wrote:

wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:
wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering

You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
what they aren't dedicated to, dummy. Only an idiot
would rest his argument on the claim that he can read
the minds of his opponents.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:
wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering

You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
what they aren't dedicated to, dummy. Only an idiot
would rest his argument on the claim that he can read
the minds of his opponents.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering,
since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis
of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they
will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to
see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism.
Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst.
Vegans
do not live in that world.

Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
due to it. The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
Care to start from there in comparing like to like?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering,
since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis
of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they
will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to
see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism.
Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst.
Vegans
do not live in that world.

Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
due to it. The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
Care to start from there in comparing like to like?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal
suffering,
since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the
basis
of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so
they
will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want
to
see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of
veganism.
Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen
amongst.
Vegans
do not live in that world.

Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
due to it.

Prove it.

The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
Care to start from there in comparing like to like?

You have no goddam idea whether that's true or not.

Given that the number of deaths my diet causes in one week = X, and
Given that the number of deaths your diet causes in one week = Y,
Demonstrate that XY.

You can't. You have no ****ing idea whether it's true or not. You
don't know and you don't care.

You're an intellectually lazy, vapid twit.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal
suffering,
since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the
basis
of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so
they
will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want
to
see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of
veganism.
Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen
amongst.
Vegans
do not live in that world.

Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
due to it.

Prove it.

The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
Care to start from there in comparing like to like?

You have no goddam idea whether that's true or not.

Given that the number of deaths my diet causes in one week = X, and
Given that the number of deaths your diet causes in one week = Y,
Demonstrate that XY.

You can't. You have no ****ing idea whether it's true or not. You
don't know and you don't care.

You're an intellectually lazy, vapid twit.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"Reynard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos
wrote:
wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball,
veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can
be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid
or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut
through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering

You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
what they aren't dedicated to, dummy. Only an idiot
would rest his argument on the claim that he can read
the minds of his opponents

I didn't read minds, I supported the comment with an irrefutable argument.
You did not respond to it because there IS no adequate response.

Reinsert Derek's cowardly snip....

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

Thanks for proving me right..

"Reynard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos
wrote:
wrote:

A Meaningful Life
Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World

v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball,
veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
[...]

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can
be
traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid
or
alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut
through
confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering

You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
what they aren't dedicated to, dummy. Only an idiot
would rest his argument on the claim that he can read
the minds of his opponents

I didn't read minds, I supported the comment with an irrefutable argument.
You did not respond to it because there IS no adequate response.

Reinsert Derek's cowardly snip....

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

Thanks for proving me right..

"Scented Nectar" wrote
Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering,
since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis
of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they
will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to
see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism.
Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst.
Vegans
do not live in that world.

Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
want to see the real results.

I haven't refused, in fact I did so yesterday.

The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
due to it. The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.

So what? What about all the other foods in the world, the ones people eat?
When you select foods to eat where does it say you must select from "like
categories" or some such nonsense?

Care to start from there in comparing like to like?

I have, why are you afraid to compare all foods each against the other? Do
you think that the food will think it's unfair?