Far from being a coherent and reasonable response to a
legitimate ethical problem, "veganism" is a deeply
flawed response to an imaginary ethical problem.

We start with the fact that "veganism" takes as an
indisputable axiom that harming animals is wrong. Few
"vegans" ever even attempt to establish that it *is*
wrong to harm animals, and that minority among "vegans"
- already a miniscule minority in the general
population - who do make any attempt invariably rely on
unpersuasive writers like Peter Singer and Tom Regan
who have never made a strong philosophical case. If
"veganism" is based on an untenable axiom, the whole
case collapses.

But the workings of "veganism", as well as the obvious
motives of "vegans", further doom the endeavor.
"veganism" begins as a choice that is based on a
logical fallacy, the fallacy of denying the antecedent:

If I consume products made from animals,
I cause suffering and death for animals.

I do not consume products made from animals;

therefore, I do not cause suffering and death for
animals.


The flaw in this is glaring: the production and
processing and distribution of the products one *does*
consume might, and virtually always does, cause
suffering and death for animals. Animals die
collaterally in the cultivation and harvesting of
vegetable food crops; pest animals are deliberately
killed in farm fields and at food storage facilities;
animals are killed in the course of distributing food
and other goods. Thus, the initial belief by "vegans"
that "veganism" results in zero harm is easily dismissed.

"vegans" who become aware of this flaw most frequently
fall back on an equally defective belief that
"veganism" represents a "least harm" practice. There
are several ways to show that "veganism" as a practice
is not inherently a least-harm approach. The first is
in looking at the definition itself: "veganism" simply
means not consuming any animal-parts-containing
products, as well as (curiously and inconsistently)
products that were tested on animals. But even
*within* such a broad category, there are varying
levels of harm caused to animals. Just looking at
vegetable crops alone, some cause more animal harm than
others; rice is a notoriously high-harm crop, for
example. Non-food products have the same problem:
does cotton production cause more or less harm than the
production of linen or rayon? There is *nothing* in
the philosophy of "veganism" that says one ought to
investigate to find the answers; all "veganism" says is
"do not consume animal products".

It does not take much hard examination at all to see
that *anyone* living in a modern industrial society, as
virtually all "vegans" do, is not living a least-harm
"lifestyle". For example, the production and
distribution of electricity and water in developed
economies cause massive environmental degradation that
kills animals both directly and, through habitat
destruction, indirectly. The production of almost
everything consumed in modern industrial societies
causes harm to animals. In order to cause the least
harm, a person would necessarily have to withdraw from
modern society, and this "vegans" pointedly refuse to do.

So, we've seen the zero-harm initial formulation of
"veganism" demolished, and then the first fall-back
position of "least-harm" also demolished. What's left?
Only this ethically disgusting and disgraceful
proposition: "veganism" as a "lesser-harm" philosophy
and practice. But lesser harm than whom or what?
Lesser harm than omnivores. This final position shows
the absolute philsophical shabbiness and ethical
repulsiveness of "veganism". They necessarily make
their virtue contingent on what *others* do, and define
the attainment of virtue as just doing less of a bad
thing than someone else does, a someone else whom they
start out demonizing in the first place. But in the
history of reputable philosophy, virtue has *NEVER*
been seen as properly based on a comparison with
others. In the western world and philosophical
tradition, where "veganism" developed, virtue consists
*solely* in adhering to moral principles *irrespective*
of what others do. In fact, western philosophy has
always labeled as evil sanctimony any claim of virtue
that is based on a comparison with the behavior or
beliefs of others. But this comparative virtue is all
that's left to "veganism"...unless "vegans" are going
to come full circle and get back to their original
logically fallacious belief that not *consuming* animal
parts is all that's required for virtue.

"veganism" is not a zero-harm practice, it isn't -per
se- a least-harm practice, and being a lesser-harm
practice completely invalidates it as an ethical
choice. The assertion it was meant to address in the
first place - that causing harm to animals is
inherently wrong - has not been demonstrated, but
merely accepted by "vegans" as axiomatic. As
"veganism" originates as a belief system *and* practice
based on an undemonstrated assertion, and as the belief
and practice are neither intellectually nor morally
consistent responses to the assertion, the entire
thing, concept and practice, is an untenable and
intellectually and ethically bankrupt phenomenon.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Far from being a coherent and reasonable response to a legitimate
> ethical problem, "veganism" is a deeply flawed response to an imaginary
> ethical problem.
>
> We start with the fact that "veganism" takes as an indisputable axiom
> that harming animals is wrong. Few "vegans" ever even attempt to
> establish that it *is* wrong to harm animals, and that minority among
> "vegans" - already a miniscule minority in the general population - who
> do make any attempt invariably rely on unpersuasive writers like Peter
> Singer and Tom Regan who have never made a strong philosophical case.
> If "veganism" is based on an untenable axiom, the whole case collapses.
>
> But the workings of "veganism", as well as the obvious motives of
> "vegans", further doom the endeavor. "veganism" begins as a choice that
> is based on a logical fallacy, the fallacy of denying the antecedent:
>
> If I consume products made from animals,
> I cause suffering and death for animals.
>
> I do not consume products made from animals;
>
> therefore, I do not cause suffering and death for animals.
>
>
> The flaw in this is glaring: the production and processing and
> distribution of the products one *does* consume might, and virtually
> always does, cause suffering and death for animals. Animals die
> collaterally in the cultivation and harvesting of vegetable food crops;
> pest animals are deliberately killed in farm fields and at food storage
> facilities; animals are killed in the course of distributing food and
> other goods. Thus, the initial belief by "vegans" that "veganism"
> results in zero harm is easily dismissed.
>
> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw most frequently fall back on an
> equally defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least harm"
> practice. There are several ways to show that "veganism" as a practice
> is not inherently a least-harm approach. The first is in looking at the
> definition itself: "veganism" simply means not consuming any
> animal-parts-containing products, as well as (curiously and
> inconsistently) products that were tested on animals. But even *within*
> such a broad category, there are varying levels of harm caused to
> animals. Just looking at vegetable crops alone, some cause more animal
> harm than others; rice is a notoriously high-harm crop, for example.
> Non-food products have the same problem: does cotton production cause
> more or less harm than the production of linen or rayon? There is
> *nothing* in the philosophy of "veganism" that says one ought to
> investigate to find the answers; all "veganism" says is "do not consume
> animal products".
>
> It does not take much hard examination at all to see that *anyone*
> living in a modern industrial society, as virtually all "vegans" do, is
> not living a least-harm "lifestyle". For example, the production and
> distribution of electricity and water in developed economies cause
> massive environmental degradation that kills animals both directly and,
> through habitat destruction, indirectly. The production of almost
> everything consumed in modern industrial societies causes harm to
> animals. In order to cause the least harm, a person would necessarily
> have to withdraw from modern society, and this "vegans" pointedly refuse
> to do.
>
> So, we've seen the zero-harm initial formulation of "veganism"
> demolished, and then the first fall-back position of "least-harm" also
> demolished. What's left? Only this ethically disgusting and
> disgraceful proposition: "veganism" as a "lesser-harm" philosophy and
> practice. But lesser harm than whom or what? Lesser harm than
> omnivores. This final position shows the absolute philsophical
> shabbiness and ethical repulsiveness of "veganism". They necessarily
> make their virtue contingent on what *others* do, and define the
> attainment of virtue as just doing less of a bad thing than someone else
> does, a someone else whom they start out demonizing in the first place.
> But in the history of reputable philosophy, virtue has *NEVER* been seen
> as properly based on a comparison with others. In the western world and
> philosophical tradition, where "veganism" developed, virtue consists
> *solely* in adhering to moral principles *irrespective* of what others
> do. In fact, western philosophy has always labeled as evil sanctimony
> any claim of virtue that is based on a comparison with the behavior or
> beliefs of others. But this comparative virtue is all that's left to
> "veganism"...unless "vegans" are going to come full circle and get back
> to their original logically fallacious belief that not *consuming*
> animal parts is all that's required for virtue.
>
> "veganism" is not a zero-harm practice, it isn't -per se- a least-harm
> practice, and being a lesser-harm practice completely invalidates it as
> an ethical choice. The assertion it was meant to address in the first
> place - that causing harm to animals is inherently wrong - has not been
> demonstrated, but merely accepted by "vegans" as axiomatic. As
> "veganism" originates as a belief system *and* practice based on an
> undemonstrated assertion, and as the belief and practice are neither
> intellectually nor morally consistent responses to the assertion, the
> entire thing, concept and practice, is an untenable and intellectually
> and ethically bankrupt phenomenon.

A very interesting post.

I'm not a vegan, but if the person's wish is to disassociate themselves
as far as reasonably practical* from any direct involvement with any
animal processing industry**, because they don't want to finance those
industries; is that a reasonable ethical choice?

Is it possible "in your book" for a vegan be an ethical consumer?

Notes:

*not cause any physiological damage to themselves or those dependent on
them.

**I used animal processing industry for brevity, but this would
principally be intensive farming, industries with a known history of
animal abuse, etc.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Far from being a coherent and reasonable response to a legitimate
> ethical problem, "veganism" is a deeply flawed response to an imaginary
> ethical problem.

Yawn! I don't think my killfile will be a deeply flawed response to
discovering another troll in alt.FOOD.vegan. I'll say my goodbye's now
since we will not be seeing much of each other anymore.

Life is short. I recommend having a fulfilling job that pays you well,
a rewarding relationship with a partner, and learning to like yourself.

I think you will find that striving for and having (at least some of )
these things will diminish your desire to go trolling on the internet,
but....you will be a happier human being.

Swallow your pride and think about it. Life is to short to find
yourself one day taking stock of your life and realize you spent more
than a small amount of time teasing people on the internet.

Later dude.

Good luck with the life.


Be A Healthy Vegan Or Vegetarian
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...ealthyVeg.html

"The great American thought trap: It is not real
unless it can be seen on television or bought in a
shopping mall"

ant and dec wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Far from being a coherent and reasonable response to a legitimate
>> ethical problem, "veganism" is a deeply flawed response to an
>> imaginary ethical problem.
>>
>> We start with the fact that "veganism" takes as an indisputable axiom
>> that harming animals is wrong. Few "vegans" ever even attempt to
>> establish that it *is* wrong to harm animals, and that minority among
>> "vegans" - already a miniscule minority in the general population -
>> who do make any attempt invariably rely on unpersuasive writers like
>> Peter Singer and Tom Regan who have never made a strong philosophical
>> case. If "veganism" is based on an untenable axiom, the whole case
>> collapses.
>>
>> But the workings of "veganism", as well as the obvious motives of
>> "vegans", further doom the endeavor. "veganism" begins as a choice
>> that is based on a logical fallacy, the fallacy of denying the
>> antecedent:
>>
>> If I consume products made from animals,
>> I cause suffering and death for animals.
>>
>> I do not consume products made from animals;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause suffering and death for animals.
>>
>>
>> The flaw in this is glaring: the production and processing and
>> distribution of the products one *does* consume might, and virtually
>> always does, cause suffering and death for animals. Animals die
>> collaterally in the cultivation and harvesting of vegetable food
>> crops; pest animals are deliberately killed in farm fields and at food
>> storage facilities; animals are killed in the course of distributing
>> food and other goods. Thus, the initial belief by "vegans" that
>> "veganism" results in zero harm is easily dismissed.
>>
>> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw most frequently fall back on an
>> equally defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least harm"
>> practice. There are several ways to show that "veganism" as a
>> practice is not inherently a least-harm approach. The first is in
>> looking at the definition itself: "veganism" simply means not
>> consuming any animal-parts-containing products, as well as (curiously
>> and inconsistently) products that were tested on animals. But even
>> *within* such a broad category, there are varying levels of harm
>> caused to animals. Just looking at vegetable crops alone, some cause
>> more animal harm than others; rice is a notoriously high-harm crop,
>> for example. Non-food products have the same problem: does cotton
>> production cause more or less harm than the production of linen or
>> rayon? There is *nothing* in the philosophy of "veganism" that says
>> one ought to investigate to find the answers; all "veganism" says is
>> "do not consume animal products".
>>
>> It does not take much hard examination at all to see that *anyone*
>> living in a modern industrial society, as virtually all "vegans" do,
>> is not living a least-harm "lifestyle". For example, the production
>> and distribution of electricity and water in developed economies cause
>> massive environmental degradation that kills animals both directly
>> and, through habitat destruction, indirectly. The production of
>> almost everything consumed in modern industrial societies causes harm
>> to animals. In order to cause the least harm, a person would
>> necessarily have to withdraw from modern society, and this "vegans"
>> pointedly refuse to do.
>>
>> So, we've seen the zero-harm initial formulation of "veganism"
>> demolished, and then the first fall-back position of "least-harm" also
>> demolished. What's left? Only this ethically disgusting and
>> disgraceful proposition: "veganism" as a "lesser-harm" philosophy and
>> practice. But lesser harm than whom or what? Lesser harm than
>> omnivores. This final position shows the absolute philsophical
>> shabbiness and ethical repulsiveness of "veganism". They necessarily
>> make their virtue contingent on what *others* do, and define the
>> attainment of virtue as just doing less of a bad thing than someone
>> else does, a someone else whom they start out demonizing in the first
>> place. But in the history of reputable philosophy, virtue has *NEVER*
>> been seen as properly based on a comparison with others. In the
>> western world and philosophical tradition, where "veganism" developed,
>> virtue consists *solely* in adhering to moral principles
>> *irrespective* of what others do. In fact, western philosophy has
>> always labeled as evil sanctimony any claim of virtue that is based on
>> a comparison with the behavior or beliefs of others. But this
>> comparative virtue is all that's left to "veganism"...unless "vegans"
>> are going to come full circle and get back to their original logically
>> fallacious belief that not *consuming* animal parts is all that's
>> required for virtue.
>>
>> "veganism" is not a zero-harm practice, it isn't -per se- a least-harm
>> practice, and being a lesser-harm practice completely invalidates it
>> as an ethical choice. The assertion it was meant to address in the
>> first place - that causing harm to animals is inherently wrong - has
>> not been demonstrated, but merely accepted by "vegans" as axiomatic.
>> As "veganism" originates as a belief system *and* practice based on an
>> undemonstrated assertion, and as the belief and practice are neither
>> intellectually nor morally consistent responses to the assertion, the
>> entire thing, concept and practice, is an untenable and intellectually
>> and ethically bankrupt phenomenon.
>
>
> A very interesting post.
>
> I'm not a vegan, but if the person's wish is to disassociate themselves
> as far as reasonably practical* from any direct involvement with any
> animal processing industry**, because they don't want to finance those
> industries; is that a reasonable ethical choice?

That's a good question, and I'm not sure I have a
complete answer. I thinks the answer - perhaps I
should say *an* answer - must necessarily depend on
their giving honest answers to a question I might pose.
First, what is their motivation in wanting to
disassociate themselves from animal processing
industries? Is it to avoid some moral stain to
themselves? Is it out of some bona fide consideration
for animals' interest?

If one is willing to consider the animal products
processing industries in isolation - which I'm not sure
I'm willing to do - then one could look at the
following statement of embracing vegetarianism as
somewhat reasonable: "I don't know if animals have
'rights' or not, but I'm deeply troubled by the
practices of animal husbandry in general, and while one
can find niche producers raising 'free range' chickens
and 'grass-fed only' beef and so on, these are very
small niches indeed, and they don't address other
aspects of the handling of these animals. Furthermore,
the products are at present very expensive, not always
available, and they don't address the issue of what to
eat in all situations. As a result of what I do know,
and my lack of complete knowledge about animal
husbandry practices, I just choose not to eat
animal-derived products."

There are several problems with that, the biggest being
that it still doesn't address animal-harming practices
employed in the production and distribution of what one
*does* consume, so it's clearly an incomplete answer.


>
> Is it possible "in your book" for a vegan be an ethical consumer?

I would have to say that being "vegan" simply isn't
making a meaningful ethical choice regarding the
treatment of animals.



>
> Notes:
>
> *not cause any physiological damage to themselves or those dependent on
> them.
>
> **I used animal processing industry for brevity, but this would
> principally be intensive farming, industries with a known history of
> animal abuse, etc.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
snip
>>
>>
>> A very interesting post.
>>
>> I'm not a vegan, but if the person's wish is to disassociate
>> themselves as far as reasonably practical* from any direct involvement
>> with any animal processing industry**, because they don't want to
>> finance those industries; is that a reasonable ethical choice?
>
> That's a good question, and I'm not sure I have a complete answer. I
> thinks the answer - perhaps I should say *an* answer - must necessarily
> depend on their giving honest answers to a question I might pose.
> First, what is their motivation in wanting to disassociate themselves
> from animal processing industries? Is it to avoid some moral stain to
> themselves? Is it out of some bona fide consideration for animals'
> interest?
>
> If one is willing to consider the animal products processing industries
> in isolation - which I'm not sure I'm willing to do - then one could
> look at the following statement of embracing vegetarianism as somewhat
> reasonable: "I don't know if animals have 'rights' or not, but I'm
> deeply troubled by the practices of animal husbandry in general, and
> while one can find niche producers raising 'free range' chickens and
> 'grass-fed only' beef and so on, these are very small niches indeed, and
> they don't address other aspects of the handling of these animals.
> Furthermore, the products are at present very expensive, not always
> available, and they don't address the issue of what to eat in all
> situations. As a result of what I do know, and my lack of complete
> knowledge about animal husbandry practices, I just choose not to eat
> animal-derived products."

This is a statement I could subscribe to (based a a "bona fide
consideration for animals' interest"), but if I did have* to eat meat
then I would ensure again, as far as practicable* that the animal did
not suffer unnecessarily.

>
> There are several problems with that, the biggest being that it still
> doesn't address animal-harming practices employed in the production and
> distribution of what one *does* consume, so it's clearly an incomplete
> answer.

Agreed.

I think how much damage that would be caused by, for example sending
vegan meals to the antarctic for a worker, when a single large locally
caught fish *may* be the best ethical choice.

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/n...transport-cost

UK, but gives an idea of the scale of the impact food transport has:

The authors estimate the direct environmental, social and economic costs
of food transport are about £9bn each year. The costs are dominated by
the congestion, which accounts for £5bn of the total figure and 50 per
cent of the social costs associated with food transport.

"The rise in food miles has led to increases in the environmental,
social and economic burdens associated with transport," they stated.
"These include carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, congestion,
accidents and noise. There is a clear cause and effect relationship for
food miles for these burdens -– and in general higher levels of vehicle
activity lead to larger impacts. Growing concern over these impacts has
led to a debate on whether to try to measure and reduce food miles."



>
>
>>
>> Is it possible "in your book" for a vegan be an ethical consumer?
>
> I would have to say that being "vegan" simply isn't making a meaningful
> ethical choice regarding the treatment of animals.
>
>
>
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> *not cause any physiological damage to themselves or those dependent
>> on them.
>>
>> **I used animal processing industry for brevity, but this would
>> principally be intensive farming, industries with a known history of
>> animal abuse, etc.

ant and dec wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:

>> We start with the fact that "veganism" takes as an indisputable axiom
>> that harming animals is wrong.

False generalization.

> Few "vegans" ever even attempt to
>> establish that it *is* wrong to harm animals, and that minority among
>> "vegans" - already a miniscule minority in the general population -
>> who do make any attempt invariably rely on unpersuasive writers like
>> Peter Singer and Tom Regan who have never made a strong philosophical
>> case.

Dubious, and generally false. See Sapontzsis and Linzey, as well as
others, for example.


>> If I consume products made from animals,
>> I cause suffering and death for animals.

>> I do not consume products made from animals;

>> therefore, I do not cause suffering and death for animals.

false -- and not what veganism requires or states, as reading
the posts here will show.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw most frequently fall back on an
>> equally defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least harm"
>> practice.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, that veganism *can* represent a least-harm practice. This is
one claim which all opponents of veganism have agreed is true.
The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that it is
"least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis, but that it is a
more -- not *absolutely*, but *more* -- just practice because it
better respects animals.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> It does not take much hard examination at all to see that *anyone*
>> living in a modern industrial society, as virtually all "vegans" do,
>> is not living a least-harm "lifestyle".

No vegan here has disputed this or claimed otherwise.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> But in the history of reputable philosophy, virtue has *NEVER*
>> been seen as properly based on a comparison with others.

Utilitarian calculation of "least harm" requires comparison with others.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>> "veganism" is not a zero-harm practice, it isn't -per se- a least-harm
>> practice,

And no one here has claimed otherwise.

> and being a lesser-harm practice completely invalidates it
>> as an ethical choice.

No, it fulfills the requirement for lesser harm, which is, by
definition, a matter of comparison.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> A very interesting post.

A typical collection of misrepresentations and false generalizations.


> I'm not a vegan, but if the person's wish is to disassociate themselves
> as far as reasonably practical* from any direct involvement with any
> animal processing industry**, because they don't want to finance those
> industries; is that a reasonable ethical choice?

Certainly. One of the major reasons I do so is that I believe
treating animals merely as resources, especially by treating
them as property, is unethical. That requires that I avoid, as
far as reasonably practical ( no one can avoid it absolutely in our
modern Western society ) objects sold commercially which are
made out of animal parts. Welfare considerations also apply to
products made from factory-farmed animals in particular, which are
the worst.


> Is it possible "in your book" for a vegan be an ethical consumer?

> Notes:

> *not cause any physiological damage to themselves or those dependent on
> them.

> **I used animal processing industry for brevity, but this would
> principally be intensive farming, industries with a known history of
> animal abuse, etc.

Karen Winter gutlessly responded to me through someone
else's reply (as I knew she would) and lied:

> ant and dec wrote:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>> We start with the fact that "veganism" takes as an indisputable axiom
>>> that harming animals is wrong.
>
>
> False generalization.

No, it isn't. It is fundamental to the view of all
"vegans".


>>> Few "vegans" ever even attempt to
>>> establish that it *is* wrong to harm animals, and that minority among
>>> "vegans" - already a miniscule minority in the general population -
>>> who do make any attempt invariably rely on unpersuasive writers like
>>> Peter Singer and Tom Regan who have never made a strong philosophical
>>> case.
>
>
> Dubious, and generally false. See Sapontzsis and Linzey, as well as
> others, for example.

They *ALL* fail to make a strong philosophical case for
it, Karen. You haven't read anyone who contradicts
them; you're simply a willing and willfully blind disciple.


>>> If I consume products made from animals,
>>> I cause suffering and death for animals.
>
>
>>> I do not consume products made from animals;
>
>
>>> therefore, I do not cause suffering and death for animals.
>
>
> false

No, absolutely true. *ALL* "vegans" begin by believing
that, and many never move beyond it.



>>> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw most frequently fall back on
>>> an equally defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least harm"
>>> practice.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> No, that veganism *can* represent a least-harm practice.

But of course, "veganism" never *IS* a "least-harm"
practice. It does not constitute a meaningful choice
at all if one is merely congratulating oneself for
doing something that, if carried to an extreme you
won't consider doing, *might* be a least-harm practice.


> The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that it is
> "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis, but that it is a
> more -- not *absolutely*, but *more* -- just practice because it
> better respects animals.

False generalization.



>
>>> It does not take much hard examination at all to see that *anyone*
>>> living in a modern industrial society, as virtually all "vegans" do,
>>> is not living a least-harm "lifestyle".
>
>
> No vegan here has disputed this or claimed otherwise.

But you are still claiming some kind of *FALSE* moral
superiority based on a potential practice that you
don't undertake!



> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> But in the history of reputable philosophy, virtue has *NEVER* been
>>> seen as properly based on a comparison with others.
>
>
> Utilitarian calculation of "least harm" requires comparison with others.

NO! Absolutely not. It is a comparison of
alternatives the *same* person might undertake, *NOT*
of different persons.

This is a very curious claim for *you* to make, Karen,
given that you generally (slavishly) follow "St." Tom
Regan, the deontologist, rather than Peter Singer the
utilitarian.



> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> "veganism" is not a zero-harm practice, it isn't -per se- a
>>> least-harm practice,
>
>
> And no one here has claimed otherwise.

Yes, you and many others have. You are a reflexive
liar, and I *knew* you couldn't resist.


>
>> and being a lesser-harm practice completely invalidates it
>>
>>> as an ethical choice.
>
>
> No, it fulfills the requirement for lesser harm, which is, by
> definition, a matter of comparison.

No, and the entire proposition is morally repugnant.
As I have pointed out in the past, and to which you
utterly failed to respond, the fatal flaw in
*comparative* virtue is that if I triple my
animal-harming consumption, while you "merely" double
yours, you have realized a *relative* improvement
compared with me, while horrifically doubling your
absolute amount of animal harm. That can't *POSSIBLY*
be seen as ethical virtue.




> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> A very interesting post.
>
>
> A typical collection of misrepresentations and false generalizations.

No, it is a very good summarization of the fatal flaws
of "veganism" both as philosophy and practice.


>> I'm not a vegan, but if the person's wish is to disassociate
>> themselves as far as reasonably practical* from any direct involvement
>> with any animal processing industry**, because they don't want to
>> finance those industries; is that a reasonable ethical choice?
>
>
> Certainly.

No, *not* when it is motivated merely by a wish to be
*seen* as morally superior to those who don't do the
same. That's clearly all it is with you. Your nasty
comparison is not based on actually *doing* less harm;
it's merely to be able say and be *SEEN* as doing less.
In other words, it is entirely about your wish to
exalt yourself, not about any real wish to avoid doing
harm to animals.


> One of the major reasons I do so is that I believe
> treating animals merely as resources, especially by treating
> them as property, is unethical.

Petitio principii.

You've never once been able to say why you believe it.
This last statement also makes a complete mockery of
your opening line in your reply.



> That requires that I avoid, as
> far as reasonably practical ( no one can avoid it absolutely in our
> modern Western society ) objects sold commercially which are
> made out of animal parts.

This easy escape hatch - "reasonably practical" -
completely guts your ethical claims. You're not even
attempting to cause least harm; you're simply patting
yourself on the back for making one small, empty
symbolic gesture that, if part of a more comprehensive
approach - but it *isn't* - taken to an extreme,
*might* result in a least-harm consumption pattern.
But the fact that neither your nor any other "vegan" is
willing to do even a minute fraction of what would
necessarily have to be done helps to demonstrate that
this is entirely about appearance rather than
substance, and that in turn guts your claim.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Karen Winter gutlessly responded to me through someone
> else's reply (as I knew she would) and lied:
>
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >
> >> Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> We start with the fact that "veganism" takes as an indisputable axiom
> >>> that harming animals is wrong.
> >
> >
> > False generalization.
>
> No, it isn't. It is fundamental to the view of all
> "vegans".
>
>
> >>> Few "vegans" ever even attempt to
> >>> establish that it *is* wrong to harm animals, and that minority among
> >>> "vegans" - already a miniscule minority in the general population -
> >>> who do make any attempt invariably rely on unpersuasive writers like
> >>> Peter Singer and Tom Regan who have never made a strong philosophical
> >>> case.
> >
> >
> > Dubious, and generally false. See Sapontzsis and Linzey, as well as
> > others, for example.
>
> They *ALL* fail to make a strong philosophical case for
> it, Karen. You haven't read anyone who contradicts
> them; you're simply a willing and willfully blind disciple.
>
>
> >>> If I consume products made from animals,
> >>> I cause suffering and death for animals.
> >
> >
> >>> I do not consume products made from animals;
> >
> >
> >>> therefore, I do not cause suffering and death for animals.
> >
> >
> > false
>
> No, absolutely true. *ALL* "vegans" begin by believing
> that, and many never move beyond it.
>
>
>
> >>> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw most frequently fall back on
> >>> an equally defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least harm"
> >>> practice.
> >
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > No, that veganism *can* represent a least-harm practice.
>
> But of course, "veganism" never *IS* a "least-harm"
> practice. It does not constitute a meaningful choice
> at all if one is merely congratulating oneself for
> doing something that, if carried to an extreme you
> won't consider doing, *might* be a least-harm practice.
>
>
> > The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that it is
> > "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis, but that it is a
> > more -- not *absolutely*, but *more* -- just practice because it
> > better respects animals.
>
> False generalization.
>
>
>
> >
> >>> It does not take much hard examination at all to see that *anyone*
> >>> living in a modern industrial society, as virtually all "vegans" do,
> >>> is not living a least-harm "lifestyle".
> >
> >
> > No vegan here has disputed this or claimed otherwise.
>
> But you are still claiming some kind of *FALSE* moral
> superiority based on a potential practice that you
> don't undertake!
>
>
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>> But in the history of reputable philosophy, virtue has *NEVER* been
> >>> seen as properly based on a comparison with others.
> >
> >
> > Utilitarian calculation of "least harm" requires comparison with others.
>
> NO! Absolutely not. It is a comparison of
> alternatives the *same* person might undertake, *NOT*
> of different persons.
>
> This is a very curious claim for *you* to make, Karen,
> given that you generally (slavishly) follow "St." Tom
> Regan, the deontologist, rather than Peter Singer the
> utilitarian.
>
>
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>> "veganism" is not a zero-harm practice, it isn't -per se- a
> >>> least-harm practice,
> >
> >
> > And no one here has claimed otherwise.
>
> Yes, you and many others have. You are a reflexive
> liar, and I *knew* you couldn't resist.
>
>
> >
> >> and being a lesser-harm practice completely invalidates it
> >>
> >>> as an ethical choice.
> >
> >
> > No, it fulfills the requirement for lesser harm, which is, by
> > definition, a matter of comparison.
>
> No, and the entire proposition is morally repugnant.
> As I have pointed out in the past, and to which you
> utterly failed to respond, the fatal flaw in
> *comparative* virtue is that if I triple my
> animal-harming consumption, while you "merely" double
> yours, you have realized a *relative* improvement
> compared with me, while horrifically doubling your
> absolute amount of animal harm. That can't *POSSIBLY*
> be seen as ethical virtue.
>
>
>
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >> A very interesting post.
> >
> >
> > A typical collection of misrepresentations and false generalizations.
>
> No, it is a very good summarization of the fatal flaws
> of "veganism" both as philosophy and practice.
>
>
> >> I'm not a vegan, but if the person's wish is to disassociate
> >> themselves as far as reasonably practical* from any direct involvement
> >> with any animal processing industry**, because they don't want to
> >> finance those industries; is that a reasonable ethical choice?
> >
> >
> > Certainly.
>
> No, *not* when it is motivated merely by a wish to be
> *seen* as morally superior to those who don't do the
> same. That's clearly all it is with you. Your nasty
> comparison is not based on actually *doing* less harm;
> it's merely to be able say and be *SEEN* as doing less.
> In other words, it is entirely about your wish to
> exalt yourself, not about any real wish to avoid doing
> harm to animals.
>
>
> > One of the major reasons I do so is that I believe
> > treating animals merely as resources, especially by treating
> > them as property, is unethical.
>
> Petitio principii.
>
> You've never once been able to say why you believe it.
> This last statement also makes a complete mockery of
> your opening line in your reply.
>
>
>
> > That requires that I avoid, as
> > far as reasonably practical ( no one can avoid it absolutely in our
> > modern Western society ) objects sold commercially which are
> > made out of animal parts.
>
> This easy escape hatch - "reasonably practical" -
> completely guts your ethical claims. You're not even
> attempting to cause least harm; you're simply patting
> yourself on the back for making one small, empty
> symbolic gesture that, if part of a more comprehensive
> approach - but it *isn't* - taken to an extreme,
> *might* result in a least-harm consumption pattern.
> But the fact that neither your nor any other "vegan" is
> willing to do even a minute fraction of what would
> necessarily have to be done helps to demonstrate that
> this is entirely about appearance rather than
> substance, and that in turn guts your claim.



Shut up ~jonnie~.

Everyone is sick of you.

Ron wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Karen Winter gutlessly responded to me through someone
> > else's reply (as I knew she would) and lied:
> >
> > > ant and dec wrote:
> > >
> > >> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> We start with the fact that "veganism" takes as an indisputable axiom
> > >>> that harming animals is wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > False generalization.
> >
> > No, it isn't. It is fundamental to the view of all
> > "vegans".
> >
> >
> > >>> Few "vegans" ever even attempt to
> > >>> establish that it *is* wrong to harm animals, and that minority among
> > >>> "vegans" - already a miniscule minority in the general population -
> > >>> who do make any attempt invariably rely on unpersuasive writers like
> > >>> Peter Singer and Tom Regan who have never made a strong philosophical
> > >>> case.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dubious, and generally false. See Sapontzsis and Linzey, as well as
> > > others, for example.
> >
> > They *ALL* fail to make a strong philosophical case for
> > it, Karen. You haven't read anyone who contradicts
> > them; you're simply a willing and willfully blind disciple.
> >
> >
> > >>> If I consume products made from animals,
> > >>> I cause suffering and death for animals.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> I do not consume products made from animals;
> > >
> > >
> > >>> therefore, I do not cause suffering and death for animals.
> > >
> > >
> > > false
> >
> > No, absolutely true. *ALL* "vegans" begin by believing
> > that, and many never move beyond it.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw most frequently fall back on
> > >>> an equally defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least harm"
> > >>> practice.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > No, that veganism *can* represent a least-harm practice.
> >
> > But of course, "veganism" never *IS* a "least-harm"
> > practice. It does not constitute a meaningful choice
> > at all if one is merely congratulating oneself for
> > doing something that, if carried to an extreme you
> > won't consider doing, *might* be a least-harm practice.
> >
> >
> > > The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that it is
> > > "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis, but that it is a
> > > more -- not *absolutely*, but *more* -- just practice because it
> > > better respects animals.
> >
> > False generalization.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>> It does not take much hard examination at all to see that *anyone*
> > >>> living in a modern industrial society, as virtually all "vegans" do,
> > >>> is not living a least-harm "lifestyle".
> > >
> > >
> > > No vegan here has disputed this or claimed otherwise.
> >
> > But you are still claiming some kind of *FALSE* moral
> > superiority based on a potential practice that you
> > don't undertake!
> >
> >
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > >>> But in the history of reputable philosophy, virtue has *NEVER* been
> > >>> seen as properly based on a comparison with others.
> > >
> > >
> > > Utilitarian calculation of "least harm" requires comparison with others.
> >
> > NO! Absolutely not. It is a comparison of
> > alternatives the *same* person might undertake, *NOT*
> > of different persons.
> >
> > This is a very curious claim for *you* to make, Karen,
> > given that you generally (slavishly) follow "St." Tom
> > Regan, the deontologist, rather than Peter Singer the
> > utilitarian.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > >>> "veganism" is not a zero-harm practice, it isn't -per se- a
> > >>> least-harm practice,
> > >
> > >
> > > And no one here has claimed otherwise.
> >
> > Yes, you and many others have. You are a reflexive
> > liar, and I *knew* you couldn't resist.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> and being a lesser-harm practice completely invalidates it
> > >>
> > >>> as an ethical choice.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, it fulfills the requirement for lesser harm, which is, by
> > > definition, a matter of comparison.
> >
> > No, and the entire proposition is morally repugnant.
> > As I have pointed out in the past, and to which you
> > utterly failed to respond, the fatal flaw in
> > *comparative* virtue is that if I triple my
> > animal-harming consumption, while you "merely" double
> > yours, you have realized a *relative* improvement
> > compared with me, while horrifically doubling your
> > absolute amount of animal harm. That can't *POSSIBLY*
> > be seen as ethical virtue.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > >> A very interesting post.
> > >
> > >
> > > A typical collection of misrepresentations and false generalizations.
> >
> > No, it is a very good summarization of the fatal flaws
> > of "veganism" both as philosophy and practice.
> >
> >
> > >> I'm not a vegan, but if the person's wish is to disassociate
> > >> themselves as far as reasonably practical* from any direct involvement
> > >> with any animal processing industry**, because they don't want to
> > >> finance those industries; is that a reasonable ethical choice?
> > >
> > >
> > > Certainly.
> >
> > No, *not* when it is motivated merely by a wish to be
> > *seen* as morally superior to those who don't do the
> > same. That's clearly all it is with you. Your nasty
> > comparison is not based on actually *doing* less harm;
> > it's merely to be able say and be *SEEN* as doing less.
> > In other words, it is entirely about your wish to
> > exalt yourself, not about any real wish to avoid doing
> > harm to animals.
> >
> >
> > > One of the major reasons I do so is that I believe
> > > treating animals merely as resources, especially by treating
> > > them as property, is unethical.
> >
> > Petitio principii.
> >
> > You've never once been able to say why you believe it.
> > This last statement also makes a complete mockery of
> > your opening line in your reply.
> >
> >
> >
> > > That requires that I avoid, as
> > > far as reasonably practical ( no one can avoid it absolutely in our
> > > modern Western society ) objects sold commercially which are
> > > made out of animal parts.
> >
> > This easy escape hatch - "reasonably practical" -
> > completely guts your ethical claims. You're not even
> > attempting to cause least harm; you're simply patting
> > yourself on the back for making one small, empty
> > symbolic gesture that, if part of a more comprehensive
> > approach - but it *isn't* - taken to an extreme,
> > *might* result in a least-harm consumption pattern.
> > But the fact that neither your nor any other "vegan" is
> > willing to do even a minute fraction of what would
> > necessarily have to be done helps to demonstrate that
> > this is entirely about appearance rather than
> > substance, and that in turn guts your claim.
>
>
>
> Shut up ~jonnie~.

**** off, homo ronnie.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > Karen Winter gutlessly responded to me through someone
> > > else's reply (as I knew she would) and lied:
> > >
> > > > ant and dec wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> We start with the fact that "veganism" takes as an indisputable axiom
> > > >>> that harming animals is wrong.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > False generalization.
> > >
> > > No, it isn't. It is fundamental to the view of all
> > > "vegans".
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Few "vegans" ever even attempt to
> > > >>> establish that it *is* wrong to harm animals, and that minority among
> > > >>> "vegans" - already a miniscule minority in the general population -
> > > >>> who do make any attempt invariably rely on unpersuasive writers like
> > > >>> Peter Singer and Tom Regan who have never made a strong philosophical
> > > >>> case.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dubious, and generally false. See Sapontzsis and Linzey, as well as
> > > > others, for example.
> > >
> > > They *ALL* fail to make a strong philosophical case for
> > > it, Karen. You haven't read anyone who contradicts
> > > them; you're simply a willing and willfully blind disciple.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> If I consume products made from animals,
> > > >>> I cause suffering and death for animals.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> I do not consume products made from animals;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> therefore, I do not cause suffering and death for animals.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > false
> > >
> > > No, absolutely true. *ALL* "vegans" begin by believing
> > > that, and many never move beyond it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> "vegans" who become aware of this flaw most frequently fall back on
> > > >>> an equally defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least harm"
> > > >>> practice.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > No, that veganism *can* represent a least-harm practice.
> > >
> > > But of course, "veganism" never *IS* a "least-harm"
> > > practice. It does not constitute a meaningful choice
> > > at all if one is merely congratulating oneself for
> > > doing something that, if carried to an extreme you
> > > won't consider doing, *might* be a least-harm practice.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that it is
> > > > "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis, but that it is a
> > > > more -- not *absolutely*, but *more* -- just practice because it
> > > > better respects animals.
> > >
> > > False generalization.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>> It does not take much hard examination at all to see that *anyone*
> > > >>> living in a modern industrial society, as virtually all "vegans" do,
> > > >>> is not living a least-harm "lifestyle".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No vegan here has disputed this or claimed otherwise.
> > >
> > > But you are still claiming some kind of *FALSE* moral
> > > superiority based on a potential practice that you
> > > don't undertake!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > >>> But in the history of reputable philosophy, virtue has *NEVER* been
> > > >>> seen as properly based on a comparison with others.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Utilitarian calculation of "least harm" requires comparison with others.
> > >
> > > NO! Absolutely not. It is a comparison of
> > > alternatives the *same* person might undertake, *NOT*
> > > of different persons.
> > >
> > > This is a very curious claim for *you* to make, Karen,
> > > given that you generally (slavishly) follow "St." Tom
> > > Regan, the deontologist, rather than Peter Singer the
> > > utilitarian.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > >>> "veganism" is not a zero-harm practice, it isn't -per se- a
> > > >>> least-harm practice,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And no one here has claimed otherwise.
> > >
> > > Yes, you and many others have. You are a reflexive
> > > liar, and I *knew* you couldn't resist.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> and being a lesser-harm practice completely invalidates it
> > > >>
> > > >>> as an ethical choice.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, it fulfills the requirement for lesser harm, which is, by
> > > > definition, a matter of comparison.
> > >
> > > No, and the entire proposition is morally repugnant.
> > > As I have pointed out in the past, and to which you
> > > utterly failed to respond, the fatal flaw in
> > > *comparative* virtue is that if I triple my
> > > animal-harming consumption, while you "merely" double
> > > yours, you have realized a *relative* improvement
> > > compared with me, while horrifically doubling your
> > > absolute amount of animal harm. That can't *POSSIBLY*
> > > be seen as ethical virtue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > >> A very interesting post.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A typical collection of misrepresentations and false generalizations.
> > >
> > > No, it is a very good summarization of the fatal flaws
> > > of "veganism" both as philosophy and practice.
> > >
> > >
> > > >> I'm not a vegan, but if the person's wish is to disassociate
> > > >> themselves as far as reasonably practical* from any direct involvement
> > > >> with any animal processing industry**, because they don't want to
> > > >> finance those industries; is that a reasonable ethical choice?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Certainly.
> > >
> > > No, *not* when it is motivated merely by a wish to be
> > > *seen* as morally superior to those who don't do the
> > > same. That's clearly all it is with you. Your nasty
> > > comparison is not based on actually *doing* less harm;
> > > it's merely to be able say and be *SEEN* as doing less.
> > > In other words, it is entirely about your wish to
> > > exalt yourself, not about any real wish to avoid doing
> > > harm to animals.
> > >
> > >
> > > > One of the major reasons I do so is that I believe
> > > > treating animals merely as resources, especially by treating
> > > > them as property, is unethical.
> > >
> > > Petitio principii.
> > >
> > > You've never once been able to say why you believe it.
> > > This last statement also makes a complete mockery of
> > > your opening line in your reply.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > That requires that I avoid, as
> > > > far as reasonably practical ( no one can avoid it absolutely in our
> > > > modern Western society ) objects sold commercially which are
> > > > made out of animal parts.
> > >
> > > This easy escape hatch - "reasonably practical" -
> > > completely guts your ethical claims. You're not even
> > > attempting to cause least harm; you're simply patting
> > > yourself on the back for making one small, empty
> > > symbolic gesture that, if part of a more comprehensive
> > > approach - but it *isn't* - taken to an extreme,
> > > *might* result in a least-harm consumption pattern.
> > > But the fact that neither your nor any other "vegan" is
> > > willing to do even a minute fraction of what would
> > > necessarily have to be done helps to demonstrate that
> > > this is entirely about appearance rather than
> > > substance, and that in turn guts your claim.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shut up ~jonnie~.
>
> **** off, homo ronnie.


Better hush yo' mouf Goo.

Nobody likes you.

People who call others trolls without knowing what a troll is should
killfile themselves.

The Myths of Vegetarianism (144KB):
<http://powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm>

Guiltless grill? Is there another kind? (25KB):
<http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill>

thoughts on eating; suffering; wights; worts; ducks; meat; myths;
colas; milk; health; links (12.4KB):
<http://atforumz.com/showthread.php?p=4198967#post4198967>

-Aut

People who call others trolls without knowing what a troll is should
killfile themselves.

The Myths of Vegetarianism (144KB):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20050207062622/http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm>

Guiltless grill? Is there another kind? (25KB):
<http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill>

thoughts on eating; suffering; wights; worts; ducks; meat; myths;
colas; milk; health; links (12.4KB):
<http://atforumz.com/showthread.php?p=4198967#post4198967>

-Aut

Out of date link -> Lazy / Careless

Learn about the Wayback Machine.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Learn about the Wayback Machine.
>

I know about the "Wayback Machine".

So are your lazy by not putting the link to the "Wayback Machine", or
careless in not noting the original link had expired?

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > Learn about the Wayback Machine.
> I know about the "Wayback Machine".

This was to all who had the need.

> So are your lazy by not putting the link to the "Wayback Machine", or
> careless in not noting the original link had expired?

I put both links, so I wasn't lazy. I did note the link was dead, so I
was caremor which scratches out careles.

-Aut

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> Learn about the Wayback Machine.
>> I know about the "Wayback Machine".
>
> This was to all who had the need.
>
>> So are your lazy by not putting the link to the "Wayback Machine", or
>> careless in not noting the original link had expired?
>
> I put both links, so I wasn't lazy. I did note the link was dead, so I
> was caremor which scratches out careles.
>
> -Aut
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

ant and dec wrote:
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

I reflect you.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>
> I reflect you.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

"ant and dec" > wrote in message
...
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >
> > I reflect you.
> >
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

Fallacy?

I've been Vegan for nearly 50 years. When I started eveyone except teh few
Vegans I knew said I'd die! Actually, I'm still doing very well on it.
That's no fallacy!

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >
> > I reflect you.
> >
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

I talk you.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>> I reflect you.
>>>
>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>
> I talk you.
>

You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

ant and dec wrote:
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

That's what /you/ are, dumbass.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>
> That's what /you/ are, dumbass.
>

Is that the best you can do; a 'school yard' retort?

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >
> > That's what /you/ are, dumbass.
> >
>
> Is that the best you can do; a 'school yard' retort?

I reflect the other.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>> That's what /you/ are, dumbass.
>>>
>> Is that the best you can do; a 'school yard' retort?
>
> I reflect the other.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

ant and dec wrote:
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

I talk you.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>
> I talk you.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

I talk you. How old are you?

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> I talk you. How old are you?
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > I talk you. How old are you?
> >
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> I talk you. How old are you?
>>>
>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>
> I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>> I talk you. How old are you?
> >>>
> >> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >
> > I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>> I talk you. How old are you?
>>>>>
>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>> I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>> I talk you. How old are you?
> >>>>>
> >>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >>> I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>>>> I talk you. How old are you?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >>>>> I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I talk you. How old are you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>>>>>> I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I talk you. How old are you?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >>>>>>> I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I talk you. How old are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>>>>>>>> I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

10 years later.....

"ant and dec" > wrote in message ...
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I talk you. How old are you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >>>>>>>>> I talk you. Answer it, chumbucket.
> >
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

.