"piddock" > wrote
> usual suspect > wrote

[..] major snippage [..]

> You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack
> of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany.
> Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for
> most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire!

You're a nitwit. Just because people have lived without freedom in the
past is not a reason to deny it to them now.

> No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient
> animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence
> because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice"
> for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their
> whole lives.

How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order
to have will, an animal must exist first.


[..]

> (Of course, with the meat issue, you see ONLY the effects on YOU, not
> the animals.)

As with the issue of plant foods, along with every other aspect of
modern life. You only see the effects on you, not the animals. In fact
the only time vegans are concerned with animal issues is when they can
clearly see the animals benefitting mankind. Countless unseen,
collateral deaths are not to be spoken of...

> SO I CAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ANIMALS!!

Pure rubbish.

> I can say: kill the bugs to build my house because my pain of being
> homeless is more than the pain to bugs. Plus bug "initiate force"
> against me by attacking me.

Those bugs didn't attack you with deadly force, you could have
accomodated them and still built your house. You did the selfish,
expeditious thing, just like the rest of us.

> And I can consistently say (and I should not be called a hypocrite for
> this): put people in prison for eating meat
> because they pain to them of being in prison is less than that of
> eating 400 chickens, 50 pigs, 20 cows in a lifetime.

You should be called a hypocrite because that's exactly what you are.
Every aspect of your cushy western existence is built upon the bodies of
countless billions of animals. For one thing, if you didn't benefit
directly from modern medicine you probably wouldn't live past the age of
40, and if you did it would likely be too painful to endure.

> This is rational utilitarian thinking.
> Yet, when it comes ONLY TO ANIMAL ISSUES you would call me and other
> animal rights activists "hypocrites" for making distinctions which YOU
> make all
> the time in non-animal issues based upon the effect on you or human
> society.

The distinctions you make are irrational. Why is it wrong to shoot an
animal and eat it, yet perfectly OK to kill animals by the tens of
thousands to harvest a rice crop?

[..]

> I will just come right out and say this: I have a PhD in mathematics.
> A HARD subject. All the experiences and injustices you may have seen
> or think exist and all the great things that you have done in life
> don't amount to SHIT next to FIVE minutes of MY hard thinking.

You're FULL of shit. You have the mentality of a 17 year-old.

> > What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even
> > "murdered illegally"?
>
> > Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies
and
> > industry groups.
>
> So, I can promote vegetarianism for animal rights in public schools
> the way meat industry promotes THEIR point of view??

Answer the question. I'm quite sure no meat I eat is raised in crates,
so why did you say that farm animals are raised in crates "their whole
lives"?

> > Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost
all
> > the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month?
>
> "Terror" acts -- that's a LAUGH! What "terror" acts? What acts of
> "violence"??

You're living in a dream world.

[..]

> And YOU have an agenda to KILL and EAT animals.

I have an agenda to eat some animals. I don't kill them myself, but I
take full responsibility for their deaths. You have an agenda to eat
convenient store-bought plant-based foods that are produced at the cost
of animal lives, but YOU don't take responsibility for those deaths,
judging from your attitude.

[..]
> Because assholes like you want to deny animals which YOU forced into
> existence the right to choose to be free and stay alive.

You didn't allow the bugs that lived where your house was built the
right to choose to be free and stay alive.

> > Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you --
the
> > minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the
>
> So ****ing what. I will do what the **** I want to inferior subhumans
> like yourself. Don't you ****ing tell me what to do.
>
> The animals are the VAST majority here. And the MAJORITY of humans
> (in the US) believes in the right to free association, which means the
> right to form whatever groups they want, and the MAJORITY of humans
> in the world, I might generalize, believes that any one or any group
> deserves the benefits of their labor and activism, the freedoms for
> which they fight, and to live in a world created b

You're a windy son-of-a-bitch aren't you?

> > How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against
> > humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were
subhuman
> > led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman.
>
> TOO BAD! You do not own the words! Don't you tell me what words
> I may or may not use! Don't pretend that you are "offended".
> YOU are the Nazi because YOU
> would have murdered Jews because YOU always favor the majority and the
> Jews were in the minority.

Yep, you're 17, mentally anyway...

> > Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context,
jellyhead.
> > You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but
> > advocate it for others.
>
> Which species am I complaining about being "fixed"?
> I have advocated fixing most species -- humans, dogs, cats, etc.
>
> > Cattle are homeless, too, idiot.
>
> What? Is this a follow-up of your earlier piece of insanity that
> no animals are kept in crates?

Now we have to prove the absolute negative of your categorical
assertion? That's not how a debate works. You said *categorically* that
animals are forced to live in crates their whole lives. Now show some
evidence that a significant number of food animals farmed in the western
world live that way, or *any*.

> > > In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to
castrate
> > > a bull to prevent future cows from being born.
> >
> > No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for
fund-raising.
>
> Wait a minute: how can PeTA, or any group, go into the opposing
> group's
> camp and "gather propaganda"? Propaganda is something one
> manufactures
> in one's own magazine or tv show. One can gather information -- i.e.
> the truth -- on the opposing side. Now, perhaps there is nothing of
> importance in that truth, but generating lies and propaganda is a
> separate
> independent activity.

You're WRONG. Propaganda includes taking isolated incidents and
presenting them as typical or widespread in order to give a false
impression. It worked on you.

> In fact, if PeTA just generated lies and propaganda,
> then why would they need to investigate criminal activities of animal
> abuse, taking undercover video, spending THEIR time and energy?

To generate donations.

> By the way -- PeTA itself does not do undercover police operations
> and surveillance videotaping -- perfectly consistent with the way
> you feel things should be. No animal rights group has the money to do
> that!

How would you know?

> PeTA is simply a repository
> of videotapes or testimony often GIVEN to them
> by ex-employees of animal testing facilities or meat-packing plants
> who are fired for whistleblowing.

Disgruntled workers who are looking for ways to get back at the employer
who fired them, and make a few bucks in the process.

[..]

> And my family was vegetarian before me. And nobody forced it on me.

Are you the same religion as your family? Do you have the same language
and culture? Naturally. You never had a chance to make an objective
choice.

[..]
> Ok. Then may I ask: how much of land which is used to grow
> grass, wheat, whatever to feed cattle -- what % of that land can be
> grown to soybeans, whatever, to feed people directly (soymilk, say)?

Irrelevant, there is already more than enough arable land to grow all
the soy people want. There are worldwide surpluses of every grain.

> If you wish to object to the claims that humans could eat off the land
> more efficiently at a lower level than by eating higher on the food
> chain,
> then why not start by answering THIS question?

Efficiency is not the most important determinant people use in choosing
behaviour, ever.

[..]

> SOMEBODY gives activists money. That is why I call people who
> work for animals what they SHOULD be called: animal welfare/rights
> WORKERS. I just got a letter from PeTA saying some big donor wants
> to give matching funds.

Did the ploy work? Did you send them some money?

> I am not as obsessed about definitions of words like "vegetarian"
> or "human rights activist" or "soldier" as you are. Those words are
> only means to an end. I care about TOTAL cause and effect,
> cost versus benefit to EACH individual, and justice.

Your words are like turds, they slide out easily and have about as much
significance.

> I have always wondered what is wrong with calling a Navy or Army
> or Marine soldier a "human rights activist", since they clearly
> fight for SOME person's human right not to be murdered or unjustly
> imprisoned or impoverished.

Not necessarily. They may be fighting for the ability of one country's
currency to remain in a position of dominance in the world, or for the
ability of one country to control more resources.

[..]