View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ray
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a dwarf


"LordSnooty" > wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vtq8014vrrcj8tc92hu@earthlink. net...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
> >WD West wrote:
> >
> >> The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
> >> Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
> >> as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

> >
> >Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

>
> You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
> stunted your mental ability?
>
> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

>
> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> production there is no dispute.
>
> >but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
> >those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
> >"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> >fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

>
> No, your a troll, there is nothing smarmy about being right.
>
> > If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

>
> Indeed.
>
> > I do not eat meat;
> >
> > Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

>
> Indeed, this is true.
>
> >The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
> >cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
> >the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
> >eat any of the animals.

>
> Nonsense no nuts.
>
> Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
> support yourself?
>
> >All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
> >degree or another, even those who have been forced to
> >acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
> >and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
> >motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
> >sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.

>
> You're a prat. If you know of any proof that a specific product,
> produced by a specific company for vegetarians was the direct cause of
> wildlife deaths, I'm sure the world would be on your side, you're a
> liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
> puppets.
>
> >> My problem
> >> (which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
> >> potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
> >> bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
> >> meatless meal seems like no meal at all.

> >
> >That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
> >are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
> >esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
> >meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
> >esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
> >ethics at all.

>
> Prat.


I agree, but only a little prat
pumilius pumilio
non compos mentis
persona non grata

Up your flue ~~jonnie~~ you nymshifting pixie.
>
>
>
>
>
> 'You can't win 'em all.'
> Lord Haw Haw.