Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> The amusing -- if frustrating -- thing about Antis's constant
> ignoring of social issues in favor of personal attack

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

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

> is that I am honest,

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

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

> I do not claim any particular moral superiority,

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

> I am not self-righteous,

You are self righteous in the extreme.

> I do not attack non-vegetarians personally.

Yes, you do.

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

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

> In return all I get is personal attack,

See above.

> false claims about my opinions,

No.

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

I deal with what you write.

> and must set up a vast smokescreen to evade the real issues.
>
> All the unjust treatment

Raising animals destined for human consumption is not
unjust.

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

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

> Everything else, including CDs, comes from that system.

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

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

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

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

>
> Even if I began eating meat (which I would not), I would still
> believe the systm which produces meat is immoral. Your only
> answer is to kill the messenger, not read the message.
>
> Re Rush Limbaugh: are you saying Rush was wrong in his views on
> drug users?

Yes. You already knew that.

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

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

....