"Purple" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Purple" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "the assumption or postulation
> > > of moral standards to which one's own behaviour does not conform.
> > > I find her distinctions between the injustices caused in commercial
> > > crop agriculture and those casued in animal agriculture somewhat
> > > contrived but I have seen no evidence that she fails to conform
> > > to her own moral standards.
> > ==================
> > She claims not to cause unnecessary animal death and suffering. Of
course,
> > she defines that as only meat animals.
> > She does nothing to alleviate the massive numbers she contributes to for
her
> > selishness, conveninece, and entertainment.
> > throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.
>
> AIUI Karen's moral code is not ruled by the utilitarian principle, you
> appear to be invoking. It reads more like a set of rules. Thou shalt
> not
> eat meat from animals, which were killed by man seems to be part of
> her
> moral code. Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
> pesticides doesn't.
=======================
That's the simple rule for simple minds that vegans follow. That's the
hypocrisy. Choosing to abhor only the death and suffering of animals that
she doesn't have any effect on, and claiming that that choice 'makes a
difference'.


>
> Personally
> I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which
> causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not,
=======================
That's what makes her, and other vegans on usenet, the hypocrites that they
are. they target only one set of animals as being killed,
while ignoring another whole set.


> as long as the consequences of the action are known in advance, so
> enjoy
> your steaks from grass reared cattle. I'm sure my diet includes worse
> items.
> Purely out of curiousity are you opposed to AW or just AR?
=================
just AR as it is preached on usenet. Besides, animals have no rights.


>
> > > There are many posters to this newsgroup who share your penchant
> > > for nasty personal ad-hominen attack and I greatly admire Karen's
> > > consistent magnaninimous responses, patiently explaining her position
> > > to people who are determined to misinterpret it and never letting
> > > herself be dragged down to their level. I would like to see more
> > > people, on both sides of the debate following her example.
> > ==================
> > ROTFLMAO Which ones, holding on to lys and delusions? What a hoot!