Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>

>>>> she defines that as only meat animals.
>>>> She does nothing to alleviate the massive numbers she contributes to
>>>> for her selishness, conveninece, and entertainment.
>
>
> I've mentioned steps I take in the past. You ignore them.

They're empty. It's just feelgoodism, that's all.
"Buying locally" doesn't mean a thing.

>
>>>> throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.
>
>
> What sanctimonious hyprocricy?

The sanctimonious hypocrisy of claiming you abide by a
principle when what you abide by is nothing but a
consumption rule.

>
>>> 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.
>
>
> You are correct my moral code is not primarily utilitarian,
> although I use utilitarian calculations in some areas of
> decision-making. It is not simply a set of rules, however.

It IS a set of rules. There is no principle.


>> 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,
>
>
> Er.. has it occurred to you, Rick, that I don't have a direct effect
> because I choose to act in such a way as to avoid it? It doesn't
> happen by accident. And, certainly, I abhor all unjust death and
> all suffering.

No, you don't. You CAUSE a lot of it, unjust death and
suffering that is avoidable.

>> and claiming that that choice 'makes a difference'.
>
>
> I believe it does, for reasons I have given.

It doesn't. You don't do anything to reduce or
eliminate collateral animal death.


>>> 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,
>
>
> Probably because you don't view animals and agriculture the way I
> do.

You don't view them through any principle. You view
them as a cheap means for self exaltation.

>
>> =======================
>> 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.
>
>
> Which vegans here on usenet have claimed animals killed and caused
> suffering in vegetable production are not significant?

Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
concrete to stop killing them? None.

> Who has ignored them?

You. ALL "vegans" ignore them.

> We recognize they exist; we deplore them.

Empty hand-wringing; cheap verbiage.

> But I believe that their deaths are a result of and part of the same
> mindset which is legitimized by the raising of livestock for food
> and other products.

You are colossally wrong. They are the result of your
truck with animal-killing farmers.

> I believe the system has to be attacked at
> its source -- the philosophical view of the nature of animals'
> rights.

And your abstinence from meat does this...exactly how?

It doesn't. It's a cheap, easy gesture, and it's ALL
you do, BECAUSE it's cheap and easy, and makes you feel
good about yourself, nothing more. You refuse to make
the corresponding gesture for collateral deaths because
it's costly and hard.

Neither gesture does a thing to attack the
philosophical view of the prevailing society. You do
the one because it's cheap and easy and you
irrationally feel better about yourself for doing it.
That's all "veganism" is.

>
>>> 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.
>
>
> Which is the philosophical position AR opposes.

You've lost.

>
> I've never seen Rick give any good reason why he believes animals
> have no rights. Perhaps he will enlighten us now as to why he
> believes this.
>
>>>>> 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!