"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> <snip>
> =============
> >>>She claims not to cause unnecessary animal death and suffering. Of
>
> No, I don't claim that. We ALL cause unnecessary animal death and
> suffering, Rick. We all cause (using the same criteria you give)
> unnecessary human death and suffering.
=========================
yes, you do. You claim to 'take steps', yet your actions tell a different
story. the only 'steps' you take are the ones demanded by your simple rule,
'eat no meat'. the rest is just hot air.


>
> > 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.
>
> I've mentioned steps I take in the past. You ignore them.
===========================
You take no real steps... Just follow the simple minds rule...



>
> >>>throws a great big monkey wrench into her sanctimonious hypocrisy.
>
> What sanctimonious hyprocricy?
====================
Yours. The one your posts drip with, idiot.

>
> >>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.
>
> > Thou shalt
> >>not
> >>eat meat from animals, which were killed by man seems to be part of
> >>her
> >>moral code.
>
> Yes, just as "Thou shalt not eat meat from humans killed by man" is
> a part of my moral code, and for similar reasons -- it is the
> injustice of the killing, not the meat-eating per se which is the
> issue. If I were stranded in a cabin with another person who died
> of natural causes, I would have no ethical objections to
> cannibalism in and of itself (there would be no injustice toward
> the dead person). Of course, with humans, one has to consider
> the remaining relatives, and I would have an aesthetic revulsion
> toward eating a human -- but those are other issues.
>
> Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
> >>pesticides doesn't.
>
> Not in and of itslf. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies
> for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but,
> again, that is another issue from AR.
==================
Organic does not equal pesticide nor machine free veggies, you ignorant
dolt.


>
> > =======================
> > 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?
======================
No, you don't. Each of your ignorant spews to usenet proves that you take
few, if any steps, except your simple minds rule...


It doesn't
> happen by accident. And, certainly, I abhor all unjust death and
> all suffering.
==================
just a statement, not backed up by your actions. Your posts prove that,
killer.


>
> and claiming that that choice 'makes a
> > difference'.
>
> I believe it does, for reasons I have given.
====================
You've given no reasons, except your simple minds rule.

>
> >>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.
>
> > =======================
> > 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?
==============================
Are you really this stupid, or do you deliberately ignore what your fellow
vegans even deny?



Who has
> ignored them? We recognize they exist; we deplore them.
====================
No, you don't. You just say it, you don't live it. There's a big
difference.


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. I believe the system has to be attacked at
> its source -- the philosophical view of the nature of animals'
> rights.
==================
That's just your current excuse for continuing your contributions to death
and suffering. A real vegan, there are none on usenet, would not worry
about what could be done in some future fanatsy state, but worry forst about
their own massive contributions to the death and suffering they cause right
now!


>
> >>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.
======================
No, it's a position you also support and live by. each and every one of
your ignorant usenet spews proves that you do not believe animals have
rights.



>
> 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.
==========================
If they did, the cat wouldn't kill and eat the mouse....


>
> >>>>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!
>
> Rat
>