Bill wrote:

> You unethically, as always, ran away from the tough issues.

I've discussed the issues, and continue to do so.

>> <snip>

>>>> 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.

>> So after I die, there will be no more CDs, I assume....

> No, stupid bitch.

So then, CDs in general are NOT the result of my personal actions.
As I said: they are a result of social attitudes of many people,
and cannot be ended by one person's action.

> After you die, you won't cause any
> more CDs. "vegans" who are living after you're dead
> will.

Vegans, including myself, don't cause CDs. I've been more than
fair, and bent over backward to be honest and accept the
limited degree of responsibility I do bear, to disprove your
personal attack on my supposed "hypocricy" by agreeing I help
to provide a motive for farmers to cause CDs. But the customer
does not cause the producer to use any particular methods; he only
provides a motive for the producer to provide a product.

Also after you die, these newsgroups will have
> substantially less self serving bullshit in them.

>> CDs are all _personally_ my fault, have no basis in social
>> norms at all. My goodness, I had no idea I had such power....
>> <sarcasm>

>> Doesn't this contradict your claim my personal actions are merely
>> an ineffectual gesture?

> No, and you knew it and knew why, too.

So -- if my actions have no effect, how can they be a cause of
anything? You contradict yourself. On the one hand, I am
supposed to be tremendously powerful, causing vast numbers of
CDs all by myself. On the other, my not buying meat, leather,
and other animal products is supposed to have no effect at all.
This is logically impossible.

You aren't even
> close to funny.

Actually, I thought that remark was hilarious....

>>>> 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 has no effect on the philosophical attitudes of society
>> in and of itself -- except for my influence on a few
>> specific individuals I know personally. It has had some
>> limited effect there, as in my changing the policies of
>> one parish toward veal.

> So there's no ethics-based reason for it,

I didn't say that.

> and no
> concrete result.

I didn't say that either. It has had limited concrete results,
it just hasn't changed society-wide practices.

> It is purely symbolic,

Not purely.

> intended to
> make you feel good.

Certainly. Acting on ethical principle usually makes one feel good.

> It is not based on any principle
> except hedonism, and clearly not on any ethical principle.

You are wrong about that.

> Why didn't you admit this years ago?

>> I do believe we are making some progress -- limited and glacial,
>> but some progress.

>
> This belief is empirically wrong. The percentage of
> vegetarians, let alone "vegans", is steady. The notion
> that animals are not ours to use is not gaining ground.

I see the evidence differently.

>> Things change slowly, but they do change.

>> I can't figure out why my being vegan annoys you so much.

> The "veganism" per se doesn't annoy me. I don't care
> at all what you do and don't consume, and you already
> knew that.

> It's the rest of the politics, a politics I know in
> detail merely from your pompous announcement that
> you're "vegan", that annoys me. You get everything
> wrong. As a democratic, rights-respecting libertarian,
> I don't believe in doing anything to restrict you in
> your self indulgent belief in wrong values. What I do
> is to get in your face and show you to be self absorbed
> and hypocritical liar. Neither one of us has any way
> of knowing this, of course, but I'll bet I've had far
> more influence on others in revealing the dishonesty of
> your position than you have had in converting other
> self-marginalized, self-alienated, mentally ill people
> like you to "veganism".

Believe what you like, Jonnie.

>> Would
>> you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again?

> I don't attack you personally,

*chuckle*

> except to the extent
> that your identity is irrationally tied up in advancing
> pernicious doctrines that you have no intention of
> following yourself. It's amazing you can't see that
> your character is a fundamental part of the debate,
> given the topic.

When you can't argue the facts, Jonnie, attack your
opponents' character. A classic dodge for a poster
with no substantial argument. People see through
this tactic, you know. You don't fool anyone.

> I don't care what you do and don't eat, and you've
> always known that.

>> Wouldn't that make me even more of a hypocrite, given my
>> views (from your point of view)?

> Slightly. There are two huge dopes here, "Zakhar" (not
> his real name) and C. James Strutz (*ought* not be his
> real name, but unfortunately is), who are largely
> vegetarian for (the usual mushy) "ethical" reasons, but
> who are not "vegans". They are bigger hypocrites than
> "vegans", but not as if it matters.

So, as I noted, it IS more consistent, more in accord with
my ethical views, to be vegan -- you admit it. The
alternative would be less consistent -- you admit it.
So there is an ethical reason for me to be vegan -- you
admit it. You cannot escape, Jonnie. You know why I am
vegan, really, and you admit I have a good, ethically-based
reason for being vegan.

Now, can we move beyond personal attack, since you've
conceded my point?

Rat