On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:40 -0500, usual suspect wrote:

> me.kirchhoff wrote:
>> I'm not sure how old this is, but I just discovered Bruce Friedrich's
>> "Veganism in a Nutshell" at http://brucefriedrich.org
>
> It's old. Here's some background info on the pathetic little nutcase:

Interesting. The man fights vehemently for what he believes and you
label him a "pathetic little nutcase."


> Friedrich believes sport hunters should be viewed “with the same
> revulsion we presently reserve for Nazi doctors and slave traders.

They prey on the weak, those with no voice of their own. The
similarities are there. Killing animals for "sport" is one of the most
execrable acts a human can commit.

>
> Timothy McVeigh “should not be allowed to take even one more life,”
> wrote Friedrich, urging the terrorist’s warden to serve the condemned
> prisoner only meatless meals. When McVeigh opted for a vegetarian “last
> meal,” Friedrich proclaimed that the mass murderer’s decision to abstain
> from meat “groups him with some of the world’s greatest visionaries,
> including Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein.”

The fact that a mass murderer like McVeigh might come to understand the
hideousness of murder--on *any* level--is quite remarkable. I question
Friedrich's comparison, if the source is accurate, however. Then again,
he tends to be as incendiery as possible whenever possible.

> Quotes
> "If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be
> free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going
> to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the
> record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it’s a
> great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be a great
> thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and
> these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I
> think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them
> through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to
> the people who are willing to do it." - “Animal Rights 2001” convention
> (July 2, 2001)
>
> "[Eating meat] is not your personal decision, any more than, you know,
> whether somebody beats their child is their personal decision." -
> “Animal Rights 2002” convention (June 29, 2002)
>
> "If you can take Ronald McDonald and turn him into a psychotic, bloody
> butcher … that’s going to adversely affect McDonald’s’ stock price." -
> “Animal Rights 2002” convention (July 2, 2002)

I don't see how these quotes help your case...

> Do you support his PETA terrorist-front organization?

Many of the acts by members of groups like ALF are reprehensible, such as
placing bombs in McDonald's restaurants, acts that endanger lives. But
many of them are misanthropes who do not accurately represent the goal of
these groups. There are always rogues.

Do I support the clandestine
freeing of lab animals from research facilities? Absolutely. Even if
there might be property damage involved? Absolutely. I do not agree with
many of the puerile acts committed by some individuals, such as spray
painting obscenities after such incidents; these simply negatively affect
peoples' perceptions of their goals.

Other acts by similar groups, such as the ELF's spiking of old-growth
trees, I do not approve of, as these spikes can cause serious injury to
loggers when struck by their chainsaws.

I support political legislation and non-violent protest above all else,
but there are times when the most ethical choice is not necessarily the
one complying with the law.

>> There's no copyright on the material, so you can *legally* make copies
>> and distribute them freely. Good stuff!
>
> It's bad stuff. See:

I question many of those claims; they mostly read as spurious jibes from those
who fear a group dedicated wholeheartedly to the welfare of animalkind.
Making statements like "well, they only contribute x% of their funds to
y" is ridiculous. This is a group whose sole goal is to raise awareness
and spread activism for the rights of animals. That's like saying to a
welfare worker, "you're bad because you only spend x% of your time
helping hispanic families when they need much more than that." It's the
classic 'red herring' line of argumentation, of the most common fallacies
of logic.

I cannot imagine further debate with you to be fruitful. You've clearly
decided that the murder of animals for matters of convenience, tradition,
and historical precedence is ethically sound.

I value your arguments, however, as they serve to affirm my values.

--
me.kirchhoff