On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:26:00 -0500, rick etter wrote:
> "me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
> news
an.2003.11.27.00.09.59.185209.337@0ubliette. org...
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>> >>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>> >>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>> >
>> > Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
>> > What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
>> > habitable conditions?
>> >
>> >
>> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>>
>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
> ====================
> Now you're just lying... There are many deliberate deaths of animals
> just to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies.
I see that you *don't* get it.
>> See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.
> ========================
> Apparently you don't see anything real. Just the typical vegan
> delusions.
Again, your diet is *based* *based* *based* (just to be absolutely clear)
on the murder of animals. Veganism is *based* *based* *based* on the idea
that we should not kill and eat the flesh of animals because of
convenience, tradition, or historical precedence.
Accusing me of "vegan delusions" just gives evidence that you rely mostly
on ad hominem attacks (a serious fallacy of logical debate) rather than
attempt to comprehend the basic ethical difference at play.
--
me.kirchhoff