"me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
newsan.2003.11.27.01.04.17.229886.337@0ubliette. org...
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:24:00 -0500, rick etter wrote:
>
>
> > "me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
> > newsan.2003.11.26.23.17.29.416787.337@0ubliette. org...
> >> 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.
> > =============================
> > Really? You are really a pathetic nutcase too then. Why is it then
> > that you can contribute to the death and suffering of millions and
> > millions of animals for your entertainment, but rant about anybody
> > elses? Your contributions to unnecessary animal death and suffering are
> > just as great, so where do you have any standing to fault anyone elses
> > life?
>
> Wow, you really *don't* get it, do you?
--------------------------
And you really are delusional about your lifestyle, aren't you?


How difficult is it to understand
> the fundamental, critical difference between a lifestyle *based* on the
> murder of animals and one *based* on the belief that intentionally
> killing animals and eating their flesh is unethical?
============================
That's something that you haven't proven. Animals are intentionally killed
for your veggies. Why is it ethical to kill animals and let them rot?
Your diet causes more death and suffering than some meat included diets.
How is it 'ethical' to kill more, and still be so sanctimoniously smug and
hypocritical?



Anti-vegans sadly
> fall back on the tired argument that a vegan lifestyle results in as many
> deaths as omnivorous ones without understanding the basic ethical
> difference at stake. I won't touch your slanderous statement.
======================
Because you can't. You cannot defend the death and suffering you cause
despite the fact that you could cause less.


>
> >
> >> > 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.
> > =================
> > No, he tends to be a nutcase.
>
> More useless ad hominem attacks.
==================
LOL can't refute that either, I see.

>
> >
> >> > 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.
> > ======================
> > Really? yet these groups still provide support for those that take
> > these actions. Why is that
> > if, as you say, their actions don't represent the goal of those groups?
>
> Again, they support the ELF, not necessarily an extremist who goes too
> far. The difference is clear.
======================
No, they support individuals that been caught perpetrating these crimes.
The differences aren't there. They support terrorists.

>
> >> Do I support the clandestine
> >> freeing of lab animals from research facilities? Absolutely. Even if
> >> there might be property damage involved? Absolutely.
> > =======================
> > Even when it causes the death of those and other animals? Figures? See,
> > it isn't about animals at all.
> > Animals are just the tools.
>
> Unfortunately, deaths will occur. But the intent is to free these
> animals from hideous environments in which they will be killed if no
> action is taken. Your argument, again, is fundamentally fallacious.
\=================
No, it's your excuses for the death and suffering you cause that is
hypocritical.
Animals are intentionally killed to provide you with cheap, convenient
veggies.



>
> > 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.
> > =======================
> > ROTFLMAO Like PeTA? the 'e' is lower case in their logo for a reason.
> > You do know that they kill more animals than they save once they get
> > their bloody hands on them, don't you?
>
> Again, you're making little sense. PeTA's goal is to raise awareness and
> increase activism for animal rights. You make it sound as though their
> goal is to kill as many animals as possible.
===========================
Just stating the facts. look them up if you dare. Once PeTA gets their
hands on an animal, they are more then likely to kill it than to save it.
Of course, while they do have it, they will milk the rubes for all the
donations they can, once those fall off...


>
> >> 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.
> > ====================
> >Probably not, your ideology has blinded you to any real facts. Too bad,
> >you could do something to help animals for real, but then, as long as
> >you have that simple rule for simple minds, you're quite happy, eh
> >killer?
>
> Funny, I would say that your "facts" have blinded you from taking any
> sort of ethical stance. I suppose that by eating meat I would helping
> animals?
========================
yes. It's your categorical statements about meat that are ignorant and
inane.
I'm sure you don't even make choices among you own foods depending on which
ones cause more
or less death and suffering. There are meats that cause far less death and
suffering than almost any crop you care to mention.
You don't make real choices because you have the simple rule that not eating
meat means
no/less/fewer animals die. Unfortunately for the animals, that's not
always the case. But then, you
don't care about that because animals are just the tools of your religion.



Yet again, your logic is faulty. And, yes, I am quite happy
> knowing that I have dedicated my life to helping the world's oppressed,
> whether it be animals or humans.
========================
ROTFLMAO You really are that insane, aren't you? So, how many animals died
for this inane little post of yours?
Enjoying your entertainment?


>
> > You've clearly
> >> decided that the murder of animals for matters of convenience,
> >> tradition, and historical precedence is ethically sound.
> > ========\
> > Animals can't be murdered. That's your dogma talking again,
> > hypocrite...
>
> Killed. Murdered. Shot to death. It's semantics. Take your pick.
=======================
No, it's an emotive bit of gimmickery. It's all vegans have since they
cannot prove their idiotic claims
of saving animals.

>
> >> I value your arguments, however, as they serve to affirm my values.
> > ================
> > No, they blow yours out of the water, because you cannot back up any
> > vegan claims that you actually do anything to help animals.
>
> I have personally rescued animals facing certain death who will now live
> out their lives in peace. What have you done? I you have actually done
> anything to contribute to the welfare of animals, I applaud you.
===========================
Well whoopi. We have dogs rescued from shelters too. But that doesn't
address the hypocrisy of you dietary claims.



>
> --
> me.kirchhoff