On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:47 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:

>
>
>ipse dixit wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
>
>>>ipse dixit wrote:
>
>>><snip>
>
>>>>>>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
>>>There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
>>>(ethical)vegan does so.
>
>>>Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
>>>achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
>>>is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.
>
>>>However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
>>>what ipse says they do.
>
>>><snip>
>
>>>>>>No one believes all animal and human
>>>>>>life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>
>>>This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
>>>pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
>>>human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.
>
>> Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet
>> no one in their right mind would conclude that coal
>> buyers are showing a contempt for the rights of
>> those suffering and dying from it.
>
>Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
>right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
>to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
>killed in veggie production.
>
And don't I know it. Their entire argument against
the vegan rests on the collateral deaths caused by
farmers in agriculture, yet they fail to use the same
argument when considering human collateral deaths.
If vegans are showing a contempt for animal rights
when buying produce, then we're all showing a
contempt for human rights when buying produce.

>Rat