"John Coleman" > wrote in message
news
> Rick Etter>
> > > I don't go out of my way to cause suffering to others Rick,
> > ==================
> > Yes, you do. That's the point, ignorant fool. You're just either too
> > stupid or too brainwashed to understand that, killer.
>
> explain, and explain how and when I became "brainwashed" (the term is
> inappropriate because it refers to thoughts that are forced onto someone,
> and not those that we receive wilfully)
===================
ROTFLMAO I'm sure all brainwashed loons think that their brainwashing is
willfully received. What a hoot.


>
> > No, it isn't. The point of your religion is only to follow a simple
> rules
> > for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'
>
> many fine theories are based on simple rules
==================
Not ones that face the light of day, killer. The point remains that you
cannot show how not eating meat automatically means you cause less death and
suffering.


>
> > That's the point ignorant fool. Much of what you call CDs *is*
avoidable
> by
> > you *IF* you really cared about animals, and that many of those CDs are
> not
> > unintentional, nor accidental.
>
> You have not presented any convincing case for this, only your usual
> diatribe.
==================
ROTFLMAO What an ignorant loon. Do you think that intentionally targeting
and poisoning animals is an accident? God, you really have sucked up the
brainwashing, haven't you, hypocrite?



>
> > What's your excuse for intentionally 'running over' animals for your
> selfish
> > entertainment here on usenet?
>
> I don't intentionally harm animals.
====================
Yes, you do, killer. You pretend that you don't, but your whole consumer
driven lifestyle is based on the death and suffering of animals for nothing
more than your convenience and entertainment. You're here on usenet. You
have no survival need to be here, you're here for entertainment. You have
to know that power generation/distribution, and communications cause
millions upon millions of just bird deaths every year. You are part of
that ever increasing demand for more and more. You are culpable, killer.


Try and prove otherwise. If I pick or
> grow some plant foods and ship them and some animals die in consequence,
the
> intention was still just to have the plant foods.
========================
Not when you know how they are obtained. You have other ways of getting
what you need just to survicve, but you *choose* the easy, conveninet way
out, and the animals be damned.



If I wanted to eat meat I
> would be intent on killing an animal - that is inescapable. Can you not
> manage to see this, and the profound difference in the required
psychology?
======================
That you are too blind to see that you cannot eat and live the way you do
without animal death and suffering then the need is all yours, hypocrite.



>
> > If you can't manage to see that your religion is all hocum, then you are
> > beyond help. Your concern, like every other usenet vegan, is all about
> what
> > you think *others* are doing, without a thought to the massive amounts
of
> > death and suffering you cause for your selfishness.
>
> If I was not concerned about my own impact on animals and was simply a
> hypocrit, I would not bother to attempt to refine my own behaviour, which
I
> do do.
====================
No, you're not. Here you are still, wantonly killing animals for your
entertainment.


Furthermore, it is not "selfish", in the usual sense of the word to
> want to eat, we have to do so.
=======================
It's s;efish for picking what you eat. Yopu eat far more variety than you
'need' to survive. You have *NO* need for usenet to survive. You are a
wanton killer of animals, period.


However, it is selfish to deliberately deny
> an animal its life for no reason than a desire to eat it.
=====================
But it's fine to deny millions upon millions of animals their lives and just
leave them to rot? Some philosophy you've got their, hypocrite.

As I have stated
> repeatedly, I am a vegan because I don't like animal products, they do not
> appeal to my senses at all as do plant foods. I require no ideology to
> support my practice of being a vegan.
=====================
Yes, you do, because vegan is a philosophy fool. Try reading about it for a
change. vegan is *NOT* a diet, idiot.


>
> I think I do agree with you (if this is what amounts to your case - you
> never state anything clearly IMO) that the wastefulness (in terms of
energy
> and perhaps death) inherent in modern food production and distribution is
> not compatible with the vegan ethic, and that vegans would save more
animals
> if they grew their own food, or else added some local animal produce to
the
> diet. But I'm thinking here more like some earth worms or bugs from the
> yard, and yes maybe hunt some local game, rabbits or whatever. I
personally
> don't have much issue on that, many other vegans will disagree, maybe they
> can comment, however I don't think anyone will do well in terms of their
> health eating a lot of animal products wherever they come from. However,
you
> need to present a better thought out case before you convince anyone of
the
> validity of your ideas.
====================
By all means go ahead and add insects, worms and the like to the list to
discuss, fool. In that case you lose hands down in the amount of
unnecessary death and suffering you cause, killer.

>
> > Your vegan, you have no private thoughts of your own.
>
> If in the sense that Wittgenstein proclaimed we don't have "private"
> thought, you would be correct. But you are claiming to know what I
> individually and specifically think based on some specious category. And
> that is just absurd, in fact it is prejudiced stereotyping.
======================
Sterotypes don't just fall out the sky for no reason, fool.


>
> > It's all down in
> > whatever handbook you all use.
>
> I used to get the Vegan magazine but no longer - I have never heard of a
> handbook on how to be vegan. Stop being a bigot.
> ==================
Stop being a brainwashed idiot.


> > It's always the same ignorant, emotional
> > diatribes without any thing to back it up.
>
> Plenty of vegan authors are well informed on science and ecology and
produce
> material of good academic quality.
==================
Really? No vegan here has pointed to any.

>
> > ROTFLMAO This from the idiot that uses non-words for emotive reasons
when
> > gleefully reporting a death. What a hoot!!!
>
> Meatarian seems as valid a word as vegetarian, it has letters and conveys
> its meaning well.
=====================
yes, and the meaning that it is meant to invoke is one of emotion.


Maybe one day it will get in a dictionary (I believe I
> invented this word as well, at least I never heard it before I used it
> first). Anyway, where is the evidence of any "glee", and would such
alleged
> glee be unvegan? You can have useful assumptions about what a person
thinks,
> but you simply cannot ascertain someones emotions from what they write
> unless they are fairly explicit.
=======================
Yes one can from the background of what's posted previous fool.


When I say "another dead meatarian who told
> us we are all wrong" I am simply stating a fact. I am disclosing nothing
> about my emotions. If I laugh at Byrnes demise, it is because of his
> stupidity, not the untimely death itself. Death it not usually amusing,
but
> it can be worth celebrating, at least some cultures see it that way.
========================
Tap, tap, tap. Try dancibng somewhere else, fool. Just try reading some
past posts by vegans at hunting seasons. Their obvious joy at reporting
hunting accidents matches yours above.

>
> John
>
>
>