"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> John Coleman wrote:
> 8<
>> > I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
>> > fallacies.
>>
>> No, you haven't.
>
> see my many weeks of replies to Rick and others
====================
LOL No, you haven't fool. You demand evidence from others, yet you seem to
be sorly lacking in backing up any of your ignorance.

>
>> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
> in
>> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
> not,
>> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
>> > such
>> > practices
>>
>> There is no "need" for farmers to "go 'vegan'", except
>> in your warped ideology.
>
> If farmers want to cause less suffering to animals they are essentially
> starting to go vegan. They don't in the strict sense "need" to, it is
> optional, but "necessary" if they are concerned to reduce animal
> suffering.
>
>> You can't escape the fact that you are blaming the
>> farmer for YOUR failure to live as you claim to live:
>> "cruelty free". Your claim is false, and you know it;
>> when you stand by the claim, you become a liar.
>
> I don't cause cruelty to animals. Cruelty involves intent, a person who
> unintentionally harms an animal is not cruel.
======================
In the case of CDs they are not unintentional. You both know that animals
are ther and are going to die, yet *you* do nothing. Well, you do reward
the farmer for his continued killing. Looks to me like you intended them,
because ou intend to get your veggies the chespest, most conveninet way you
can.


>
>> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game
>>
>> As I've demonstrated numerous times, it very much IS a
>> numbers game. First, "vegans" begin by believing the
>> classic Denying the Antecedent fallacy:
>
> There is no science of veganism.
==============
Of course not, it's a religion.



>
>> if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
>> animals
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
>> of animals
>
> Many vegans are aware that ANY human activity causes animal suffering,
> that
> is why the don't have children.
>
>> Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
>> believing this fallacy.
>
> Actually global claims of "ALL..." is also another fallacy - no one is
> ever
> in a position to know of ALL occassions of any event.
>
>> that it IS a fallacy, leading to the inescapable
>> conclusion that refraining from consuming animal
>> products does NOT mean one leads a "cruelty free"
>> lifestyle, they ALL retreat to a numbers game: they
>> begin claiming, without support, that they cause fewer
>> instances of animal death and suffering.
>
> Maybe some, and maybe some of them are right.
>
>> > 3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they
> trample
>> > other creatures
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> A cow weighs about a ton(?), and it displaces its weight over 4 tiny
> hooves.
> A tractor probably weights a few tons and displaces its weight over huge
> tyres. I'd rather be rolled by a tractor than cattle. If cattle are known
> to
> avoid stepping on small creatures, then you provide the evidence, until
> then
> we have to accept the obvious - cattle kill lots of creatures down below.
> They also eat plenty up off the grass. Insects are everywhere by their
> millions, small vertibrates inhabit grasslands also. There have already
> been
> posts about the damage to habitats caused by cattle, and killing required
> to
> protect them from wild predators.
>
>> > 4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and
> dangerous
>> > machinery
>>
>> Their "advocacy" is ineffectual and does not absolve
>> them of responsibility for being cheerful accomplices
>> in the non-"veganic" (that's not even a word) slaughter
>> of animals in agriculture.
>
> Were the Jews who helped build and run the deathcamps cheerful
> accomplaces?
> No they were stuck in a system imposed by the sick society they were in.
> They got on with it to survive. Many vegans deplore all of the damage our
> modern culture does, but we have little practical option but to go along.
> Yes, the careless outnumber us massively, but that is not an argument
> against veganism, rather the opposite.
>
> Taking a position against society on something doesn't have to be widely
> "effectual" (because it is not widely accepted) for it to be a beneficial
> thing to do. Even if a vegan only saves 1 animals life compared to someone
> else in their society, can you really claim they have not been
> "effectual"?
>
>> It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.
>
> I know what compassion and caring are, I have no idea what "morality" is -
> everyone has their own opinion on that.
>
> John
>
>