On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:19:09 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>
>> Yeah sure;
>
>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
I don't call you anything but a liar. You're all over
the place on every issue raised here, including your
said stance on being a vegan. Remember this (below)?
Since self-confessed vegan, Ususpect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.
DENYING THE ANTECEDENT
"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09
From that, Ususpect clearly believed his vegan
lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely
that "no animal must die for his nourishment or
enjoyment"
Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he
accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's
CD argument with nothing but a whimper.
[Jonathan Ball]
> Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
> If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
> I don't eat meat.
> Therefore, no animals died for my diet.
[usual suspect]
That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing
the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not
true.
[end]
But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical
reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is
valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency?
ANIMAL RIGHTS
He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be
given rights, must be protected as human children
are, and not be killed for our own benefit;
"I personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-11
But, if he once believed animals should to be given
protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply
to minors, why does he advocate animal research and
testing on them? Also while holding such beliefs, why
does he criticise others when protesting against how
these fellow *minors* are being treated?
"When was the last time you visited a family or
factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you
observed. Did they have someone roaming around,
willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the
animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?"
usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08
What sort of "protection under the law (same as used
to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows
the eating and use of them for research?
This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing
as it was written by someone who refutes the idea
of animal rights;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09
What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit,
unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit
cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal?
"usual suspect" is a closet ARA.
[end]
Here's a few more of "usual suspect"'s quotes which
leave me in no doubt that he has been lying about his
beliefs for some years now.
"Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
protection under the law. But are they endowed with
any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12
"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26
"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09
"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10
"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14
"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05
|