I recommend the non vegan, carnivores who post here. They are trollers.

Dutch wrote:
> "Meadowlark" > wrote
> (snip)
>
>>>>Would you care to give some background on your own approach to
>>>>animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of
>>>>real discussion.
>>
>>>I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals have
>>>emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I have
>>>any approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that subject
>>>that I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, forum. I am
>>>not a vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion because of
>>>cross-posting to another group and felt that I had an obligation to try
>>>to offset at least some of the nonsense being posted by Rudy.
>>
>>>Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you.
>>
>>Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss
>>*anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I
>>am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that
>>anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability,
>>after all the scientific and empirical material which has
>>been published in the last twenty years or so. The argument that
>>some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/
>>moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with
>>recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This
>>undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes
>>for an interesting controversy.
>>
>>Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on
>>animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What
>>about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the
>>cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That
>>chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much
>>new information is showing up that the old categories into which
>>this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and
>>more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion.
>>However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this
>>newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to
>>Lurk mode.
>
>
> I don't find that debate particularly compelling. I happen to
> believe that (non-human) animals possess many advanced
> cognitive abilities, nonetheless the fact remains that we are
> predators towards or deadly competitors with most of them,
> whether or not we "consume animal products".
>
>