FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800, wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
>> you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
>> one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
>> incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
>> critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
>> you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
>> you went even further and wrote,
>>
>> "Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
>> mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
>> start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
>> out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
>> assholes that start dirt"
>>
>> My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
>> promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
>> "mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
>> warning time and time again instead of actually making
>> them eat that dirt like you promised you would.
>>
>> >I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
>> >boring after a while.
>>
>> Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
>> dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
>> mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
>> it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
>> seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
>> read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
>> then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
>> trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
>> here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
>> in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
>> the real question should refer to your own efforts against
>> your critics, because many of us do do better.
>>
>> > It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
>> > the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.
>>
>> No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
>> Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
>> others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
>> critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
>> larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
>> see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
>> still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
>> these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
>> but rather,
>>
>> "Can I do better?"
>>
>> >Could
>> >someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?
>> >
>> >I propose:
>> >alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
>> >alt.food.vegan.moderated
>> >
>> >Any ideas?
>>
>> I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
>> soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
>> and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
>> meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
>> my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
>> using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
>> critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
>> then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.
>>
>> Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
>> reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
>> the same principle, even though the result of each
>> yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
>> ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;
>>
>> "Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
>> moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
>> disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
>> rendering meat for consumption."
>>
>> But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
>> make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
>> ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
>> and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
>> for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
>> "disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
>> rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
>> did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
>> grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
>> of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
>> in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
>> failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
>> from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
>> and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
>> to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
>> your own if you can and want to.
>
>Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous
>aliases, I do not.

They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind
the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're
meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the
courage to explain those reasons.

>The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded
>with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed
>to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my
>revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.

Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be
no opposition to your views?

>What is to debate about?

Quite a bit really.

>Either you have compassion for other living
>creatures or you do not.

Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they
do is wrong, then?

>If you have compassion for them then there is
>nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength.

But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your
"values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate
with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed"
to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the
first place?

>If you do not,
>as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those
>who do.

That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start.
Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make
that same empty threat?