View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

Derek wrote:
> 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.


There is not much to debate about my reasons for not wanting to eat
meat. I love animals and I am horrified by the cruel and unsanitary
methods of raising and butchering animals. These are my reasons and
that is all there is to it. I posted something close to this and was
immediately attacked by meat industry shills and I have responded and
will continue to respond to them in the fashion most appropriate for
those who start name calling when they do not like what they read.

>
> >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?


I hoped to find people on ralt.animals.ethics.vegetarian that share my
compassionate view of animals and was looking for exchange of similar
experiences.
>
> >What is to debate about?

>
> Quite a bit really.


Not interested to debate meat industry shills. I do it in my spare time
what they are obviously doing for money.
>
> >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?


Because of the name of the list.
>
> >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?


Obviously threats have little meaning on the Internet. A 100 lb
weakling can threaten a 300 lb football pro and the football pro can do
little about it. Same thing with dirt. I do not start dirt but make
sure that those who start it with me eat their own dirt.