FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Derek wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2006 09:29:35 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On 14 Jan 2006 08:27:07 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Then why participate at all? If you're not willing to debate
>>>with your critics, and you feel it's a waste of time debating
>>>with others that share your values, then who are you going
>>>to debate with?
>>
>>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>>as I do and this list is named for that.
>
>
> But, by your own word, you're not willing to debate with
> them because, "If you have compassion for them then
> there is nothing to debate because we are on the same
> wavelength." You would have nothing to debate with
> them, yet you're proposing to find or set up a group full
> of these people you don't want to debate with.
>
>
>>Meat industry shills are the intruders here.
>
>
> Meat shills or not

Not. There isn't anyone in this group who has any
professional or employment connection with the meat
industry. I suspect this gutless coward knows it, too;
it just makes him feel good to write "meat industry
shills".

Those who write in opposition to "veganism" and
"vegans" also are not intruders in a.a.e.v.; perhaps
somewhat in a.f.v., but then I'm not the one who
included that group in the beginning of the thread.

> - they are your critics and make up the
> rest of the percentage of posters outside your chosen
> percentage of posters you've no interest in debating with.
> Can't you see that you're trying to find a forum where
> your principles dictate that you can't participate in it?
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>No, they are your objections, not your reasons. What's most
>>>interesting about another's objections are his reasons behind
>>>those objections. I object to some very plain and ordinary
>>>things, but it's my reasons behind those objections that most
>>>would find interesting and poignant.
>>
>>OK, I object to the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.
>
>
> Fine. Now if you could explain your reasoning behind this
> objection, as asked, a debate might take place.
>
>
>>>>I posted something close to this and was
>>>>immediately attacked
>>>
>>>You were attacked, of course, but those attacks still leave
>>>you plenty of room to explain the principles you use that
>>>lie behind your opinions on those attackers.
>>
>>Nothing to explain, you either care for animals or not.
>
>
> Further down this page, in response to that comment,
> I wrote, Do you believe a person cannot be shown that
> what they do is wrong, then? You ignored that response
> by failing to answer. Are you going to ignore it again?
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Oh well.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Why? According to you, "If you have compassion for them
>>>then there is nothing to debate because we are on the same
>>>wavelength." Why did you hope to find or form a group that
>>>shares your views, only to find you're unwilling to debate
>>>anything with anyone in it?
>>
>>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>>as I do and this list is named for that.
>
>
> Maybe, but you've declared that you have nothing to
> debate with these people because they're all "on the
> same wavelength". If an exchange of ideas isn't a
> debate, and this isn't what you're looking for, what
> made you decide to participate here?
>
>
>>>>>>What is to debate about?
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite a bit really.
>>>>
>>>>Not interested to debate meat industry shills.
>>>
>>>Then you've eliminated your entire choice of people to debate
>>>with, haven't you.
>>
>>Not the entire list, only those who are paid to call people names for
>>expressing views contrary to meat industry interests. They even sued
>>Oprah and lost

>
>
> Most anti-meat protesters would relish the chance in
> taking on a paid hack, so why not you?
>
>
>>>>I do it in my spare time
>>>>what they are obviously doing for money.
>>>
>>>Would it make a difference to your argument if you were
>>>arguing with a professional arguer? If not, and it shouldn't,
>>>press on.
>>
>>Are you saying that you are a meat industry shill but with better
>>vocabulary than those only engage in name calling?
>
>
> No, I'm a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds.

Except for the Lea & Perrins ;-)

>>If your answer yes,
>>it would make a huge difference!
>
>
> Why?
>
>
>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>But if you don't want to discuss anything with your critics,
>>>and you think it's a waste of time to talk with those already
>>>on your level, you've eliminated everyone, so what made
>>>you decide to participate in a group that your principles
>>>have eliminated you from?
>>
>>I am having to repeat myself but you are posing the same question:
>>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>>as I do and this list is named for that.
>
>
> An "exchange of ideas" is a debate, and yet you refuse to
> take any part in debates, and you refuse to take part in
> debates with people who share the same values as
> you do, so I can only repeat my question and ask why
> you decided to post here when your stated principles
> dictate that you won't.
>
>
>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>No, I'm afraid you're not doing anything of the sort.
>>
>>How so?
>
>
> Calling people names and just threatening to make them eat
> dirt isn't actually making them eat that proverbial dirt. Did you
> know that?