FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Leif Erikson wrote:
> 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. Meat industry shills are the
> > intruders here.
>
> The alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian group is *NOT* a
> group "for" "veganism". It is a group to *discuss*
> (so-called) "ethical" vegetarianism. There is no
> presumption that "veganism" has been "proved" to be the
> correct moral stance.
>

<snip part of ~jonnie's~ crap>

> You aren't really capable of debate, and you're not
> worth debating. It is, however, great recreation to
> beat up on you in the newsgroups. Expect much more of it.

For a meat industry shill you sure are funny Goober.

You've *NEVER* beaten anyone up anywhere (except in your own deluded
mind).

LOL!!