Leif Erikson wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > Dave wrote:
> > > > rick wrote:
> > > > > ============================
> > > > > LOL By comparing chickens to Jews...
> > > >
> > > > She is not comparing chickens to Jews per se. She is
> > > > comparing the treatment of chickens in factory farms
> > > > today with the treatment of humans who happened to
> > > > be Jewish in concentration camps. The argument would
> > > > have been just the same whatever the race of people who
> > > > had been sent to those camps.
> > >
> > > She is morally equating the treatment of chickens to the treatment of
> > > Jews in Nazi Germany
> >
> > And all other people of whatever race who suffered similar misfortunes.
>
> One would hope - yet somehow, mysteriously, only Jews and American
> blacks ever seem to be mentioned. I wonder why that is?

Because these are the most well known examples. It is worth noting
here that when Glorfindel made her slavery comparison she didn't
mention anything about the slaves being black. That was Rick's imput.

> > > and to black slaves in the American antebellum
> > > south.
> >
> > And all other slaves of whatever race.
>
> See above, and think about why only Jews and black American slaves ever
> seem to be brought up by the "aras" in their vile, trivializing and
> bogus moral equivalence.

See above. It wasn't Glorfindel who first bought up Jews or Black
Americans
in this thread.
> >
> > > Whenever this happens, members of those groups are always
> > > aggrieved, and rightly so, for the false moral equivalence being
> > > alleged by the "aras" ("animal rights assholes"). Jews and American
> > > blacks quite reasonably feel that equating the treatment their
> > > ancestors suffered to the treatment of animals both trivializes the
> > > horrors of their past unjust treatment, and also in some way *does*
> > > suggest that they are less than fully human.
> >
> > If they paid attention to the context
>
> Now you're telling members of these aggrieved groups that they're not
> paying attention to what you think they should. How patronizing.

Members of these groups who interpet the statements the way the
statements are intended would realise that the statements are not
racist.

> > they would see that the point is
> > not to trivialize the horrors of the past but to emphacize the horrors
> > of the present.
>
> That's the commonly given, and wholly bullshit, explanation. But the
> trivialization is real. The excuse-making and hand-waving and "no no
> no, that's not what I meant..." ring hollow, because they *are* hollow.

They are genuine.

> There is no moral
>
>
> > In making these comparisons Glorfindel
>
> Karen Winter. Her name is Karen Winter.

I'll call her by the name she has chosen for herself.

> > does not
> > suggest that blacks or jews are less than fully human.
>
> Implicitly, that's exactly what she does.

That is simply untrue.

> > > The "aras" always hastily
> > > and in their best PC protest voices insist that they aren't being
> > > racist,
> >
> > They aren't.
>
> Yes, they are. They are objectifying these historically aggrieved
> groups in order to EXPLOIT their experience for the "animal rights
> assholes'" narrow political purpose.
> >
> > > but the aggrieved groups never really buy the denials,
> >
> > If I were black or a Jewish I would consider the above statement
> > to be a slur on my intelligence.
>
> The slur on their intelligence is what YOU did, davie, when you said
> they are too stupid to pay attention to the "context".

I never made any such claim.
>
> I am not in any way casting aspersions on their intelligence by telling
> you - davie and Karen Winter - that blacks and Jews are telling you
> you're full of shit.

And what qualifies you to act as their spokesperson?
>
>
> > > and they
> > > shouldn't. At the very least, the comparisons *do* trivialize what
> > > Jews and blacks experienced.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hand waving noted...
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> It also displays their hatred
> > > > > >> of people quite explicitly too...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I disagree.
> > > > > ======================
> > > > > I don't. Didn't you just see bpg posts with the implicit glee
> > > > > that hunters were killing each other instead of animals? That
> > > > > is/has been a typical vegan spew every hunting season..
> > > >
> > > > That is not the example you just claimed demonstrated vegan
> > > > hatred of people. The bpg posts you now refer to don't show
> > > > that all vegans hate people just that some vegans hate some
> > > > people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> That you
> > > > > >> >> can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you
> > > > > >> >> too...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery.
> > > > > >> > Raising
> > > > > >> > animals
> > > > > >> > for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
> > > > > >> ==============================
> > > > > >> LOL I think that that is what I have been saying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is the part of what you have been saying that I can agree
> > > > > > with.
> > > > > > The idea that it is racist to make such analogies is absurd.
> > > > > ==================
> > > > > No, it is not previsly because they see animals and people as
> > > > > interchangable.
> > > >
> > > > By the same token one would expect them to see different races
> > > > of people as interchangable, which is of course the very antithesis
> > > > of racism.
> > > >
> > > > > >> You should
> > > > > >> tell that to the vegan LOONS. They comapre animals to slaves
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> death camps all the time making just such claims...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> > > > > >> >> >> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> > > > > >> >> >> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is
> > > > > >> >> >> showing.
> > > > > >> >> >> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to
> > > > > >> >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> >> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> <snip>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >