Anon wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>> Anon wrote:
>>>> From your hyper-defensive reaction to my post, I would have to guess
>>>> you're vegan. So you "practice" a marginal extremist politic which
>>>> hypocritically judges people by what they eat, not by what they do,
>>>> without any consideration for what your consumption actually does. In
>>>> short, you attribute virtue to yourself for not eating meat even
>>>> though your diet and lifestyle cause many animals to die. This makes
>>>> you a hypocrite.
>>>
>>> I felt that I was being attacked
>>
>> I responded, iirc, to one of Dave's posts in which he alluded to
>> veganism in the context of spirituality.
>>
>>> and responded appropriately.
>>
>> Inappropriately.
>>
>>> Once again I will repeat: You do not know me
>>
>> So the **** what. I'll repeat, too: I didn't know Idi Amin, Ted Bundy,
>> Jeff Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy, but I know enough about them to know
>> they were bad people because of what they did and how they treated their
>> fellow man.
>>
>>> and you do not know what I practice. I am not vegan. I eat a
>>> lacto-vegetarian diet which is the diet
>>
>> Is the diet, what?
>>
>>>> Your hypocrisy is exacerbated the moment you distinguish it as a
>>>> virtue by comparing yourself to others, particularly with regard to
>>>> spirituality. Vegans are charlatans, and that especially seems to be
>>>> the case when "veganism" is trumped as a sign of one's spirituality:
>>>> the Eastern religions adopted by Western vegans tend to allow for
>>>> consumption of meat.
>>>
>>> Please show me where I indicated that I was more virtuous than someone
>>> else because of my diet.. or for any reason. If you can show me that
>>> I've done that then I will apologize.
>>
>> In a post to which I just replied, you suggested that your diet pleases
>> God because you abstain from meat. Explain why God is happy with your
>> self-imposed rules instead of the one you admitted he gave us -- that we
>> can eat whatever he gives us.
>>
>>> In reagrds to Eastern religions allowing for consumption of meat..
>>> you are assuming
>>
>> **** yourself. When it comes to religion, I don't need someone who
>> resorts to abstinence of anything -- alcohol, food (including meat),
>> sex, gambling, ANY THING -- preaching to me. No religious scripture
>> commands or commends abstinence of anything. Abstinence is the action of
>> zealots and ascetics -- which are condemned by the very scriptures the
>> zealots use to justify their abstinence.
>>
>>> that religion is a static, rigid entity
>>
>> I never suggested as much. What I stated was that ignorant Western ****s
>> will shun their own traditions and embrace something foreign because
>> it's novel and because they are ignorant. Then they'll prattle about
>> their former traditions and claim the masses misunderstand them because
>> they don't understand "original" contexts or cultures. Meanwhile, they
>> have no ****ing clue that their neo-Buddhism or sham-Hinduism allow the
>> very things they thought were forbidden and thereby drew them to embrace
>> it. What a bunch of tools.
>>
>>> that allows or forbids certain behaviors. This is simply not the
>>> case. There are factions within each religious movement that practice
>>> different things, condsider certain texts more important, etc.
>>> Religion cannot allow or disallow anything. I was never talking about
>>> religion anyway (in the sense that most people understand it)
>>
>> Of course not! See my previous paragraph.
>>
>>>> Buddha ate meat; there are no prohibitions against meat consumption
>>>> in Buddhism, nor is there a sliding scale of virtue in Buddhism based
>>>> upon diet -- quite the opposite. Meat is also allowed in Hinduism,
>>>> Islam, and Judaism; there are adherents of each of those religions
>>>> who will ascribe abstinence of meat as a virtue, but it's not
>>>> universally held in those religions. Jesus said that it isn't what
>>>> goes into one's mouth that makes him or her holy, and St Paul wrote
>>>> that people shouldn't judge one another according to whether or not
>>>> they eat meat.
>>>
>>> I am well aware of the various practices amoung traditions. Once
>>> again, I am not talking about religion. Anyone can claim to be
>>> anything and do anything. That does not make it spiritual and that
>>> does not make it true. It would be a waste of time to get into the
>>> various reasons why certain "Hindu" (although this term is EXTREMELY
>>> problematic) do not eat meat or do eat meat or believe in God or are
>>> atheistic or wear certian clothes or wear no clothes at all. This
>>> would be absurd.
>>>
>>> Also, different traditions will say different things. Some will say
>>> that the Buddha ate meat because they eat meat. Others will say that
>>> he did not becuase they do not. This kind of discussion is pointless.
>>> Neither one of us knows for sure if the Buddha ate meat or not. Period.
>>
>> Buddhist scripture says he did. Buddhist scholars admit he did, and that
>> he allowed the monks to eat it. You're the one who seems unclear on the
>> issue.
>>
>>>> Ultimately, though, veganism is misanthropic. Vegans oppose the world
>>>> around them and feebly try to isolate themselves from it. It's an
>>>> attempt -- a feeble one given that, when counting deaths of animals,
>>>> veganism is shown to be an empty gesture -- by immature Western
>>>> urbanites to cope with failure in other, significant areas of their
>>>> lives. They're openly hostile and antagonistic towards their
>>>> surrounding cultures. Veganism has less to do with animals and
>>>> compassion than rejecting the values of one's culture. That gets us
>>>> right back to what I've already written, that veganism then becomes
>>>> the shoddy, false standard by which morally feeble people like you
>>>> judge yourself and others.
>>>
>>> It must be nice to be able to place entire groups of people into a
>>> simple ideological box.
>>
>> Veganism is a simple ideological box. There is no diversity among
>> vegans; it is a monolithic pseudo-philosophy based on animal rights.
>>
>>> I cannot help but remember
>>
>> yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
>>
>>> that we are all individuals with individual choices based on
>>> individual experiences.
>>
>> Then show me the diverse political and philosophical opinions among
>> vegans -- but spare me the mindless hair-splitting sophistry between
>> "scholars" like Regan and Singer.
>>
>>>> Finally, you presume that veganism is about diet. That's wrong.
>>>> Veganism is political and pseudo-philosophical. It has nothing to do
>>>> with what people eat than their phony gestures to the sham ideal that
>>>> "if I don't eat animals, no animals die." And that matter has been
>>>> dealt with exhaustively in AFV.
>>>
>>> I am not vegan. I realize that you say that it's political and
>>> pseudo-philosophical, but that tells me absolutely nothing.
>>
>> Your stupidity is your own problem, jackass. Deal with it on your own
>> time.
>
> Tell me,

I just did, and you, true to form, decided to tuck your tail and run away.
You think you're enlightened and spiritual, but you've only betrayed
yourself as the kind of immature weakling I suggested you were.