usual suspect > wrote in message news:<f3djb.34717

> I'm not complaining. I've only pointed out that veg-ns make no
> difference in the quality of animal lives despite their posturing.

And I am saying that stopping animal-rights organizations doing
whatever
THEY do will have absolutely NO positive impact for humans and THEIR
lives, despite the posturing of supposedly pro-human-rights groups.

> Listen, asshole, I don't eat animals. At all. Nor do I consume dairy or
> eggs. If your intention is to improve the lives of animals, you will
> consume products that are consistent with such quality. Avoiding all
> animal products, for the reasons you state, results in the status quo.

Right. So if X people have 0 impact, then X*Y people will have
0*Y=0 impact. So then YOU are saying that if we ALL avoided animal
products,
the world would be EXACTLY the same as it is now.

SO WHAT THE **** ARE YOU ANTI-ANIMAL RIGHTS ASSHOLES COMPLAINING
ABOUT?!
Your world to you will be the same if PeTA were to achieve ALL its
goals.

> You're not part of the demand, so there's no reason to supply it. You're
> the one who should stop complaining about the treatment of farm animals.
> Why should a rancher cater to the demands of someone who's withdrawn
> from the market?

So you are saying that if I BUY animal products, then I can help
reduce
the number of animals killed or confined?

Hold this thought -- because I am going to shove it down your throat
to answer your next question...

> Do you wear leather? Do you wear fur? For or against rodeos, circuses,
> animal testing?

Listen, shit-for-brains. A person can be anti-meat and pro-leather,
pro-fur,
pro-rodeo and pro-gun -- what's the contradiction? A person can be
anti-meat
with absolutely NO concern for animals, and it does not contradict
wearing
leather.

No -- I do not wear leather, fur, go to rodeos, test on animals.
But, remember what YOU said above -- you would say that I would be
PERFECTLY consistent with animal rights and helping animals if I
DID buy leather, fur, rodeos, etc. because of some economic idealized
fantasy-theory you invented that says that I can help animals by
buying these products.

Combined with what you have said befo YOU claim that one is
CONSISTENT with animal-welfare EITHER WAY whether one eats or does not
eat meat, wear leather, fur, go to rodeos, etc.

SO THEN YOU CANNOT CALL ANYONE INCONSISTENT WITH ANIMAL-WELFARE
WHETHER OR NOT THEY DO SOME OR ALL OR NONE OF THESE THINGS!

THAT MEANS YOU ARE CALLING NOBODY INCONSISTENT!!

THEN THAT MEANS YOU ARE A LYING HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SCUM FOR
DELIBERATELY TARGETING AND LIBELLING THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO CALL
THEMSELVES ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS -- WHETHER THEY DO NONE OR SOME
OR ALL OF THESE THINGS!!

This means YOUR IDEAS ARE WORTHLESS, BECAUSE YOU MAKE NO MEANINGFUL
DISTINCTIONS (discrete modelling) OR DEGREES OF TORTURE (continuous
modelling- utilitarian approach, the one *I* favor)!!


> What pro-meat religion?

Why don't you spend your breathe telling ****shit Rick Etter to stop
calling vegetarianism a "religion"?

>How about calling me pro-choice: I believe
> people should be free to eat whatever they want as long as it's not
> stolen. You're the anti-choice fanatic, seeking to both deny others
> freedom and force your will upon them.

You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack
of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany.
Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for
most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire!

No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient
animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence
because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice"
for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their
whole lives.

> > vegans happen to take into account
> > the consequences of ALL their buying habits.
>
> Which is why it is about much more than eating, asshole.

That's too bad, asshole. And, you did not deny what I said:
thus it proves you are a lying piece of
shit for suggesting only NON-vegans take into account the consequences
of ALL their buying habits.

> I beg to differ, particularly as I'recently returned from a three-week
> vacation in what's considered a third-world nation. I've seen a lot more
> of the world -- the real one -- than you ever will.

Obviously you have a lot of time and free money on your hands to take
a vacation. And it is STILL completely irrelevant to this issue --
because it does not mean you have the brains or rationality to draw
any proper interpretations or make PROPER generalizations from
your observations or determine cause and effect in a logically
consistent manner. It still does not disprove what I have said here,
or elsewhere,
or the animal rights activists who have had many of their OWN
experiences
in the real world -- including third world countries.

It really IS pathetic how you bring up your third-world exploits.
Guess what -- I was in the Soviet Union for 7 weeks in the summer of
1985.
And it made me even MORE of an animal rights activist!
(More so because of the greed and selfishness and stupidity,
regrettably,
of the Americans on our tour who gave America a bad name than of any
of the Russians.)

> PETA are not a charitable organization.
> They are a group of political activists.

No contradiction there. The law may be the best way to help animals.
No giving money to preserving some species of wild bird is going to
help end rodeos. And all charitable organizations are political
organization. Medical charities have lobbyists at Congress constantly
pressuring the government to
allocate more tax dollars to cure their particular disease.

> Unlike you, I'm reserved when it comes to throwing out the charge of
> religion.

No you're not. You are just like Rick Etter.

> Go ahead and cede the point that your political point of view is shared
> by other vegans. You cannot partake in veganISM without being a leftist.

You are a REAL **** the way you talk like you are god or a REAL
scientist
with your ABSOLUTE socialogical categorizations!

Get a REAL degree if you want to talk this way.
There are plenty of conservative vegans. Hell -- YOU are one of them!
You have repeatedly say you do not eat meat, yet you have a VERY
anti-capitalist anti-choice view on pornography which I delve into
below.

> Your ancestors no doubt considered such work a real job.

I don't give a shit what you or anyone else calls a "real" job.

> Your opposition to legitimate and wanted businesses above shows that
> you're the one lying and full of bullshit.

Not wanted by the animals.
Not wanted by those TRULY concerned with animal welfare.

You mean violent, deceptive, lying and very often blatantly illegal
businesses which violate the law in their practices.

> AR is anti-capitalist to its core.

Yeah -- you can't rationally
justify specific instances of animal slaughter, so instead
you do this name-calling and gross generalization of groups of
people just because you don't like the charitable work they do.

>The great irony is that many vegan shoppers purchase from
> entrepeneurs -- many of whom do not share the same zeal, or even same
> sense of aesthetics (diet, etc), but only want to make a buck by niche
> marketing. I love free markets.

Thereby proving you lie when you say
"AR is anti-capitalist to its core".
Anti-animal rights is VIOLENTLY anti-capitalist, threatening
Congressmen if they don't get their gigantic corporate welfare
handouts. And there is nothing pro-capitalist or pro-libertarian
about pig farmers polluting their neigbors' property.

> I'm for decriminalization of marijuana,

Great. Your drug views closely match mine. I have never smoked
tobacco,
marijuana or any illegal drugs in my life. And I do not drink alcohol.

> Abusing one's body with drugs is an escape from reality --
> and you accuse me of being out of touch with the real world.

WAIT A minute! Now -- YOU are allowed to make distinctions between
using different kinds of drugs: marijuana vs. cocaine, for instance,
without being called a hypocrite.

And you make FURTHER distinctions between freedom of choice of
porn, drugs, and eating meat -- based upon what YOU see as their
effects.
(Of course, with the meat issue, you see ONLY the effects on YOU, not
the animals.)

SO I CAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ANIMALS!!

I can say: kill the bugs to build my house because my pain of being
homeless is more than the pain to bugs. Plus bug "initiate force"
against me by attacking me.
And I can consistently say (and I should not be called a hypocrite for
this): put people in prison for eating meat
because they pain to them of being in prison is less than that of
eating 400 chickens, 50 pigs, 20 cows in a lifetime.

This is rational utilitarian thinking.
Yet, when it comes ONLY TO ANIMAL ISSUES you would call me and other
animal rights activists "hypocrites" for making distinctions which YOU
make all
the time in non-animal issues based upon the effect on you or human
society.

And who the **** are YOU --- someone who deliberately avoids
taking in account what animals go through in factory farms
whenever you buy your food --
to judge drug users of escaping reality?

What the hell happened to your free-choice, free-market,
pro-capitalist
philosophy??

> You may like to jack off to your porn, but the women who are shown are
> often not (or almost always under-) compensated,

For your information (not that I need to justify anything I say or do
to YOU): I do not like looking at people having sex. Period. I do not
like
looking at what is formally called porn. I happen to like looking
at certain kinds of very mild, non-violent sexy videos, what one might
call "fetish".

>often abused, and in many cases very emotionally unstable.

A gross generalization. I am sure it happens often. But they are a
minority. Nobody is FORCING most porn actresses to star in porn!
And when they are forced to, the fault is not porn! It is called
"slavery", which is a crime!
More importantly nobody is FORCING anybody to read porn!
And nobody is forcing anybody in relationships to lie to their
partners
about looking at porn!

WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL YOUR FREE-MARKET PRO-CAPITALIST PRO-CHOICE
RHETORIC WHICH YOU KEEP SPOUTING? Answer: you are pro-choice
free-market pro-capitalist only
if it fits your agenda, your ideology, or goes along already with
what ever laws some anti-porn or pro-meat activists shoved down
our throats.

> Again, I don't eat meat. You're not making a rational case in any event.
> Non-sequitur. Did you smoke some of your dope as you wrote this?

I will just come right out and say this: I have a PhD in mathematics.
A HARD subject. All the experiences and injustices you may have seen
or think exist and all the great things that you have done in life
don't amount to SHIT next to FIVE minutes of MY hard thinking.

> What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even
> "murdered illegally"?

> Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies and
> industry groups.

So, I can promote vegetarianism for animal rights in public schools
the way meat industry promotes THEIR point of view??

> Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost all
> the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month?

"Terror" acts -- that's a LAUGH! What "terror" acts? What acts of
"violence"??

> What children eat should be between their parents and the schools, not
> activist organizations.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!! YOU SAID AR ACTIVISTS HAVE THE SAME MEDIA ACCESS
AS PRO-MEAT GROUPS!! AND YOU DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT FIVE SENTENCES
BACK!!

> Advertisements are not forced, they're paid for with cash. Maybe you did
> not know that.

And what AR groups say in public or private school is THEIR business,
THEY paid with it with THEIR money and time, and THEY were INVITED
in! AR groups never "forced" their way in!!

> Whoa, what is illegal about stopping someone from doing something on my
> property? Do PETA and other AR groups have a legal right to be on
> private property?

Yes -- BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID THAT WE HAD PERMISSION TO BE ON THEIR
PROPERTY WHEN YOU SAID WE MAY VISIT MEAT-PACKING PLANTS ANY TIME!!

> I've never said inhumane conditions do not exist, but that they're rare
> and isolated.

YOU ARE SO FULL OF ****ING SHIT! AND SO ARE INCREDIBLY RARE OF
ANY "ILLEGAL" THINGS PETA OR AR GROUPS HAVE EVER DONE!!

>If PETA or anyone else is aware of an atrocity, it should
> be reported to law enforcement. PETA are not policemen.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE LAWS IN PLACE TO PROTECT ANIMALS IF
ANIMAL-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS HAD NOT DRAGGED THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF YOU
AND THE POLICE!!!

> Many farmers and ranchers allow media access to their property. Of
> course, the media often *ask* permission. Activists are not journalists,

Journalists do not have any special permission to be on private
property
either! And, if you think they do, then PeTA News also has that
right.

Either way, if slaughterhouses are committing illegal acts and the
police
do nothing about it, who the HELL ELSE is going to uncover the truth
and drag the

> and they have no interest in truth -- especially when it's at odds with
> their agenda. Yes, activists have agendas.
>
> If I ran a farm, I wouldn't allow access to my operation to someone
> whose mission in life was to shut me down. **** that. If someone wanted
> to see what we do and how we treat our animals, fine. I'd show them
> everything they wanted to see.

And YOU have an agenda to KILL and EAT animals. Even in some instances
where it might be right, YOU STILL HAVE AN AGENDA!!

So why the **** should pornographers let YOU or anyone else onto their
property if YOU want to shut THEM down???

> It's not a wild accusation, asshole. Why are you so intent in closing
> down farms and ranches and denying people the food they want to eat?

Notice: you said "want" to eat, not "need".
Because assholes like you want to close down pornographers and deny
people the porn they want to see.
Because assholes like you want to deny animals which YOU forced into
existence the right to choose to be free and stay alive.

> Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you -- the
> minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the

So ****ing what. I will do what the **** I want to inferior subhumans
like yourself. Don't you ****ing tell me what to do.

The animals are the VAST majority here. And the MAJORITY of humans
(in the US) believes in the right to free association, which means the
right to form whatever groups they want, and the MAJORITY of humans
in the world, I might generalize, believes that any one or any group
deserves the benefits of their labor and activism, the freedoms for
which they fight, and to live in a world created b

> How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against
> humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were subhuman
> led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman.

TOO BAD! You do not own the words! Don't you tell me what words
I may or may not use! Don't pretend that you are "offended".
YOU are the Nazi because YOU
would have murdered Jews because YOU always favor the majority and the
Jews were in the minority.

> Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context, jellyhead.
> You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but
> advocate it for others.

Which species am I complaining about being "fixed"?
I have advocated fixing most species -- humans, dogs, cats, etc.

> Cattle are homeless, too, idiot.

What? Is this a follow-up of your earlier piece of insanity that
no animals are kept in crates?

> > In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate
> > a bull to prevent future cows from being born.
>
> No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for fund-raising.

Wait a minute: how can PeTA, or any group, go into the opposing
group's
camp and "gather propaganda"? Propaganda is something one
manufactures
in one's own magazine or tv show. One can gather information -- i.e.
the truth -- on the opposing side. Now, perhaps there is nothing of
importance in that truth, but generating lies and propaganda is a
separate
independent activity.

In fact, if PeTA just generated lies and propaganda,
then why would they need to investigate criminal activities of animal
abuse, taking undercover video, spending THEIR time and energy?

By the way -- PeTA itself does not do undercover police operations
and surveillance videotaping -- perfectly consistent with the way
you feel things should be. No animal rights group has the money to do
that!
PeTA is simply a repository
of videotapes or testimony often GIVEN to them
by ex-employees of animal testing facilities or meat-packing plants
who are fired for whistleblowing.

> It seems to work for them, but they'd be better off with real jobs.

> >>Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and
> >>I've slaughtered more than my share of steers.

So then why do YOU not eat meat? For your health?

> I've been vegetarian longer than you. So what?

I doubt that now, even though you have said it many times.
I now believe that you are redefining the word "vegetarian".

> You should do what's best for yourself, not for posturing in the name of
> novel and faddist political movements.

Typing all this is best for me.

> You've never persuaded anyone to go vegetarian. You forced it upon your
> family, just as you seek to force the entire world to follow your
> conscience.

You are a REAL ass. And child pornographers believe you are forcing
the
world to follow YOUR conscience.

And my family was vegetarian before me. And nobody forced it on me.

> It worked for Stalin, didn't it.

No. Stalin just stole all the food for himself and the army.
China and North Korea do that, too. It seems to be a common trait of
non-vegetarian dictators and regimes.

> Yes, where land is too costly for operations, or further north when the
> fields go dormant. Nobody denies that.

Ok. Then may I ask: how much of land which is used to grow
grass, wheat, whatever to feed cattle -- what % of that land can be
grown to soybeans, whatever, to feed people directly (soymilk, say)?

If you wish to object to the claims that humans could eat off the land
more efficiently at a lower level than by eating higher on the food
chain,
then why not start by answering THIS question?
And we can FORGET and FORGIVE everything else in this thread!
Forget all this crap about religion and who has a "real" job.
(Basically, this leads to the noble pursuit of using all past
knowledge
and technology -- even all of that which was gained by war and torture
and lots of humans and animals killed -- to make sure it doesn't
happen
again.)

> Ask a farmer/rancher and see if he will.

I actually remember that I DID do this once -- in high school.
I was doing a report on ergot. I visited a farmer who grew rye.

> Ho hum. I have family who are in plant science research. You don't know
> anything about the toll on ranches and farms. You only know propaganda.

If you continue to dismiss the MAJORITY of the toll on animals,
then how can you expect anyone not to dismiss the toll on ranches
and farms? Let us calculate ALL the tolls -- in proportion to the
reality of their magnitudes! Keep in mind, though, as a
pro-capitalist:
there are NO economic tolls to you, because, according to
your notion of capitalism, you can always find another job with no
effort.


> > Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to.
>
> According to whom, scumbag?

> No. Farmers and ranchers create products that consumers demand.
> Activists create NOTHING except fear through disinformation.

SOMEBODY gives activists money. That is why I call people who
work for animals what they SHOULD be called: animal welfare/rights
WORKERS. I just got a letter from PeTA saying some big donor wants
to give matching funds.

I am not as obsessed about definitions of words like "vegetarian"
or "human rights activist" or "soldier" as you are. Those words are
only means to an end. I care about TOTAL cause and effect,
cost versus benefit to EACH individual, and justice.

I have always wondered what is wrong with calling a Navy or Army
or Marine soldier a "human rights activist", since they clearly
fight for SOME person's human right not to be murdered or unjustly
imprisoned or impoverished.

> You sure are a sensitive and caring person, aren't you.

Far more than you. You refuse to let professionals choose whom they
wish to do business with or help. One of the heads of an animal
rights
group in New Jersey got fed up with being a nurse because she saw
so many heart attacks from a self-inflicted diet of excessive fatty
meats.
I am not even claiming to agree with EVERY specific instance of her
interpretations of the negative health effects of a high-fat diet.
But it was clear that she would have helped other animal welfare
workers
better if she had been allowed the CHOICE of staying on as a nurse and
helping only those patients who truly deserved it.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
> you are full of vegan baloney!
>
> first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
> for meat.
=======================
And increases the demand for veggies that can cause even more animals to
die.
Why is it that only the big moo-eyed cows count toward all this vegan
'saving'?



>
> second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life.
======================
Which is not being followed by *ANY* so-called vegan here on usenet.


many
> vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
> organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
> that directly affect the welfare of animals.
================
You do realize don't you that PeTA(the 'e' is lower case in their logo for a
reason) kills more
animals than it saves once they get their bloody hands on them don't you?


>
> now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
> industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
> true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
> lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
> body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
> know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting.
=====================
It's killed in a far more humane fashion than the animals that die to
provide you with your cheap, conveninet veggies, hypocrite.
Have you seen what poisons do to an animals gut over the course of a few
days, while they die a slow painful death?



I know,
> I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
> often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
> dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
> full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
> outside in years.
>
> your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> crop that kills more animals than meat?
====================
Yes, exactly. Look it up, killer. Plowing, spraying, harvesting, all can
cause death and suffering to animals.
Some crops even more so than others. Plus, your crops provide abundant
cover and easy food, allowing
the populations of many animals to explode over the summer. Then what
happens once these numbers are at their peak?
You take away all the food and cover, leaving the animals to suffer from
starvation and predation. Face it, crop production
is a killing proposition. And, that doesn't even include all the
petro-chemical input for the production, processing, and transportation of
your crops.


>
> you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
==================
I suggest you get your's lined up first before you look even more stupid
than you already do.


>
> It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
> your cruel habit.
=================
No need. We accept that death occurs. Now, why do you try to justify all
the death
and suffering you cause?


Virtually all your statements are completely false.
=====================
Everyone of yours is....


> If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts.
> But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking
> about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so
> there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one
> before.
==================
ROTFLMAO I suggest you worry about the mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and
amphibians tha die for no more reason
than your selfish conveninece.


>
> Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping
> you. Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong,
> though. Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely
> untrue.
==================
It's yours that is completly untrue and full of ignorance. And, vegans are
always trying to tell us how to eat.



>
> Gary
>
> wrote:
> >
> > It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and
ethically
> > superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
> > Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
> > meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that. The following are
> > lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want
> > to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so.
> >
> > Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
> > 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> > killed so we can eat them.
> >
> > Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
> > 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> > killed so we can eat them.
> > 2. Some of the animals raised for food have decent lives.
> > 3. Veg*nism does nothing to provide decent lives for farm animals.
> > 4. Veg*nism does nothing to help or provide more life for any animals.
> > 5. People can contribute to decent lives for farm animals, but they
> > can't do it by being veg*n.
> > 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
> > else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings,
electricity,
> > things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
> > 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
> > veggies.
> > 8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
> > veggies.

They're not listening to you. Don't worry aobut it - it just means more meat for us.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
> Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
> meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

wrote:
> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
> Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
> meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that. The following are
> lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want
> to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so.
>
> Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
> 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> killed so we can eat them.
Wow, like some people might have told you already, that really makes no
sense. Life? They could have been alive even if noone was to torture
them (was that really a surprise?).

If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>


> 3. Veg*nism does nothing to provide decent lives for farm animals.
Well the point is, they wouldn't need to be farmed in the first place if
noones eating them

> 4. Veg*nism does nothing to help or provide more life for any animals.
Well, for starters, by *not* eating them, they are more free to live
their own live, whether that be to frolick in the meadows, forests or
natural habitats, or to just have the right to do what they want,
without being captive, tortured, and eventually, eaten.


> 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
> else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
> things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
Huh? Wood is an animal by product ? Wow, that's something that's never
taught in science! Or in fact, anywhere! Have you had your head checked
recently?

> 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
> veggies.
Ok, what died for a veggie? This makes no sense, unless you are
employing very strange and dangerous farming methods.

> 8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
> veggies.

Ah, lets give up on this guy. He doesn't seem to get the difference
between meat and vegetables, maybe in his world some mutant vege will
eat him up. :S

SykonC wrote:
> > 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> > killed so we can eat them.
> Wow, like some people might have told you already, that really makes no
> sense. Life? They could have been alive even if noone was to torture
> them (was that really a surprise?).
> If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
> kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
> maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.


Glancing thru this and started thinking, always dangerous.

Should we apply the same standards to people? Look at all of the people
being kept alive just to provide votes for politicians, at public
expense.
Maybe we should just eliminate various "welfare" projects and allow
people to live free of restrictions. Can you imagine living in a
housing project? Or, the destruction of the human spirit that comes from
begging the government for assistance?

Of course, there are some that are so crippled by long-term assistance
that they are unable to survive on their own, so the compassionate thing
to do would be to allow them the dignity of a peaceful termination of
life.

Maybe extend that privilege to those that commit crimes also, can you
imagine the torture of living with the knowledge that you intentionally
killed someone, or raped a child. Again the gift of a quick termination
of existence would be the merciful thing to do.

I am sure that others could extend this list.

"Bob Yates" > wrote in message
...
> SykonC wrote:
> > > 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> > > killed so we can eat them.
> > Wow, like some people might have told you already, that really makes no
> > sense. Life? They could have been alive even if noone was to torture
> > them (was that really a surprise?).
> > If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
> > kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
> > maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>
>
> Glancing thru this and started thinking, always dangerous.
>
> Should we apply the same standards to people? Look at all of the people
> being kept alive just to provide votes for politicians, at public
> expense.
> Maybe we should just eliminate various "welfare" projects and allow
> people to live free of restrictions. Can you imagine living in a
> housing project? Or, the destruction of the human spirit that comes from
> begging the government for assistance?
>
> Of course, there are some that are so crippled by long-term assistance
> that they are unable to survive on their own, so the compassionate thing
> to do would be to allow them the dignity of a peaceful termination of
> life.
>
> Maybe extend that privilege to those that commit crimes also, can you
> imagine the torture of living with the knowledge that you intentionally
> killed someone, or raped a child. Again the gift of a quick termination
> of existence would be the merciful thing to do.
>
> I am sure that others could extend this list.

I do hope you're speaking in hyperbole.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
> I do hope you're speaking in hyperbole.
>
> -Rubystars

Lack of sleep, too much logic, following argument to logical conclusion?

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:35:49 +1300, SykonC > wrote:

wrote:
>> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
>> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
>> Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
>> meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that. The following are
>> lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want
>> to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so.
>>
>> Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>> 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
>> killed so we can eat them.
>Wow, like some people might have told you already, that really makes no
>sense. Life? They could have been alive even if noone was to torture
>them (was that really a surprise?).
>
>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.

Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely habitable
conditions?

>
>
>> 3. Veg*nism does nothing to provide decent lives for farm animals.
>Well the point is, they wouldn't need to be farmed in the first place if
>noones eating them
>
>> 4. Veg*nism does nothing to help or provide more life for any animals.
>Well, for starters, by *not* eating them, they are more free to live
>their own live, whether that be to frolick in the meadows, forests or
>natural habitats, or to just have the right to do what they want,
>without being captive, tortured, and eventually, eaten.

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, like those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begin their particular lives. Those particular animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on that
industry, and will only experience life if humans continue to
consume them. ·

>> 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
>> else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
>> things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
>Huh? Wood is an animal by product ?

What makes you huh about an idea like that? I didn't suggest it is btw.

>Wow, that's something that's never
>taught in science! Or in fact, anywhere!

Do you think anywhere might teach students that some plants are
nourished by animal bypoducts?

>Have you had your head checked
>recently?
>
>> 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
>> veggies.
>Ok, what died for a veggie?

Animals that lived in the field.

>This makes no sense, unless you are
>employing very strange and dangerous farming methods.

Like plowing....

>> 8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
>> veggies.
>
>Ah, lets give up on this guy. He doesn't seem to get the difference
>between meat and vegetables, maybe in his world some mutant vege will
>eat him up. :S

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:

>>
>>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
> What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
> habitable conditions?
>

Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.

Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.

--
me.kirchhoff

"me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
newsan.2003.11.27.00.09.59.185209.337@0ubliette. org...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>
> >>
> >>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
> >>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
> >>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
> >
> > Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
> > What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
> > habitable conditions?
> >
>
> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>
> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
====================
Now you're just lying... There are many deliberate deaths of animals just
to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies.


>
> See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.
========================
Apparently you don't see anything real. Just the typical vegan delusions.


>
> --
> me.kirchhoff

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:26:00 -0500, rick etter wrote:


> "me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
> newsan.2003.11.27.00.09.59.185209.337@0ubliette. org...
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>> >>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>> >>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>> >
>> > Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
>> > What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
>> > habitable conditions?
>> >
>> >
>> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>>
>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
> ====================
> Now you're just lying... There are many deliberate deaths of animals
> just to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies.

I see that you *don't* get it.

>> See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.
> ========================
> Apparently you don't see anything real. Just the typical vegan
> delusions.

Again, your diet is *based* *based* *based* (just to be absolutely clear)
on the murder of animals. Veganism is *based* *based* *based* on the idea
that we should not kill and eat the flesh of animals because of
convenience, tradition, or historical precedence.

Accusing me of "vegan delusions" just gives evidence that you rely mostly
on ad hominem attacks (a serious fallacy of logical debate) rather than
attempt to comprehend the basic ethical difference at play.

--
me.kirchhoff

me.kirchhoff wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>
>
>>>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>>>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>>>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>>
>> Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
>>What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
>>habitable conditions?
>>
>
>
> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>
> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

No, they do not. They advocate one thing, and only one
thing: do not eat animal parts. That rule, of course,
is not based in ethical principle AT ALL. It's a
stupid, inadequate rule; nothing more.

>
> See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.

What seems to be entirely beyond your grasp is the idea
of ethical principle, as opposed to ****witted
obedience to a stupid, inadequate, PRINCIPLE-FREE rule.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:28:35 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>me.kirchhoff wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>>>>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>>>>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>>>
>>> Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
>>>What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
>>>habitable conditions?
>>
>> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>>
>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
>No, they do not.

Yes, they do. No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
You don't get to redefine veganism, Jonathan.

wrote:

> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.

There is only one "fact" ****wit Harrison (dh_ld) wants
people to "consider", and it is so meaningless it
barely deserves to be called a "fact".

****wit - née David Harrison - irrationally believes
that farm animals' "getting to experience life" is
morally important and good, and that THEREFORE,
"vegans" who believe we ought not eat meat, and who
therefore want farm animals to become extinct, are
doing great evil.

****wit's unimportant little "fact" is that the
"billions of farm animals" only "get to experience
life" because they are purpose-bred. No one else,
anywhere, sees any importance in that. ****wit can't
explain why it ought to be seen as having any importance.

It doesn't.

On 10/11/2003 9:40 AM, wrote:
> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
> superior way,

Ha ha ha ha ha! Sure, ****wit - sure thing. We're going to take
anything that an uneducated, semi-literate self-aggrandizing Southern
Baptist ****wit cracker says about "ethical superiority" seriously.

Not in your wildest dreams, ****wit.