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 in message
newsan.2003.11.27.00.50.35.505760.337@0ubliette. org...
> 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.
==================
No, you don't. You completely ignore your bloody footprints to rant about
what your think others are doing.
I also notice that you did not, and cannot refute what i just said, killer.

>
> >> 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.
========================
Again, that's the 'claim'. That's not the result. The result is that you
kill animals. Possibly even more animals
than if your replaced some of your veggies with some meat. that you have
only the simple rule for simple minds
does not categorically equate to less harm.


>
> 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.
=====================
No, the 'ethics' involved is delusional. It's based on what you think you
diet is doing, not what you've ever
checked if for. Claiming to be 'ethical' by not eating animals, and then
killing even more animals does not
mean that you are ethical.

>
> --
> me.kirchhoff

I am starting to wonder if people in this group might me too hard on
vegans such as me.kirchhoff and others.

After all, just imagine them walking around wearing a veil so that they
don't accidentally inhale an insect, sweeping the path before their self
with an artificial feather wand so as not to step on an insect. Eating
only foods grown in an artificial environment so as not to disturb any
living being that might be in the soil. Them selves living in an
environment sealed off form any possible harmful contact with another
living being.

me.kirchhoff wrote:

> 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@0ubliett e.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.

No, that's a lie lie lie lie lie lie (just to be
absolutely clear).

"veganism" ABSOLUTELY is not based on the idea that we
shouldn't kill animals; it is based on the stupid,
simplistic, inadequate rule that people shouldn't EAT
animal parts, not that animals shouldn't be killed.
How else do you explain, moron, that animals are
slaughtered WHOLESALE in the course of producing,
storing and distributing fruits and vegetables?

"veganism" is just a simple, stupid, inadquate rule -
"don't eat animal parts" - nothing more.