Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
You have no basis for changing the thread title to
anything about buckpassing by an opponent of "ar", fatso. It is "aras", chiefly you, who are passing the buck. You are morally complicit in the animal deaths brought about by the food you eat, right up to your eyebrows. It is only because you are a lifelong swindler and buckpasser and moral shirker that you are frantically, desperately trying to deny moral complicity. You fail. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> > > Derek wrote: > > <snip> > > > False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human > > collateral deaths in agriculture. > > I agree. It is the farmers' choice to use the methods > he does, just as it is a drug-dealer's choice to deal > drugs. Sure, just as it's a thief's choice to steal, he bears full responsibility for his crimes, just as his customers bear full responsiblity for the crime of buying stolen goods. You're the farmers' willing customer. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:40:03 GMT, Bill > wrote:
>You have no basis for changing the thread title to >anything about buckpassing by an opponent of "ar", >fatso. It is "aras", chiefly you, who are passing the >buck. You are morally complicit in the animal deaths >brought about by the food you eat, right up to your >eyebrows. You're an arse jon. We all wait in deep anticipation of the revelation you have for us all, instead you sound more and more like dick eatter everyday, is he one of your sock puppets? The longer you keep babbling, doesn't mean it will ever come true dwarfie. ********************************************** 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ Newsgroup ettiquette 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining they're having no effect. 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know how to avoid them. 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while secretly reading it. 10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're as bent as a roundabout. 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet 12) Die of old age 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you will have a penis the girls can see. --------------------------------------- "If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them" "Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" The Big Yin. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Ipse dixit wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:37:47 GMT, Bill > wrote: > > >>Ipse dixit wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:29:31 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human >>>>>collateral deaths in agriculture. >>>> >>>> I agree. It is the farmers' choice to use the methods >>>> he does, just as it is a drug-dealer's choice to deal >>>> drugs. >>>> >>>> Rat >>> >>> >>>Either are free to drive a cab for a living, Rat. ;-) >> >>Karen Winter > > > Karen Winter = Rat & Swan? Yes. > > >>is free to withdraw from the market for >>commercially grown produce. She CHOOSES to buy from >>animal-killing farmers > > > Aha. "animal-killing farmers" Yes. She knows they kill animals, but she buys from them anyway. That makes her morally complicit, if she believes the killing of the animals is wrong. She is in no position to claim to be behaving "more ethically", when all she does is follow the purely symbolic, morally empty gesture of not eating meat, and bragging about her diet not including meat. > > >>knowing in advance that their >>methods kill animals. > > > And? So? See above, dummy. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Derek" > wrote
> > "Bill" > wrote > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > concrete to start killing them? None. > > The farmer kills them, so he alone is fully responsible > for every last one of them. The "farmer" is the person who owns the land, he seldom does the killing. With larger operations it's usually an employee that does it. I'm a farmer and I only see my land a week a year at most. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Bill" > wrote in message k.net... > Derek wrote: > > Logic insists farmers cause them, > > No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot. > 1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are responsible for their deaths. 2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals therefore 3) they are responsible for their deaths. What could be simpler? |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> > > Bill wrote: > > > Rat & Swan wrote: > > <snip> > > >> Would > >> you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again? > > <snip> > > >> Wouldn't that make me even more of a hypocrite, given my > >> views (from your point of view)? > > > Slightly. > > <snip> > > So -- even by your standards, not buying/eating meat and other > animal products is in accord with my ethical views, and makes me > less of a hypocrite than I would be if I ate meat, bought > leather, etc. You agree it is an ethical advance for ME to > be vegan, and more in accord with my ethical views than for > me not to be vegan. Which is my position. What you claim is > that I do not do as much as I possibly could to act completely > in accord with my ethical views by avoiding all products which > may have an (undetermined, possible)number of collateral deaths > associated with their production. I agree. The question I have is, where do you find the gall to demand that other people come lock-step into accordance with these admitted half-measures of yours? What happened to my freedom to take my own half-measures as I see fit? > So, since we agree on this point, could you stop attacking me > personally, Could you stop your incessant whining? > and give us your reasons why you feel raising and > slaughtering animals for food and other products is not unethical? Because if you just hunted them they'd run out real fast, and if you tried to make stew or a pair of shoes without killing them first they'd raise a stink. [.] |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v
Derek wrote:
> "Bill" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Derek wrote: > > >>>Logic insists farmers cause them, >> >>No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot. >> > > 1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are > responsible for their deaths. > 2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals > therefore > 3) they are responsible for their deaths. > > What could be simpler? That you are complicit in the deaths, and share moral responsibility for them. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote > >> >>Bill wrote: >> >> >>>Rat & Swan wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> Would >>>> you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again? >> >> <snip> >> >>>> Wouldn't that make me even more of a hypocrite, given my >>>> views (from your point of view)? >> >>>Slightly. >> >> <snip> >> >> So -- even by your standards, not buying/eating meat and other >> animal products is in accord with my ethical views, and makes me >> less of a hypocrite than I would be if I ate meat, bought >> leather, etc. You agree it is an ethical advance for ME to >> be vegan, and more in accord with my ethical views than for >> me not to be vegan. Which is my position. What you claim is >> that I do not do as much as I possibly could to act completely >> in accord with my ethical views by avoiding all products which >> may have an (undetermined, possible)number of collateral deaths >> associated with their production. I agree. > > > The question I have is, where do you find the gall to demand that other > people come lock-step into accordance with these admitted half-measures of > yours? What happened to my freedom to take my own half-measures as I see > fit? She claims that you still have that freedom; that she's only trying to "persuade" you to change your ways. She's lying, of course, as "veganism" has been the signal for her ardent statism in all political matters, as I have said all along. > > >> So, since we agree on this point, could you stop attacking me >> personally, > > > Could you stop your incessant whining? She can't. It's part of the overall mental illness. > > >> and give us your reasons why you feel raising and >> slaughtering animals for food and other products is not unethical? > > > Because if you just hunted them they'd run out real fast, and if you tried > to make stew or a pair of shoes without killing them first they'd raise a > stink. > > [.] > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Bill" > wrote
> Dutch wrote: > > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote > >> that I do not do as much as I possibly could to act completely > >> in accord with my ethical views by avoiding all products which > >> may have an (undetermined, possible)number of collateral deaths > >> associated with their production. I agree. > > > > > > The question I have is, where do you find the gall to demand that other > > people come lock-step into accordance with these admitted half-measures of > > yours? What happened to my freedom to take my own half-measures as I see > > fit? > > She claims that you still have that freedom; that she's > only trying to "persuade" you to change your ways. My ways are half-measures, just like hers. [..] |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Ipse dixit wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:53:32 GMT, Bill > wrote: > > >>Ipse dixit wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:37:47 GMT, Bill > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Ipse dixit wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:29:31 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>False. Vegans are not the cause of animal or human >>>>>>>collateral deaths in agriculture. >>>>>> >>>>>>I agree. It is the farmers' choice to use the methods >>>>>>he does, just as it is a drug-dealer's choice to deal >>>>>>drugs. >>>>>> >>>>>>Rat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Either are free to drive a cab for a living, Rat. ;-) >>>> >>>>Karen Winter >>> >>> >>>Karen Winter = Rat & Swan? >> >>Yes. >> >> >>>>is free to withdraw from the market for >>>>commercially grown produce. She CHOOSES to buy from >>>>animal-killing farmers >>> >>> >>>Aha. "animal-killing farmers" >> >>Yes. She knows they kill animals, but she buys from >>them anyway. That makes her morally complicit, if she >>believes the killing of the animals is wrong. >> > > Is there any doubt that killing gratuitously is wrong, Yes, much: 1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that it's wrong. 2. "vegans" *claim* to believe philosophically that it's wrong, but their behavior says otherwise. > and should she > or you or I who buy from careless farmers and slave keepers > be held accountable for their wrong work practices, even though > we all buy from the general marketplace where these goods are > distributed, apparently as perfectly ethical goods? 1. You know what's going on before the goods get to market. 2. You don't have to buy there. Yes, if you believe the collateral death of animals is wrong, you MUST be held morally accountable. You have a choice of two paths to get out of your dilemma: 1. Discard the belief that collateral deaths are wrong. 2. Stop participating in the market for the goods whose production, storage and distribution causes the collateral deaths. Doing #1 is not feasible, if you're going to try to cling to your belief that killing animals to eat them is morally wrong. That leaves #2. Why don't you do it? > > >>She is in no position to claim to be behaving "more >>ethically", > > > Than whom? Meat eaters, dumb ****. > > >>when all she does is follow the purely >>symbolic, morally empty gesture of not eating meat, and >>bragging about her diet not including meat. >> > > You are raising two separate issues and trying to combine them into > one. No, I am not. You are dodging, badly. > >>>>knowing in advance that their >>>>methods kill animals. >>> >>> >>>And? So? >> >>See above, dummy. > > > If Rat & Swan Karen Winter > is buying from animal-killing farmers, what message do you > think she's sending? Hypocrisy. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
> rick etter wrote: [snip] > > >>AIUI Karen's moral code is not ruled by the utilitarian principle, you > >>appear to be invoking. It reads more like a set of rules. > > You are correct my moral code is not primarily utilitarian, > although I use utilitarian calculations in some areas of > decision-making. It is not simply a set of rules, however. OK. > > Thou shalt > >>not > >>eat meat from animals, which were killed by man seems to be part of > >>her > >>moral code. > > Yes, just as "Thou shalt not eat meat from humans killed by man" is > a part of my moral code, and for similar reasons -- it is the > injustice of the killing, not the meat-eating per se which is the > issue. Sure. > If I were stranded in a cabin with another person who died > of natural causes, I would have no ethical objections to > cannibalism in and of itself (there would be no injustice toward > the dead person). Of course, with humans, one has to consider > the remaining relatives, and I would have an aesthetic revulsion > toward eating a human -- but those are other issues. > > Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with > >>pesticides doesn't. > > Not in and of itslf. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies > for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but, > again, that is another issue from AR. Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act? > > ======================= > > That's the simple rule for simple minds that vegans follow. That's the > > hypocrisy. Choosing to abhor only the death and suffering of animals that > > she doesn't have any effect on, > > Er.. has it occurred to you, Rick, that I don't have a direct effect > because I choose to act in such a way as to avoid it? It doesn't > happen by accident. And, certainly, I abhor all unjust death and > all suffering. > > and claiming that that choice 'makes a > > difference'. > > I believe it does, for reasons I have given. > > >>Personally > >>I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which > >>causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not, > > Probably because you don't view animals and agriculture the way I > do. I view animals as sentient beings with the capacity to experience a range of emotions, whose lives are important to them, any in many cases to their friends as well. I see agriculture as a way of growing food to keep us alive with. How do you view animals and agriculture? [snip] > > >>as long as the consequences of the action are known in advance, so > >>enjoy > >>your steaks from grass reared cattle. I'm sure my diet includes worse > >>items. > >>Purely out of curiousity are you opposed to AW or just AR? > > > ================= > > just AR as it is preached on usenet. Besides, animals have no rights. I strongly believe that animals have the right to be treated compassionately. Would you disagree with this? [snip] |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
There IS a difference.
There is NO hypocrisy in condemning those who do MORE cruelty to animals or advance harm to their bodies or society through drug use -- NOT less. This is what makes Rush Limbaugh a TOTAL hypocrite. He condemned pot smokers, even those whose pot smoking caused no damage to themselves and cost insurers and drug rehab units, demanding extremist prison sentences for them, who did less damage to society financially than his coked up fanatic drug habit. He even condemned those who themselves took no illegal drugs, just because they believed in legalizing drugs for others. Thus, he condemned those who are 100% pure, drug-wise. I have not heard of this Karen Winter, but from what you describe, she kills FAR fewer animals, and those she does, more humanely, than ANYone she condemns. More importantly, she is working in the right direction, willing to work with others to find out ways to further reduce killing animals by advancing technology. Obviously you would condemn WWII veterans for being hypocrites because some of them killed innocent civilians accidentally in war while they were trying to fight the Nazis. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Derek" > wrote > > > > "Bill" > wrote > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > concrete to start killing them? None. > > > > The farmer kills them, so he alone is fully responsible > > for every last one of them. > > The "farmer" is the person who owns the land, Non sequitur. > he seldom does the killing. > With larger operations it's usually an employee that does it. Then he is responsible. Whichever way you look at it, the moral agent who causes the deaths, or demands that they be caused is responsible. > I'm a farmer No, you aren't. You're a street sweeper. > and I only see my land a week a year at most. > Get out more. Step outside -- the graphics are amazing. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Bill" > wrote in message .net... > Derek wrote: > > "Bill" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Derek wrote: > > > >>>Logic insists farmers cause them, > >> > >>No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot. > > > > 1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are > > responsible for their deaths. > > 2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals > > therefore > > 3) they are responsible for their deaths. > > > > What could be simpler? > > That you are complicit in the deaths, and share moral > responsibility for them. > Only according to buck-passing miscreants. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Derek" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote > > "Derek" > wrote > > > > > > "Bill" > wrote > > > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > > concrete to start killing them? None. > > > > > > The farmer kills them, so he alone is fully responsible > > > for every last one of them. > > > > The "farmer" is the person who owns the land, > > Non sequitur. How so? > > he seldom does the killing. > > With larger operations it's usually an employee that does it. > > Then he is responsible. I thought you said it was the farmer. "he alone is fully responsible for every last one of them." Now we must look deeper to see who is truly responsible. If I hire a killer have I done anything unethical? I haven't killed anyone. > Whichever way you look at it, > the moral agent who causes the deaths, or demands that > they be caused is responsible. Which is it Derek, the farmer or the farmhand? Could it be that it a number of people are involved? > > > I'm a farmer > > No, you aren't. You're a street sweeper. I'm a farmer, and I don't demand that animals be killed, I just want wheat to grow on my land and I don't want it to cost 10x as much as the wheat is worth. The decision to use herbicides is made by the government, it's a crime to not use them. Your argument is two-dimensional and hopeless. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"piddock" > wrote
> There is NO hypocrisy in condemning those who do MORE cruelty > to animals When did you ever attempt to measure the cruelty you cause to animals? > This is what makes Rush Limbaugh a TOTAL hypocrite. > He condemned pot smokers, even those whose pot smoking caused > no damage to themselves That's another fallacy, pot does tremendous damage to the body and the mind. -snip inane rant- |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonnie Concedes
Bill wrote: > You unethically, as always, ran away from the tough issues. I've discussed the issues, and continue to do so. >> <snip> >>>> But I believe that their deaths are a result of and part of the same >>>> mindset which is legitimized by the raising of livestock for food >>>> and other products. >>> You are colossally wrong. They are the result of your truck with >>> animal-killing farmers. >> So after I die, there will be no more CDs, I assume.... > No, stupid bitch. So then, CDs in general are NOT the result of my personal actions. As I said: they are a result of social attitudes of many people, and cannot be ended by one person's action. > After you die, you won't cause any > more CDs. "vegans" who are living after you're dead > will. Vegans, including myself, don't cause CDs. I've been more than fair, and bent over backward to be honest and accept the limited degree of responsibility I do bear, to disprove your personal attack on my supposed "hypocricy" by agreeing I help to provide a motive for farmers to cause CDs. But the customer does not cause the producer to use any particular methods; he only provides a motive for the producer to provide a product. Also after you die, these newsgroups will have > substantially less self serving bullshit in them. >> CDs are all _personally_ my fault, have no basis in social >> norms at all. My goodness, I had no idea I had such power.... >> <sarcasm> >> Doesn't this contradict your claim my personal actions are merely >> an ineffectual gesture? > No, and you knew it and knew why, too. So -- if my actions have no effect, how can they be a cause of anything? You contradict yourself. On the one hand, I am supposed to be tremendously powerful, causing vast numbers of CDs all by myself. On the other, my not buying meat, leather, and other animal products is supposed to have no effect at all. This is logically impossible. You aren't even > close to funny. Actually, I thought that remark was hilarious.... >>>> I believe the system has to be attacked at >>>> its source -- the philosophical view of the nature of animals' >>>> rights. >>> And your abstinence from meat does this...exactly how? >> It has no effect on the philosophical attitudes of society >> in and of itself -- except for my influence on a few >> specific individuals I know personally. It has had some >> limited effect there, as in my changing the policies of >> one parish toward veal. > So there's no ethics-based reason for it, I didn't say that. > and no > concrete result. I didn't say that either. It has had limited concrete results, it just hasn't changed society-wide practices. > It is purely symbolic, Not purely. > intended to > make you feel good. Certainly. Acting on ethical principle usually makes one feel good. > It is not based on any principle > except hedonism, and clearly not on any ethical principle. You are wrong about that. > Why didn't you admit this years ago? >> I do believe we are making some progress -- limited and glacial, >> but some progress. > > This belief is empirically wrong. The percentage of > vegetarians, let alone "vegans", is steady. The notion > that animals are not ours to use is not gaining ground. I see the evidence differently. >> Things change slowly, but they do change. >> I can't figure out why my being vegan annoys you so much. > The "veganism" per se doesn't annoy me. I don't care > at all what you do and don't consume, and you already > knew that. > It's the rest of the politics, a politics I know in > detail merely from your pompous announcement that > you're "vegan", that annoys me. You get everything > wrong. As a democratic, rights-respecting libertarian, > I don't believe in doing anything to restrict you in > your self indulgent belief in wrong values. What I do > is to get in your face and show you to be self absorbed > and hypocritical liar. Neither one of us has any way > of knowing this, of course, but I'll bet I've had far > more influence on others in revealing the dishonesty of > your position than you have had in converting other > self-marginalized, self-alienated, mentally ill people > like you to "veganism". Believe what you like, Jonnie. >> Would >> you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again? > I don't attack you personally, *chuckle* > except to the extent > that your identity is irrationally tied up in advancing > pernicious doctrines that you have no intention of > following yourself. It's amazing you can't see that > your character is a fundamental part of the debate, > given the topic. When you can't argue the facts, Jonnie, attack your opponents' character. A classic dodge for a poster with no substantial argument. People see through this tactic, you know. You don't fool anyone. > I don't care what you do and don't eat, and you've > always known that. >> Wouldn't that make me even more of a hypocrite, given my >> views (from your point of view)? > Slightly. There are two huge dopes here, "Zakhar" (not > his real name) and C. James Strutz (*ought* not be his > real name, but unfortunately is), who are largely > vegetarian for (the usual mushy) "ethical" reasons, but > who are not "vegans". They are bigger hypocrites than > "vegans", but not as if it matters. So, as I noted, it IS more consistent, more in accord with my ethical views, to be vegan -- you admit it. The alternative would be less consistent -- you admit it. So there is an ethical reason for me to be vegan -- you admit it. You cannot escape, Jonnie. You know why I am vegan, really, and you admit I have a good, ethically-based reason for being vegan. Now, can we move beyond personal attack, since you've conceded my point? Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Derek" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > "Derek" > wrote > > > > "Bill" > wrote > > > > > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > > > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > > > concrete to start killing them? None. > > > > > > > > The farmer kills them, so he alone is fully responsible > > > > for every last one of them. > > > > > > The "farmer" is the person who owns the land, > > > > Non sequitur. > > How so? > A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it. For example: "Since Egyptians did so much excavation to construct the pyramids, they were well versed in paleontology." Or, in this instance; "Since landowners allow crops to be grown on their land, they are farmers of that land and responsible for the collateral deaths accrued by those who work it." > > > he seldom does the killing. With larger operations > > > it's usually an employee that does it. > > > > Then he is responsible. > > I thought you said it was the farmer. > > "he alone is fully responsible for every last one of them." > If the landowner works his land, then he is also the farmer of that land, otherwise he is merely the owner of it without any responsibility for how others farm it. > Now we must look deeper to see who is truly responsible. > > If I hire a killer have I done anything unethical? I haven't killed anyone. > If you hire a killer, then you are responsible for the deaths you hire him to cause. > > Whichever way you look at it, > > the moral agent who causes the deaths, or demands that > > they be caused is responsible. > > Which is it Derek, the farmer or the farmhand? Both, if the landowner hires farmers to kill on his behalf. > Could it be that it a number > of people are involved? > > > > > I'm a farmer > > > > No, you aren't. You're a street sweeper. > > I'm a farmer, No, you aren't a farmer. You are merely a landowner, if your story is to be believed. > and I don't demand that animals be killed Then you aren't responsible for any deaths accrued by those who farm "your" land. > I just want wheat to grow on my land and I don't > want it to cost 10x as much as the wheat is worth. > The decision to use herbicides is made by the > government, it's a crime to not use them. > No. That's a lie. Farmers are not legally forced to use cides of any kind. The decision to use them is always down to the individual who farms the land. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
piddock wrote:
> There IS a difference. None. > > There is NO hypocrisy in condemning those who do MORE cruelty > to animals or advance harm to their bodies or society > through drug use -- NOT less. There is hypocrisy when the critics are not abiding by their absolutist claims. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v
Derek wrote:
> "Bill" > wrote in message .net... > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>"Bill" > wrote in message k.net... >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>>Logic insists farmers cause them, >>>> >>>>No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot. >>> >>>1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are >>> responsible for their deaths. >>>2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals >>>therefore >>>3) they are responsible for their deaths. >>> >>>What could be simpler? >> >>That you are complicit in the deaths, and share moral >>responsibility for them. >> > > Only according to buck-passing miscreants. No. YOU are the buck-passer, and I am pointing it out. You are morally complicit in something you claim to condemn, but you try to shirk responsibility for it. Your responsibility is established, and you can't shirk it, despite an entire life of attempting to shirk. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter conceded years ago; is now senile and doesn't remember
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Bill wrote: > >> You unethically, as always, ran away from the tough issues. > > > I've discussed the issues, and continue to do so. You snipped the tough issues, unethically, as you always do. You do not discuss issues. You flatter yourself. > >>> <snip> > > >>>>> But I believe that their deaths are a result of and part of the same >>>>> mindset which is legitimized by the raising of livestock for food >>>>> and other products. > > >>>> You are colossally wrong. They are the result of your truck with >>>> animal-killing farmers. > > >>> So after I die, there will be no more CDs, I assume.... > > >> No, stupid bitch. > > > So then, CDs in general are NOT the result of my personal actions. They are. > As I said: they are a result of social attitudes of many people, > and cannot be ended by one person's action. Raising meat animals and killing them also is not being ended by your merely symbolic refusal to eat meat. You have no rational explanation for why you don't eat meat. > >> After you die, you won't cause any >> more CDs. "vegans" who are living after you're dead >> will. > > > Vegans, including myself, don't cause CDs. "vegans", including you, do cause CDs. > I've been more than > fair, and bent over backward to be honest That's a sick joke. Fundamentally, you are a liar. Your character IS the issue: the character of moral nags is always at issue. > and accept the > limited degree of responsibility I do bear, You do not. You are as big a shirker as Dreck Nash. > to disprove your > personal attack on my supposed "hypocricy" I attack hypocrites. If you're one, and you are, I expect you would take it personally. > by agreeing I help > to provide a motive for farmers to cause CDs. The same motive meat eaters provide to farmers and slaughterhouses. You cannot explain why you withdraw your incentive in one area and not in another. *I* can explain it: you are an ease-and-pleasure seeking self-flatterer. > But the customer > does not cause the producer to use any particular methods; IRRELEVENT, bitch. He uses methods of which you claim to disapprove, and you KNOW it. > he only > provides a motive for the producer to provide a product. You needn't buy ANY product produced by methods you don't like. > >> Also after you die, these newsgroups will have >> substantially less self serving bullshit in them. > > >>> CDs are all _personally_ my fault, have no basis in social >>> norms at all. My goodness, I had no idea I had such power.... >>> <sarcasm> > > >>> Doesn't this contradict your claim my personal actions are merely >>> an ineffectual gesture? > > >> No, and you knew it and knew why, too. > > > So -- if my actions have no effect, how can they be a cause of > anything? Why do you refrain from eating meat? You answer your own insincere, sophist's question, bitch. > You contradict yourself. No, I don't. YOU contradict your alleged belief in principle. .... > This is logically impossible. You find all logic impossible. > >> You aren't even close to funny. > > > Actually, I thought that remark was hilarious.... As in most else, you are wrong. It was leaden. > >>>>> I believe the system has to be attacked at >>>>> its source -- the philosophical view of the nature of animals' >>>>> rights. > > >>>> And your abstinence from meat does this...exactly how? > > >>> It has no effect on the philosophical attitudes of society >>> in and of itself -- except for my influence on a few >>> specific individuals I know personally. It has had some >>> limited effect there, as in my changing the policies of >>> one parish toward veal. > > >> So there's no ethics-based reason for it, > > > I didn't say that. *I* did. > >> and no concrete result. > > > I didn't say that either. *I* did. I'm right. > It has had limited concrete results, NONE. It merely makes you feel good about yourself. You've done far too much of that in your self-absorbed life. That's why your son was taken from you. > it just hasn't changed society-wide practices. > >> It is purely symbolic, > > > Not purely. Entirely. I should have said that to start; there's nothing pure about anything you do. > >> intended to >> make you feel good. > > > Certainly. QED > Acting on ethical principle usually makes one feel good. It's not supposed to be the motive for doing it. You aren't acting on moral principle, anyway. > >> It is not based on any principle >> except hedonism, and clearly not on any ethical principle. > > > You are wrong about that. I am right about that. > >> Why didn't you admit this years ago? > > >>> I do believe we are making some progress -- limited and glacial, >>> but some progress. > > >> >> This belief is empirically wrong. The percentage of >> vegetarians, let alone "vegans", is steady. The notion >> that animals are not ours to use is not gaining ground. > > > I see the evidence differently. You don't see evidence, period. You are making up your own pseudo-reality, one that is harshly contradicted by reality. > >>> Things change slowly, but they do change. > > >>> I can't figure out why my being vegan annoys you so much. > > >> The "veganism" per se doesn't annoy me. I don't care >> at all what you do and don't consume, and you already >> knew that. Silence is deafening, again. > > >> It's the rest of the politics, a politics I know in >> detail merely from your pompous announcement that >> you're "vegan", that annoys me. You get everything >> wrong. As a democratic, rights-respecting libertarian, >> I don't believe in doing anything to restrict you in >> your self indulgent belief in wrong values. What I do >> is to get in your face and show you to be self absorbed >> and hypocritical liar. Neither one of us has any way >> of knowing this, of course, but I'll bet I've had far >> more influence on others in revealing the dishonesty of >> your position than you have had in converting other >> self-marginalized, self-alienated, mentally ill people >> like you to "veganism". > > > Believe what you like, Jonnie. I believe the truth, particularly the empirically revealed truth of your lockstep, doctrinaire leftist statism. > >>> Would >>> you stop attacking me personally if I began eating meat again? > > >> I don't attack you personally, except to the extent >> that your identity is irrationally tied up in advancing >> pernicious doctrines that you have no intention of >> following yourself. It's amazing you can't see that >> your character is a fundamental part of the debate, >> given the topic. > > > When you can't argue the facts, Jonnie, attack your > opponents' character. Your character is the topic. > A classic dodge for a poster > with no substantial argument. Does not apply. >> I don't care what you do and don't eat, and you've >> always known that. > > >>> Wouldn't that make me even more of a hypocrite, given my >>> views (from your point of view)? > > >> Slightly. There are two huge dopes here, "Zakhar" (not >> his real name) and C. James Strutz (*ought* not be his >> real name, but unfortunately is), who are largely >> vegetarian for (the usual mushy) "ethical" reasons, but >> who are not "vegans". They are bigger hypocrites than >> "vegans", but not as if it matters. > > > So, as I noted, it IS more consistent, Marginally. It is you ****ing AND spitting into the Grand Canyon, while those two are only ****ing. > more in accord with > my ethical views, to be vegan -- you admit it. Your "ethical views" are irrelevent. Ethically consistent behavior is relevent, and you are not doing it. > The alternative would be less consistent -- you admit it. No, I do not, because I don't care about consistency with your deeply inconsistent moral views, and you know it. Why did you lie? We know why: because you are a thoroughly dishonest sophist, who only cares about winning rhetorical points, preferably on the cheap. > So there is an ethical reason for me to be vegan -- you > admit it. No, I don't. You've lied again. > You cannot escape I was never in a situation from which I needed to escape. You are behaving unethically, across the board. You are unethical in your behavior towards animals. Ethics is binary: you either abide by a principle, or you don't, and you don't, because there is no principle there to begin with. You are unethical in your behavior here, because you construct elaborate lies about your opponents' positions. I did not "admit" to any of the points you dishonestly and shoddily put together. You are proving your bad character with every post. You should stop it, now. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Ipse dixit wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:36:30 GMT, Bill > wrote: > > >>Ipse dixit wrote: >> >>>>>>Karen Winter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Karen Winter = Rat & Swan? >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>is free to withdraw from the market for >>>>>>commercially grown produce. She CHOOSES to buy from >>>>>>animal-killing farmers >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Aha. "animal-killing farmers" >>>> >>>>Yes. She knows they kill animals, but she buys from >>>>them anyway. > > > There are two problems with that. No. Your analysis is wrong. > > 1) She has no certain knowledge of the history behind > the goods she buys, unless it is farmed meat. She has knowledge of commercial fruit and vegetable farming methods. The likelihood is that the production, storage and distribution of all the food she buys causes animal death. If you drive a car at 80mph through a school playground at recess, you *may* avoid striking any children, but the likelihood is that you will strike and kill several. > 2) You are assuming she will continue to buy goods which > have been produced in a way she finds unethical. That is a rock-solid assumption. She DOES continue to buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds unethical, and she has no intention of stopping, as her posts have made clear; she's waiting for the unethical production and distribution methods to disappear on their own, with no concrete action from her. > > Her decision to avoid farmed meat on ethical grounds > proves she wouldn't do either 1 or 2. No, it does not prove that at all. There is zero logic to your assertion, because there is zero connection between her self-serving, ego-enhancing decision not to eat meat, and her equally self-serving decision to eat the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can get. > > >>>>That makes her morally complicit, if she >>>>believes the killing of the animals is wrong. >>>> > > Why or how, and by whose rule? For the same reason that the getaway driver for a robbery is fully morally and legally complicit for all of the crimes that occur in the course of a robbery; for the same reason that the buyer of stolen property is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the original crime doesn't happen. They are integral to crime. > > >>>Is there any doubt that killing gratuitously is wrong, >> >>Yes, much: >> >>1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that >>it's wrong. > > > Then if most Muslims don't believe philosophically that > murder and suicide bombing is wrong, do we or the rest of > the Muslim world also believe that is right to commit murder > by carrying bombs into public places, Mr. Ad populum? My position is not an argumentum ad populum; I did not argue that collateral deaths of animals is not wrong because omnivores believe it not to be wrong. Admit that you got it wrong; you did get it wrong. Most Muslims *do* believe that murder and suicide bombing are wrong, so your hypothetical premise is crap, and your whole point disappears. You stink at this. > > >>2. "vegans" *claim* to believe philosophically that it's >> wrong, but their behavior says otherwise. >> > > What vegan behaviour tells you that, Their continued and fully aware trade with farmers who kill animals collaterally. They are in exactly the same moral position as someone knowingly buying stolen property. > and where have > you seen this contradictory behaviour? Right here. > > >>>and should she >>>or you or I who buy from careless farmers and slave keepers >>>be held accountable for their wrong work practices, even though >>>we all buy from the general marketplace where these goods are >>>distributed, apparently as perfectly ethical goods? >> >>1. You know what's going on before the goods get to >>market. > > > No, I do not, Yes, you do. Stop lying. > so please answer the question. I did. You are shirking. You know how the vegetables are produced, and you know that it causes animal death. > I buy goods > from the general marketplace without any prior knowledge That's a lie. You know animals are killed in the production of the food you eat. You can't get away with a probabilistic dodge. Stop driving your car through playgrounds. > of the production methods used in my particular choice of > food or footwear, so how can I be held accountable for > buying the few unethical items that do reach my stores? Because you are lying. You have the requisite knowledge. > Am I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical > means to satisfy your argument? You know what you need to know about food. > > >>2. You don't have to buy there. >> > > > How do I know when I have left or entered that market? > > [snipped abusive ad hominem] There was no ad hominem at all. We'll put it back, to show your lack of ethics. <restore> Yes, if you believe the collateral death of animals is wrong, you MUST be held morally accountable. You have a choice of two paths to get out of your dilemma: 1. Discard the belief that collateral deaths are wrong. 2. Stop participating in the market for the goods whose production, storage and distribution causes the collateral deaths. Doing #1 is not feasible, if you're going to try to cling to your belief that killing animals to eat them is morally wrong. That leaves #2. Why don't you do it? </restore> Answer the question, shirker. Along the way, admit that there is no ad hominem in it, and that you lied, and that you were unethical in cutting it out. Then **** off. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:32:28 GMT, Jonathan Ball was pretending to be
Bill > and wrote this bullshit: >Ipse dixit wrote: > >> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:36:30 GMT, Bill > wrote: >> >> >>>Ipse dixit wrote: >>> > >>>>>>>Karen Winter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Karen Winter = Rat & Swan? >>>>> >>>>>Yes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>is free to withdraw from the market for >>>>>>>commercially grown produce. She CHOOSES to buy from >>>>>>>animal-killing farmers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Aha. "animal-killing farmers" >>>>> >>>>>Yes. She knows they kill animals, but she buys from >>>>>them anyway. >> >> >> There are two problems with that. > >No. Your analysis is wrong. > >> >> 1) She has no certain knowledge of the history behind >> the goods she buys, unless it is farmed meat. > >She has knowledge of commercial fruit and vegetable >farming methods. The likelihood is that the >production, storage and distribution of all the food >she buys causes animal death. The likelihood is nonsense. >If you drive a car at 80mph through a school playground >at recess, you *may* avoid striking any children, but >the likelihood is that you will strike and kill several. Name one farmer who harvests cabbages at 80mph? >> 2) You are assuming she will continue to buy goods which >> have been produced in a way she finds unethical. > >That is a rock-solid assumption. She DOES continue to >buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds >unethical, Name one producer who you have proven to kill animals in production, that she buys from. One! > and she has no intention of stopping, as her >posts have made clear; she's waiting for the unethical >production and distribution methods to disappear on >their own, with no concrete action from her. The fact is no balls, you are making the story up, just like you make your various sock puppets up. <may as well snip here, we know the rest> ********************************************** 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ Newsgroup ettiquette 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining they're having no effect. 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know how to avoid them. 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while secretly reading it. 10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're as bent as a roundabout. 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet 12) Die of old age 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you will have a penis the girls can see. --------------------------------------- "If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them" "Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" The Big Yin. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Derek" > wrote
[..] > > If I hire a killer have I done anything unethical? I haven't killed anyone. > > > If you hire a killer, then you are responsible for > the deaths you hire him to cause. That's also true if you hire that killer to rob a convenience store. You know the farmer is a killer, yet you hire him to rob that convenience store. [..] > > and I don't demand that animals be killed > > Then you aren't responsible for any deaths accrued > by those who farm "your" land. But I know they use 'cides and I hire them anyway. [..] > > I just want wheat to grow on my land and I don't > > want it to cost 10x as much as the wheat is worth. > > The decision to use herbicides is made by the > > government, it's a crime to not use them. > > > No. That's a lie. Farmers are not legally forced to use > cides of any kind. The decision to use them is always > down to the individual who farms the land. That's not true, in Saskatchewan it's mandatory for all farmers to use herbicides (e.g. Roundup) to control wild oats. It can't be done any other way. If you want bread to eat you automatically support the use of Roundup. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Dreck, lifelong moral shirker, wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > >>If I hire a killer have I done anything unethical? I haven't killed anyone. >> > > If you hire a killer, then you are responsible for > the deaths you hire him to cause. If you hire someone to commit a crime, and in the course of committing it he commits another crime, you are responsible for both crimes. > > No. That's a lie. Farmers are not legally forced to use > cides of any kind. But they use them, and you *know* they use them, and you greedily keep right on buying from them. That makes you morally culpable, in part, for any morally blameworthy outcomes due to the use. |
|
|||
|
|||
For The Record
Bill wrote: > That's why your son was taken > from you. For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this. My son is a career officer in the U.S. Army, an engineer. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Correcting The Record
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Bill wrote: > >> That's why your son was taken from you. > > > For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me > by anyone or any agency, public or private. Your son was taken from you, by your father. You were neglecting him, in order to "explore your ******* side". Your son is estranged from you, for good reason. Your life is a sad, sordid tale of self absorption. |
|
|||
|
|||
For The Record
Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
> Bill wrote: > > > That's why your son was taken > > from you. > > For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me > by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this. > > My son is a career officer in the U.S. Army, an engineer. > > > Rat You have my congratulations. May he return safely to you. My brother is soon going to Iraq... again. Doc |
|
|||
|
|||
For the Record
Bill wrote: >>> That's why your son was taken from you. >> For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me >> by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this. > Your son was taken from you, by your father. As I said, this is a lie. He was not. You may have your opinions on my character and my views, and I accept them as opinions. When you state things which are simply lies as matters of fact, I respond -- it is a lie. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
For The Record
drdoody wrote: > Rat & Swan > wrote in message >... <snip> >> My son is a career officer in the U.S. Army, an engineer. > You have my congratulations. May he return safely to you. Thank you. He has not gone to Iraq yet this time around, although he was in Gulf War I. It was his wish to follow in his grandfather's footsteps -- my dad was a career Air Force officer, and my only brother was a Marine, killed in Korea. > My brother is soon going to Iraq... again. May he return safely to you. He will be in my prayers. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticide Use
Purple wrote: > Rat & Swan > wrote in message >... <snip> >> Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with >>>>pesticides doesn't. >>Not in and of itself. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies >>for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but, >>again, that is another issue from AR. > Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will > lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act? Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths -- the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights. When you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong. If there is another option, such as the use of ladybugs to eat harmful insect pests, that would, of course, be preferable to using chemical poisons. Enclosing the vegetables to keep out animals would be another possible option. IMO, the farmer has an obligation to use the least destructive methods to protect his crop that he can, whether against humans, non-human animals, or "weeds" -- not only so as to avoid poisoning humans or animals, but to avoid polluting the environment. Humans becomes CDs too, either directly, or through environmental pollution. That is why I buy locally-grown organic produce whenever possible. <snip> >>>>Personally >>>>I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which >>>>causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not, >> Probably because you don't view animals and agriculture the way I >> do. > I view animals as sentient beings with the capacity to experience > a range of emotions, whose lives are important to them, any in many > cases to their friends as well. I see agriculture as a way of growing > food to keep us alive with. How do you view animals and agriculture? Much the same. But I see a difference between a system which defines animals as things, as objects, as property, and which controls their entire lives from conception to death, often in ways which frustrate most of their natural behaviors and cause them great suffering, and accidental death. The analogy I often use is between slavery and bad labor conditions. That workers died in the Triangle Waist fire, or in mines and mills was indeed tragic. That they still die in sweatshops and chicken processing plants and pesticide-poisoned fields is still tragic. We need to change the methods in those sweatshops, mines, mills, and chicken-processing plants. But, except for the chicken-processing plants, there's no reason to stop producing the product. Slavery, no matter how pleasant, remains inherently immoral. Obviously, it is better for the slave to be well-treated, just as it is better for the chicken to scratch around in a comfortable barnyard than to spend her life in a battery cage. But treating slaves well does not make slavery just. > [snip] > I strongly believe that animals have the right to be treated compassionately. > Would you disagree with this? Not I. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v
"Bill" > wrote in message k.net... > Derek wrote: > > "Bill" > wrote in message .net... > >>Derek wrote: > >>>"Bill" > wrote in message k.net... > >>>>Derek wrote: > >>> > >>>>>Logic insists farmers cause them, > >>>> > >>>>No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot. > >>> > >>>1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are > >>> responsible for their deaths. > >>>2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals > >>>therefore > >>>3) they are responsible for their deaths. > >>> > >>>What could be simpler? > >> > >>That you are complicit in the deaths, and share moral > >>responsibility for them. > > > > Only according to buck-passing miscreants. > > No. YOU are the buck-passer, and I am pointing it out. You'll never convince a jury that the farmer or murderer who kills isn't responsible for the deaths he causes, so why go to all this trouble in passing the buck and trying to convince the World that we are responsible for their actions? [flushed turds from Jon's mouth] |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Derek" > wrote > > > > > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > > > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > > > concrete to start killing them? None. There's the long and the short of it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:32:28 GMT, Bill > wrote: > >Ipse dixit wrote: > >> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:36:30 GMT, Bill > wrote: > >>>Ipse dixit wrote: > >>>>>>>is free to withdraw from the market for > >>>>>>>commercially grown produce. She > >>>>>>>CHOOSES to buy from animal-killing > >>>>>>>farmers > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Aha. "animal-killing farmers" > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes. She knows they kill animals So do we ALL, Bill / Jonathan Ball/ etc. etc. > >> There are two problems with that. > >> > >> 1) She has no certain knowledge of the history behind > >> the goods she buys, unless it is farmed meat. > > > >She has knowledge of commercial fruit and vegetable > >farming methods. The likelihood > > Thank you ;-) > heh heh heh. Well spotted. > >is that the > >production, storage and distribution of all the food > >she buys causes animal death. > > > Then there's only a likelihood of them rather than a certainty, > so any claim from you of her certain knowledge of them is > now seriously in doubt. We both knew that though, dint we? > I've warned you about this character, Ipse, he's as slippery as an eel. > > > >> 2) You are assuming she will continue to buy goods which > >> have been produced in a way she finds unethical. > > > >That is a rock-solid assumption. > > What's a rock solid assumption if not just a plain old guess? ;-) > > >She DOES continue to > >buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds > >unethical, > > So you assume. > > >and she has no intention of stopping, as her > >posts have made clear; she's waiting for the unethical > >production and distribution methods to disappear on > >their own, with no concrete action from her. > > > What concrete action can she or anyone take to stop > them if she isn't already causing them? > >> > >> Her decision to avoid farmed meat on ethical grounds > >> proves she wouldn't do either 1 or 2. > > > >No, it does not prove that at all. > > It does. > > >There is zero logic > >to your assertion, because there is zero connection > >between her self-serving, ego-enhancing > > Oh. So it's about ego now, is it? > > >decision not to > >eat meat, and her equally self-serving decision to eat > >the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can > >get. > > > You're still only assuming these things about her, and of > course all other vegans who buy from the marketplace. > You need more than assumptions and personal attacks > to win an argument. > >> > >>>>>That makes her morally complicit, if she > >>>>>believes the killing of the animals is wrong. > >>>>> > >> > >> Why or how, and by whose rule? > > > >For the same reason that the getaway driver for a > >robbery is fully morally and legally complicit for all > >of the crimes that occur in the course of a robbery; > >for the same reason that the buyer of stolen property > >is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the > >original crime doesn't happen. They are integral to crime. > > > If thieves use boot markets and auction rooms, or indeed the > general marketplace to sell their stuff alongside legitimate > goods, why or how, and by whose rule is the buyer of those > stolen goods morally or legally complicit? > >> > >>>>Is there any doubt that killing gratuitously is wrong, > >>> > >>>Yes, much: > >>> > >>>1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that > >>>it's wrong. > >> > >> > >> Then if most Muslims don't believe philosophically that > >> murder and suicide bombing is wrong, do we or the rest of > >> the Muslim world also believe that is right to commit murder > >> by carrying bombs into public places, Mr. Ad populum? > > > >My position is not an argumentum ad populum; I did not > >argue that collateral deaths of animals is not wrong > >because omnivores believe it not to be wrong. > > "1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that > it's wrong." > > >Admit > >that you got it wrong; you did get it wrong. > > > You have attempted to argue that there are doubts among > people that gratuitous killing is not wrong on the basis that > "1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that > it's wrong." > > That position attempts to win acceptance by appealing to > a large group of people. > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum > > >Most Muslims *do* believe that murder and suicide > >bombing are wrong, so your hypothetical premise is > >crap, and your whole point disappears. > > > >You stink at this. > > Really? > >> > >>>2. "vegans" *claim* to believe philosophically that it's > >>> wrong, but their behavior says otherwise. > >>> > >> > >> What vegan behaviour tells you that, > > > >Their continued and fully aware trade with farmers who > >kill animals collaterally. > > They are not fully aware of any continued trade with farmers > who kill animals, and you have conceded this point already > by concluding there is only a likelihood of these deaths based > on assumption. > > >They are in exactly the > >same moral position as someone knowingly buying stolen > >property. > > > How does one know that the goods they buy are stolen or > produced unethically if bought from the same marketplace > as legitimate and ethically produced goods? > > >> and where have > >> you seen this contradictory behaviour? > > > >Right here. > > > You're mistaken then. > >> > >>>>and should she > >>>>or you or I who buy from careless farmers and slave keepers > >>>>be held accountable for their wrong work practices, even though > >>>>we all buy from the general marketplace where these goods are > >>>>distributed, apparently as perfectly ethical goods? > >>> > >>>1. You know what's going on before the goods get to > >>>market. > >> > >> > >> No, I do not, > > > >Yes, you do. > > > I do not, and you still haven't answered my question, " How or > why should she or you or I who buy from careless farmers and > slave keepers be held accountable for their wrong work practices, > even though we all buy from the general marketplace where these > goods are distributed, apparently as perfectly ethical goods? > > > Stop lying. > > > >> so please answer the question. > > > >I did. You are shirking. You know how the vegetables > >are produced, and you know that it causes animal death. > > > I know there's a likelihood, but buying goods from the general > marketplace where such a likelihood exists doesn't make me > complicit in the theft of goods or unethical production practices > performed by some who use that marketplace to sell their goods. > > >> I buy goods > >> from the general marketplace without any prior knowledge > > > >That's a lie. > > I'm not clairvoyant, y'know. > > >You know animals are killed in the > >production of the food you eat. > > No I don't. > > >You can't get away > >with a probabilistic dodge. > > Neither can you. > > >Stop driving your car > >through playgrounds. > > > Tell that to the driver. > > >> of the production methods used in my particular choice of > >> food or footwear, so how can I be held accountable for > >> buying the few unethical items that do reach my stores? > > > >Because you are lying. > > These personal attacks a becoming very tiresome, Bill. > > I buy goods from the general marketplace without any prior > knowledge of the production methods used in my particular > choice of food or footwear, so how can I be held accountable > for buying the few unethical items that do reach my stores? Am > I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical > means to satisfy your argument? > > > You have the requisite knowledge. > > > >> Am I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical > >> means to satisfy your argument? > > > >You know what you need to know about food. > > > >> > >> > >>>2. You don't have to buy there. > >>> > >> > >> > >> How do I know when I have left or entered that market? > > Can you answer that question, Bill? No, he can't. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correcting The Record
"Bill" > wrote in message k.net... > Rat & Swan wrote: > > > Bill wrote: > > > >> That's why your son was taken from you. > > > > For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me > > by anyone or any agency, public or private. > > Your son was taken from you, by your father. That's a lie and only shows you're still as sore as Hell for the way your father left you, Ball. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correcting the Record
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Bill wrote: > >>>> That's why your son was taken from you. > > >>> For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me >>> by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this. > > >> Your son was taken from you, by your father. > > > As I said, this is a lie. He was not. He was. Your whole life has been one massive self indulgence. Having the kid in the first place was a self indulgence, and further self indulgence - focusing on your sex life rather than nurturing and raising your son - led to a conclusion that he needed to be raised elsewhere. You were only too happy to be rid of him; further evidence of your wrecked mind. You snipped without noting that he is estranged from you. |
|
|||
|
|||
For The Record
drdoody wrote:
> Rat & Swan > wrote in message >... > >>Bill wrote: >> >> >>>That's why your son was taken >>>from you. >> >> For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me >> by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this. >> >> My son is a career officer in the U.S. Army, an engineer. >> >> >> Rat > > > You have my congratulations. May he return safely to you. He won't be returning to her. He is estranged from her, communicating only by e-mail. He has good reason to be estranged from her: she abandoned him. It was more important to her "to explore her ******* side" than to raise her son. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Dreck Nash, fat **** ordinaire, wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:32:28 GMT, Bill > wrote: > > >>Dreck Nash, fat **** ordinaire, wrote: >> >> >>>There are two problems with that. >> >>No. Your analysis is wrong. >> >> >>>1) She has no certain knowledge of the history behind >>> the goods she buys, unless it is farmed meat. >> >>She has knowledge of commercial fruit and vegetable >>farming methods. The likelihood > > > Thank you The probability is 1, Drec, you dumb ****. Do you know what a P = 1 means? No, I knew you didn't; not something they teach to grease monkeys. > > >>is that the >>production, storage and distribution of all the food >>she buys causes animal death. >> > > Then there's only a likelihood of them rather than a certainty, No, there's a certainty, Dreck. > so any claim from you of her certain knowledge of them is > now seriously in doubt. We both knew that though, dint we? No. We know that she has knowledge. She has admitted as much. You KNOW that animals are killed in the course of producing your food. > > >>If you drive a car at 80mph through a school playground >>at recess, you *may* avoid striking any children, but >>the likelihood is that you will strike and kill several. >> >> >>>2) You are assuming she will continue to buy goods which >>> have been produced in a way she finds unethical. >> >>That is a rock-solid assumption. > > > What's a rock solid assumption if not just a plain old guess? She will continue to buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds unethical. She has done nothing to stop so far, and nothing will change. > > >>She DOES continue to >>buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds >>unethical, > > > So you assume. No; we know. You know it too, Dreck. > > >>and she has no intention of stopping, as her >>posts have made clear; she's waiting for the unethical >>production and distribution methods to disappear on >>their own, with no concrete action from her. >> > > What concrete action can she or anyone take to stop > them if she isn't already causing them? She is causing them, Dreck; so are you. She knows how not to do so; so do you, Dreck. > >>>Her decision to avoid farmed meat on ethical grounds >>>proves she wouldn't do either 1 or 2. >> >>No, it does not prove that at all. > > > It does. It does not, Dreck. You're making it up as you go along, the way you always have. > > >>There is zero logic >>to your assertion, because there is zero connection >>between her self-serving, ego-enhancing > > > Oh. So it's about ego now, is it? Yes, Dreck. It always has been. Same with you, Dreck, except your accomplishments are so tiny, you really shouldn't have an ego. > > >>decision not to >>eat meat, and her equally self-serving decision to eat >>the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can >>get. >> > > You're still only assuming these things about her, No. We know them about her, and about you, Dreck. > and of > course all other vegans who buy from the marketplace. We know these things about all of them, including you, Dreck. >>>>>>That makes her morally complicit, if she >>>>>>believes the killing of the animals is wrong. >>>>>> >>> >>>Why or how, and by whose rule? >> >>For the same reason that the getaway driver for a >>robbery is fully morally and legally complicit for all >>of the crimes that occur in the course of a robbery; >>for the same reason that the buyer of stolen property >>is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the >>original crime doesn't happen. They are integral to crime. >> > > If thieves use boot markets and auction rooms, or indeed the > general marketplace to sell their stuff alongside legitimate > goods, why or how, and by whose rule is the buyer of those > stolen goods morally or legally complicit? Ask your crown prosecutor for the particulars, Dreck. The fact is, Dreck, if you buy stolen property unknowingly and it is determined that you have it, the property may be seized from you without compensation. If you buy it knowing it was stolen, you can be prosecuted for the separate crime of receiving stolen property. The rationale for the latter is that you provide an incentive for the thief to steal. We've been through all this several times in the last couple of years, Dreck. You lost then, you lose now. You'll just have to live with it, Dreck: your purchases from animal-killing farmers - we know you buy from them - reward them for doing something you claim to find unethical. Your knowledge of the certainty of animal death makes you morally complicit. > >>>>>Is there any doubt that killing gratuitously is wrong, >>>> >>>>Yes, much: >>>> >>>>1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that >>>>it's wrong. >>> >>> >>>Then if most Muslims don't believe philosophically that >>>murder and suicide bombing is wrong, do we or the rest of >>>the Muslim world also believe that is right to commit murder >>>by carrying bombs into public places, Mr. Ad populum? >> >>My position is not an argumentum ad populum; I did not >>argue that collateral deaths of animals is not wrong >>because omnivores believe it not to be wrong. > > > "1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that > it's wrong." Right. I already wrote that. I also wrote this, you stupid ****: I did not argue that collateral deaths of animals is not wrong because omnivores believe it not to be wrong. You are dumber than a fence post, Dreck. You couldn't correctly identify a fallacy if I beat you over the head with it. That's why you commit so many fallacies yourself, Dreck. > > >>Admit >>that you got it wrong; you did get it wrong. >> > > You have attempted to argue that there are doubts among > people that gratuitous killing is not wrong on the basis that > "1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that > it's wrong." Right, Dreck. This is how we know it's you: you stubbornly keep reposting something that is not an example of wha you claim. You don't need to keep reposting what I wrote. You need to address the fact - the fact, you fat **** - that what I wrote is not an argumentum ad populum. You are simply wrong to assert that it is one, Dreck. Every time you have thought you've found your opponent in a logical fallacy, Dreck, you're wrong. You have never understood these logic citations you post. > > That position attempts to win acceptance by appealing to > a large group of people. I am not appealing or attempting to appeal to a large group of people, Dreck. You lose. > >>Most Muslims *do* believe that murder and suicide >>bombing are wrong, so your hypothetical premise is >>crap, and your whole point disappears. >> >>You stink at this. You really stink at this, Dreck. >> >> >>> >>>>2. "vegans" *claim* to believe philosophically that it's >>>> wrong, but their behavior says otherwise. >>>> >>> >>>What vegan behaviour tells you that, >> >>Their continued and fully aware trade with farmers who >>kill animals collaterally. > > > They are not fully aware of any continued trade with farmers > who kill animals, The ones who post here are, Dreck, you fat ****. They acknowledge they are. You just puts your fingers in your ears and go "nnnhh-nnnhh-nnnhh-nnnhh I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them". You're wrong. > and you have conceded this point already > by concluding there is only a likelihood of these deaths based > on assumption. No, there's a certainty. The less-than-one probability applies to any given apple or eggplant or carrot. Don't worry about what I have "conceded", Dreck, you fat ****; "vegans" who post here, all of them, have conceded that animals die in the course of producing the food they eat. It is not in dispute. Time for you to concede, and move on to your next bit of sophistry, so I can demolish it, too. > > >>They are in exactly the >>same moral position as someone knowingly buying stolen >>property. >> > > How does one know that the goods they buy are stolen or > produced unethically if bought from the same marketplace > as legitimate and ethically produced goods? Sometimes, one knows, Dreck. That's why the law provides a penalty for it. You're just going to have to accept it. > > >>>and where have >>>you seen this contradictory behaviour? >> >>Right here. >> > > You're mistaken then. I'm not, Dreck. > >>>>>and should she >>>>>or you or I who buy from careless farmers and slave keepers >>>>>be held accountable for their wrong work practices, even though >>>>>we all buy from the general marketplace where these goods are >>>>>distributed, apparently as perfectly ethical goods? >>>> >>>>1. You know what's going on before the goods get to >>>>market. >>> >>> >>>No, I do not, >> >>Yes, you do. >> > > I do not, You do, Dreck. You know. > > >>Stop lying. >> >> >>>so please answer the question. >> >>I did. You are shirking, Dreck, as usual. You know how the >>vegetables are produced, and you know that it causes animal death. >> > > I know there's a likelihood, A certainty, when looking at all your purchases. > >>>I buy goods >>>from the general marketplace without any prior knowledge >> >>That's a lie. > > > I'm not clairvoyant, y'know. You're just stupid, Dreck. Go back to your real name. The adoption of ****witted pseudonyms doesn't get you off the hook for all your past stupidity, because you're just as stupid in the present. > > >>You know animals are killed in the >>production of the food you eat. > > > No I don't. You do. You know, Dreck. > > >>You can't get away >>with a probabilistic dodge. > > > Neither can you. I'm not. > > >>Stop driving your car >>through playgrounds. >> > > Tell that to the driver. You. > > >>>of the production methods used in my particular choice of >>>food or footwear, so how can I be held accountable for >>>buying the few unethical items that do reach my stores? >> >>Because you are lying. > > > These personal attacks a becoming very tiresome, Bill. They aren't personal attacks, Dreck. [snip repetitious and tiresome lie of innocence] > > >> You have the requisite knowledge. >> >> >>>Am I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical >>>means to satisfy your argument? >> >>You know what you need to know about food. The silence is deafening, Dreck. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v
Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with
his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote: > "Bill" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote: >> >>>"Bill" > wrote in message .net... >>> >>>>Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Bill" > wrote in message k.net... >>>>> >>>>>>Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>Logic insists farmers cause them, >>>>>> >>>>>>No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot. >>>>> >>>>>1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are >>>>> responsible for their deaths. >>>>>2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals >>>>>therefore >>>>>3) they are responsible for their deaths. >>>>> >>>>>What could be simpler? >>>> >>>>That you are complicit in the deaths, and share moral >>>>responsibility for them. >>> >>>Only according to buck-passing miscreants. >> >>No. YOU are the buck-passer, and I am pointing it out. > > > You'll never convince a jury that the farmer or murderer > who kills isn't responsible for the deaths he causes, The moral prosecutor will easily persuade the jury that you share the moral responsibility. You are the buck-passer. You've done it all your life. Ditch the stupid "ipse dixit" pseudonym, ****head, and just post under your own name. You're no better at that disguise than you were with "jane". |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians | Vegan | |||
Rush is a hypocritical piece of shit; Karen Winter is a hero | Vegan | |||
Obama Fears Rush Limbaugh...Find Out Why | General Cooking | |||
The astonishing lunacy of Karen Winter | Vegan | |||
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear | Vegan |