Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.

[start]
>> >> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates
>> >> >> >tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year.
>> >> >> >In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of
>> >> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>> >> >> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80
>> >> >> >wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes,
>> >> >> >5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among
>> >> >> >others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>> >> >> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning,
>> >> >> >shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
>> >> >> >======================
>> >> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues
>> >> >> collateral deaths, so why do you ignore them, hypocrite?
>> >> >======================
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
>> >======================
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yep. They do exist.
>=================
>Nope.

So, though you insist collateral deaths exist in crop production,
you also deny they exist in grass fed beef production. Thanks
for such an excellent example of a meatarian's state of denial.
[end]

So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
denying the collateral deaths associated with their
diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
anti's silence while one particular regular on these
animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

Ipse dixit wrote:

<snip>
> Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?

Well, no...I believe I have a good idea why. But then I
don't claim to read minds, so I can't say I'm 100 per cent
sure....

<snip>
> So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

There's no question that there are large numbers of
collateral deaths associated with ranching and
grazing, whether for meat or for wool. Much of
the heavy pressure is to kill any predator who
might attack sheep, and since sheep are much more
vulnerable than cattle, predators down to the size of
foxes and eagles are targeted to help sheep ranchers.
Many animals who are not predators, but rivals for
grass, such as prairie dogs and wild sheep, are also
targeted for extermination. Ranched and grass-fed
domestic animals also remove habitat for wild animals,
just as farming of vegetables does, although both
farming and ranching also provide habitat for certain species
of wild animals as well. Even if the animals were restricted
to buildings and fed harvested grass -- hay --, CDs would be
associated with production of the hay. CDs are a by-product
of any diet, but the lowest number would probably be produced
by raising vegetables in enclosed structures.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Ipse dixit wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
>> likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
>> allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
>> deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
>
>
> Well, no...I believe I have a good idea why.

You're undoubtedly wrong. Your very reason for being
here at all is based on wrong thinking and a stupid
belief in a morally and logically untenable position,
so it is not surprising you'd get this wrong as well.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
>
> If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.

What evidence do you have that Rick Etter's meat producers fall under this
program?

[..]

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> >
> > If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> > myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> > Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> > accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> > from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> > of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.
>
> What evidence do you have that Rick Etter's meat
> producers fall under this program?
>
[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's biggest and most
controversial activities is killing coyotes and other predators,
primarily to protect western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens
of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a
partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes,
236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds,
9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and
200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and
100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
Keith Schneider, "Mediating the Federal War of the Jungle," New
York Times, July 9, 1991, 4E; Carol Grunewald, ed, _Animal Activist
Alert_, 8:3 (Washington D.C.: Humane Society of the United States,
1990), 3.

Two wildlife groups, Wildlife Damage Review, from Tucson, Arizona,
and the Predator Project, from Bozeman, Montana, asked the
Thoreau Institute to audit ADC's program. This audit examines ADC's
budget in general and focuses in particular on the funds it spends
controlling coyotes and other livestock predators. The principle
findings include:

1) ADC's programs are unfairly distributed to selected Americans.
A program to protect sunflower crops from blackbirds operates
in North Dakota to the exclusion of sunflower farmers in Minnesota,
South Dakota, and other states. The livestock protection program
primarily benefits western ranchers to the exclusion of most eastern
livestock growers.
2) ADC's livestock protection program creates perverse incentives for
ranchers to use submarginal land, to overgraze public land, and to
rely on taxpayers rather than actions they could take to protect their
herds.
3) Although ADC has expanded its scope of activities, western livestock
protection, which mainly means killing coyotes, still accounts for most
--53 percent--of its total operational budget.
4) Since 75 percent of federal livestock funds are spent on public lands,
40 percent of ADC's federal funds are dedicated to the 27,000
ranchers who graze livestock on public lands.
5) On-the-ground costs to the federal government of western livestock
protection total more than $10 million per year. When ADC and
APHIS overhead is added, the costs total to more than $13 million
per year. Research costs probably add several more million.
6) When state and local contributions are added, ADC kills coyotes at
an average cost of well over $100 per animal. Costs sometimes
exceed $2,000 per animal.
7) ADC's livestock-protection mission has apparently failed. In general,
states with active ADC livestock programs experience higher predator
losses than states with minimal or no livestock programs. The starkest
contrast: Farmers in Kansas, with no federal ADC livestock program,
suffer significantly lower predation rates than those in neighboring
Nebraska and Oklahoma, which each spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars to kill thousands of predators each year.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Although if Rick wants to insist that the grass fed beef he
eats isn't protected by this program, or aren't protected
by any other program, why haven't you challenged him
on his denial of the collateral deaths associated with the
packing, cold storage, distribution and habitat loss?

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> > >
> > > If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> > > myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> > > Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> > > accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> > > from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> > > of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.
> >
> > What evidence do you have that Rick Etter's meat
> > producers fall under this program?
> >
> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is administered by the
> U.S. Department of Agriculture
-snip-
> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

None of that is evidence that his meat is covered by this program. Why did
you repeat it?

> Although if Rick wants to insist that the grass fed beef he
> eats isn't protected by this program, or aren't protected
> by any other program, why haven't you challenged him
> on his denial of the collateral deaths associated with the
> packing, cold storage, distribution and habitat loss?

I don't believe anything you say, you're a proven liar.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > > > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > > > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > > > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> > > >
> > > > If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> > > > myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> > > > Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> > > > accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> > > > from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> > > > of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.
> > >
> > > What evidence do you have that Rick Etter's meat
> > > producers fall under this program?
> > >
> > [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is administered
> > by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
> -snip-
> > http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>
> None of that is evidence that his meat is covered by this
> program. Why did you repeat it?
>
It is evidence showing the collateral deaths associated
with grazing livestock, and if you read my paragraph
below you'll see I've made provisions for any denials
he may offer in that the beef he eats isn't protected by
the ADC.

> > Although if Rick wants to insist that the grass fed beef he
> > eats isn't protected by this program, or aren't protected
> > by any other program, why haven't you challenged him
> > on his denial of the collateral deaths associated with the
> > packing, cold storage, distribution and habitat loss?
>
> I don't believe anything you say, you're a proven liar.
>
Why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the collateral
deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution
and habitat loss concerning HIS grass fed beef, Dutch?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> removed xpost to afv
>
Restored xpost to afv

> Ipse dixit wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone else apart from me wondered
>
> No.

I didn't think you would. After all, the CD argument
is just another double standard for you to adopt from
Jon, really, isn't it?

Ipse dixit wrote:

<snip>

> Why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the collateral
> deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution
> and habitat loss concerning HIS grass fed beef, Dutch?

Because AR supporters are never allowed to bring in personal efforts
they have made with regard to their individual diets; they are
assumed to be responsible for CDs involved in all kinds of
agribusiness. OTOH, Rick, personally, is presumed to be pure as
the driven snow and have no responsibility for the CDs involved in
his own preferred method of food production.

Double standard, anyone?

Rat

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Ipse dixit wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the collateral
> > deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution
> > and habitat loss concerning HIS grass fed beef, Dutch?
>
> Because AR supporters are never allowed to bring in personal efforts
> they have made with regard to their individual diets; they are
> assumed to be responsible for CDs involved in all kinds of
> agribusiness. OTOH, Rick, personally, is presumed to be pure as
> the driven snow and have no responsibility for the CDs involved in
> his own preferred method of food production.
>
> Double standard, anyone?
>
Another one? OK


What do you call a weapon that can kill thousands of people?
- A weapon of mass destruction.
What do you call a weapon that has killed 1.5 million Iraqis,
including more than 500,000 children?
- Sanctions.
http://www.doublestandards.org/whatcall.html

Ipse dixit wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Ipse dixit wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the collateral
>>>deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution
>>>and habitat loss concerning HIS grass fed beef, Dutch?
>>
>>Because AR supporters are never allowed to bring in personal efforts
>>they have made with regard to their individual diets; they are
>>assumed to be responsible for CDs involved in all kinds of
>>agribusiness. OTOH, Rick, personally, is presumed to be pure as
>>the driven snow and have no responsibility for the CDs involved in
>>his own preferred method of food production.
>>
>>Double standard, anyone?
>>
>
> Another one? OK
>
>
> What do you call a weapon that can kill thousands of people?
> - A weapon of mass destruction.
> What do you call a weapon that has killed 1.5 million Iraqis,
> including more than 500,000 children?
> - Sanctions.

The deaths are fully and exclusively the fault of
Saddam Hussein. All he had to do was agree with the UN
requirements. If he had done, the sanctions would have
been lifted, AND there would have been no war.

Ipse dixit wrote:

>
> I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

Bill wrote:

<snip>

> The deaths are fully and exclusively the fault of Saddam Hussein. All
> he had to do was agree with the UN requirements. If he had done, the
> sanctions would have been lifted, AND there would have been no war.

That's the kind of Rush-Limbaugh-esque remark I had in mind.

Rat

"Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
> Ipse dixit wrote:
> >
> > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
>
> It doesn't.
>
You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
argument against vegans is a double standard.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The deaths are fully and exclusively the fault of Saddam Hussein. All
>> he had to do was agree with the UN requirements. If he had done, the
>> sanctions would have been lifted, AND there would have been no war.
>
>
> That's the kind of Rush-Limbaugh-esque remark I had in mind.

That isn't Rush Limbaugh-esque.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote
>
> "Bill" > wrote

> > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> >
> > It doesn't.
> >
> You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> argument against vegans is a double standard.

Do you actually think people read the discussions between you and rick
etter?

If you have a specific quote to present that shows a double standard then do
so.

Ipse dixit wrote:

> "Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
>
>>Ipse dixit wrote:
>>
>>>I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
>>
>>It doesn't.
>>
>
> You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> argument against vegans is a double standard.

I haven't read Rick's posts about the CDs in his diet,
so I can't be consciously ignoring them. I don't
intend to read them, either. I have only your word to
go on that he's doing it, and your word is notoriously
unreliable.

My argument is not "a double standard".

Rat & Swan wrote:
>> The deaths are fully and exclusively the fault of Saddam Hussein. All
>> he had to do was agree with the UN requirements. If he had done, the
>> sanctions would have been lifted, AND there would have been no war.
>
> That's the kind of Rush-Limbaugh-esque remark I had in mind.

That's not Rush-esque, it's just the truth.

usual suspect wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>>> The deaths are fully and exclusively the fault of Saddam Hussein.
>>> All he had to do was agree with the UN requirements. If he had done,
>>> the sanctions would have been lifted, AND there would have been no war.
>>
>>
>> That's the kind of Rush-Limbaugh-esque remark I had in mind.
>
>
> That's not Rush-esque, it's just the truth.

Karen is nominally Christian. Limbaugh claims to be a
Christian (although his comportment doesn't match the
generosity of spirit that Christianity is supposed to
contain, at least as it was explained to me in Sunday
school). I guess that makes Karen extremely
Limbaugh-esque.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote
> > "Bill" > wrote
> > > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > >
> > > It doesn't.
> > >
> > You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> > with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> > denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> > argument against vegans is a double standard.
>
> Do you actually think people read the discussions between you and rick
> etter?
>
How the heck is that supposed to prove you aren't using
a double standard with Jon's CD argument, or that Rick
isn't denying the existence of collateral deaths associated
with grass fed beef?

> If you have a specific quote to present that shows a double standard then do
> so.
>
I have produced it already and in context at the beginning
of this thread.

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.

[start]
>> >> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates
>> >> >> >tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year.
>> >> >> >In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of
>> >> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>> >> >> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80
>> >> >> >wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes,
>> >> >> >5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among
>> >> >> >others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>> >> >> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning,
>> >> >> >shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
>> >> >> >======================
>> >> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues
>> >> >> collateral deaths, so why do you ignore them, hypocrite?
>> >> >======================
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
>> >======================
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yep. They do exist.
>=================
>Nope.
[end]

There you a proof showing Rick denial of the collateral
deaths associated with grass fed beef.

"Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
> Ipse dixit wrote:
> > "Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
> >>Ipse dixit wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> >>
> >>It doesn't.
> >
> > You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> > with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> > denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> > argument against vegans is a double standard.
>
> I haven't read Rick's posts about the CDs in his diet,
> so I can't be consciously ignoring them.

That dodge won't help you.

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.

[start]
>> >> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates
>> >> >> >tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year.
>> >> >> >In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of
>> >> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>> >> >> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80
>> >> >> >wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes,
>> >> >> >5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among
>> >> >> >others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>> >> >> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning,
>> >> >> >shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
>> >> >> >======================
>> >> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues
>> >> >> collateral deaths, so why do you ignore them, hypocrite?
>> >> >======================
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
>> >======================
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yep. They do exist.
>=================
>Nope.
[end]

> I don't intend to read them, either.

Too late, so why do you ignore Rick's claim that no
collateral deaths exist during the production of grass
fed beef?

Ipse dixit wrote:

> "Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
>
>>Ipse dixit wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't.
>>>
>>>You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
>>>with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
>>>denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
>>>argument against vegans is a double standard.
>>
>>I haven't read Rick's posts about the CDs in his diet,
>>so I can't be consciously ignoring them.
>
>
> That dodge won't help you.

It's not a dodge. I don't read everything posted.
Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.

I always criticize incorrect thinking when I see it. I
don't always look for it.

As I said, your reputation for honesty stinks.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote
> > > "Bill" > wrote
> > > > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't.
> > > >
> > > You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> > > with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> > > denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> > > argument against vegans is a double standard.
> >
> > Do you actually think people read the discussions between you and rick
> > etter?
> >
> How the heck is that supposed to prove you aren't using
> a double standard with Jon's CD argument, or that Rick
> isn't denying the existence of collateral deaths associated
> with grass fed beef?

When did it become imperative that I prove a negative about someone else's
argument that I haven't read?

Based on your past history, anything you say is not believable.

> > If you have a specific quote to present that shows a double standard
then do
> > so.
> >
> I have produced it already and in context at the beginning
> of this thread.

Nothing I read proves what you're claiming.

> If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.

In a program that may not even exist in the county where he lives.

>
> [start]
> >> >> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates
> >> >> >> >tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year.
> >> >> >> >In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
of
> >> >> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
> >> >> >> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80
> >> >> >> >wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000
coyotes,
> >> >> >> >5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among
> >> >> >> >others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
> >> >> >> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include
poisoning,
> >> >> >> >shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
> >> >> >> >======================
> >> >> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues
> >> >> >> collateral deaths, so why do you ignore them, hypocrite?
> >> >> >======================
> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >>
> >> >> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
> >> >======================
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yep. They do exist.
> >=================
> >Nope.
> [end]
>
> There you a proof showing Rick denial of the collateral
> deaths associated with grass fed beef.

That's not evidence that he denies *they happen*, besides you always quote
out of context and never indicate snips, so until you begin to establish a
shred of credibility, anything you say means shit. You lose, you're dead in
the water thanks to your own self-inflicted credibility gap.

"Bill" > wrote in message k.net...

> Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
>
Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
waking hours butting heads with a blue-footed carpenter
at the keyboard. Some life you have for yourself for all
the effort you've put into it, pally. Between the two of
us, who's the real idiot. Who's REALLY wasting their
valuable time, fool?

Ipse dixit wrote:
> "Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
>
>
>>Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
>>
>
> Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
> in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
> You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
> only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
> you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
> waking

Not even close. A few spare minutes while waiting for
important computer tasks to complete.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
===========================
You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur for our diets. man, you
really are just too dense, aren't you?


>
> If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.
======================
Nope. It's your unethical snipping that makes you think that.
I said that the beef I eat gets none of those government benefits.
That you contiune to snipp it out is your problem with ethics.
Just like the one you have for killing animals...

>
> [start]
> >> >> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates
> >> >> >> >tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year.
> >> >> >> >In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
of
> >> >> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
> >> >> >> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80
> >> >> >> >wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000
coyotes,
> >> >> >> >5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among
> >> >> >> >others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
> >> >> >> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include
poisoning,
> >> >> >> >shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
> >> >> >> >======================
> >> >> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues
> >> >> >> collateral deaths, so why do you ignore them, hypocrite?
> >> >> >======================
> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >>
> >> >> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
> >> >======================
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yep. They do exist.
> >=================
> >Nope.
>
> So, though you insist collateral deaths exist in crop production,
> you also deny they exist in grass fed beef production. Thanks
> for such an excellent example of a meatarian's state of denial.
> [end]
=======================
Nope. Again, your unethical snipping is noted, by me, not annotated by
*you*.
Of course that's part n parcel with the dishonesty that is passed off as
veganism.


>
> So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
=====================
No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals die for our diets. We
don't try to cover them up,
or wish tham away with meaningless babble about your supposed ethics and
supposed concern.
You really are just too ignorant to even understand *your* impact, much less
discuss anybody elses.

>
>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ipse dixit wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the collateral
> > deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution
> > and habitat loss concerning HIS grass fed beef, Dutch?
>
> Because AR supporters are never allowed to bring in personal efforts
> they have made with regard to their individual diets; they are
> assumed to be responsible for CDs involved in all kinds of
> agribusiness.
=================
You're as stupid as twits, dolt. Meat eaters have not denied that animals
die as a result of our diet.
That's the claim that vegans make. Even twits still asserts that no animal
die *because* of his diet.



OTOH, Rick, personally, is presumed to be pure as
> the driven snow and have no responsibility for the CDs involved in
> his own preferred method of food production.
==================
Nope. Animals die for my diet. They die for your diet. get over it.



>
> Double standard, anyone?
>
> Rat
>

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill" > wrote in message
k.net...
> > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> >
> > It doesn't.
> >
> You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> with his diet
=======================
No, I did not. CDs occur for my veggies same as they occur for yours you
ignorant twit.
I've never claimed that animals don't die because of my food. That's your
position.


while at the same time criticising vegans for
> denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> argument against vegans is a double standard.
==================
Nope. You haven't shown that at all. All you've shown is how ignorant and
unethical you are.

>
>

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote
> > > "Bill" > wrote
> > > > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't.
> > > >
> > > You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> > > with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> > > denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> > > argument against vegans is a double standard.
> >
> > Do you actually think people read the discussions between you and rick
> > etter?
> >
> How the heck is that supposed to prove you aren't using
> a double standard with Jon's CD argument, or that Rick
> isn't denying the existence of collateral deaths associated
> with grass fed beef?
>
> > If you have a specific quote to present that shows a double standard
then do
> > so.
> >
> I have produced it already and in context at the beginning
> of this thread.
>
> If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.
==========================
No you unethical fool. You have continued to unethically snip my posts.
Why is that, except for your typical deceit?


>
> [start]
> >> >> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates
> >> >> >> >tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year.
> >> >> >> >In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
of
> >> >> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
> >> >> >> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80
> >> >> >> >wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000
coyotes,
> >> >> >> >5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among
> >> >> >> >others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
> >> >> >> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include
poisoning,
> >> >> >> >shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
> >> >> >> >======================
> >> >> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues
> >> >> >> collateral deaths, so why do you ignore them, hypocrite?
> >> >> >======================
> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >>
> >> >> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
> >> >======================
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Yep. They do exist.
> >=================
> >Nope.
> [end]
>
> There you a proof showing Rick denial of the collateral
> deaths associated with grass fed beef.
=======================
Nope. You have unethically snipped my real posts. Why is that if not just
to deceive?


>
>

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> > Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
> >
> Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
> in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
> You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
> only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
> you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
> waking hours butting heads with a blue-footed carpenter
> at the keyboard. Some life you have for yourself for all
> the effort you've put into it, pally. Between the two of
> us, who's the real idiot. Who's REALLY wasting their
> valuable time, fool?

That's what it's all about for you, "butting heads" with people far more
intelligent than yourself so that you, in your drug-addled state, can delude
yourself that you're giving as much as you take, and hence prove to yourself
(and only to yourself) that have a comparable intellect. It has nothing to
do with animals, it could be any topic. In fact I doubt if you are even a
vegetarian. Vegetarians have at least a certain ethical character, even
though they tend to be deluded. You demonstrate no signs of such character.

"Bill" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Ipse dixit wrote:
>
> > "Bill" > wrote in message
k.net...
> >
> >>Ipse dixit wrote:
> >>
> >>>I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> >>
> >>It doesn't.
> >>
> >
> > You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> > with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> > denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> > argument against vegans is a double standard.
>
> I haven't read Rick's posts about the CDs in his diet,
> so I can't be consciously ignoring them. I don't
> intend to read them, either. I have only your word to
> go on that he's doing it, and your word is notoriously
> unreliable.
======================
You haven't missed much except the typical unethical sleaze of twits.
he continues to snip the pertinent parts of my replies and post his
unannotated snips
as the complete discussion.




>
> My argument is not "a double standard".
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ...
> > Ipse dixit wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the collateral
> > > deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution
> > > and habitat loss concerning HIS grass fed beef, Dutch?
> >
> > Because AR supporters are never allowed to bring in personal efforts
> > they have made with regard to their individual diets; they are
> > assumed to be responsible for CDs involved in all kinds of
> > agribusiness.
> =================
> You're as stupid as twits, dolt. Meat eaters have not denied that animals
> die as a result of our diet.

You're denying they die for your grass fed beef, so
you're lying here again Rick. "Do you accept that
the *general* production, storage, and distribution
of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral deaths?"

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
> >
> > > Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
> > >
> > Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
> > in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
> > You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
> > only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
> > you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
> > waking hours butting heads with a blue-footed carpenter
> > at the keyboard. Some life you have for yourself for all
> > the effort you've put into it, pally. Between the two of
> > us, who's the real idiot. Who's REALLY wasting their
> > valuable time, fool?
>
> That's what it's all about for you, "butting heads" with people
> far more intelligent than yourself

Are you that deluded that you forgot your own
confessions to having this delusional malady you
suffer from, Ditch?

"The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T
feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself.
Dutch 19/03/2002

And

" I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
after all who was it hurting?"
Dutch 17/03/2002

And

"I no longer cling to that illusion because it
is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
need invent ways to try either, which is the
real relief."
Dutch 16/02/2002

If you were lying then, and "inventing ways" (lying)
so you could continue deluding yourself, how do
we know you're cured and not still lying to us even
now?

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
> > > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > >
> > > It doesn't.
> > >
> > You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> > with his diet
> =======================
> No, I did not.

I didn't ask about the beef you eat, because I knew you
were going to lie about it by claiming your particular grass
fed beef is different from all other grass fed beef and
doesn't accrue any collateral deaths at all, and it seems I
was right. So I'll ask again.

"Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
deaths?"
>
> > while at the same time criticising vegans for denying
> > the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> > argument against vegans is a double standard.
> ==================
> Nope. You haven't shown that at all.

I clearly have, because they all let you get away with
your claim that no collateral deaths are associated with
the production of your grass fed beef. That's a double
standard.

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote
> > > > "Bill" > wrote
> > > > > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> > > > with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> > > > argument against vegans is a double standard.
> > >
> > > Do you actually think people read the discussions between
> > > you and rick etter?
> > >
> > How the heck is that supposed to prove you aren't using
> > a double standard with Jon's CD argument, or that Rick
> > isn't denying the existence of collateral deaths associated
> > with grass fed beef?
> >
> > > If you have a specific quote to present that shows a
> > > double standard then do so.
> > >
> > I have produced it already and in context at the beginning
> > of this thread.
> >
> > If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> > myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> > Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> > accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> > from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> > of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.
> ==========================
> No you unethical fool. You have continued to unethically
> snip my posts. Why is that, except for your typical deceit?
>
I have not snipped them at all, and the proof of it is
still in google archives for anyone to see that for
themselves.
> > [start]
> > >> >> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
> > >> >> >> >exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
> > >> >> >> >"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
> > >> >> >> >of animals killed by the U.S. Department of
> > >> >> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included
> > >> >> >> >86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220
> > >> >> >> >bobcats and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds,
> > >> >> >> >9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300
> > >> >> >> >black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others,
> > >> >> >> >were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
> > >> >> >> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include
> > >> >> >> >poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their
> > >> >> >> >dens.
> > >> >> >> ======================
> > >> >> >> ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to
> > >> >> >> protect crops
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> > Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues
> > >> >> > collateral deaths, so why do you ignore them, hypocrite?
> > >> >> ======================
> > >> >> Nope.
> > >> >>
> > >> >You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
> > >> ======================
> > >> Nope.
> > >>
> > >Yep. They do exist.
> > =================
> > Nope.
> > [end]
> >
> There you a proof showing Rick denial of the collateral
> deaths associated with grass fed beef.
> =======================
> Nope. You have unethically snipped my real posts.

I have not snipped them at all, and the proof of it is
still in google archives for anyone to see that for
themselves.

I didn't ask about the beef you eat, because I knew you
were going to lie about it by claiming your particular grass
fed beef is different from all other grass fed beef and
doesn't accrue any collateral deaths at all, and it seems I
was right. So I'll ask again.

"Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
deaths?"

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Bill" > wrote in message
k.net...
> > >
> > > > Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
> > > >
> > > Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
> > > in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
> > > You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
> > > only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
> > > you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
> > > waking hours butting heads with a blue-footed carpenter
> > > at the keyboard. Some life you have for yourself for all
> > > the effort you've put into it, pally. Between the two of
> > > us, who's the real idiot. Who's REALLY wasting their
> > > valuable time, fool?
> >
> > That's what it's all about for you, "butting heads" with people
> > far more intelligent than yourself
>
> Are you that deluded that you forgot your own
> confessions to having this delusional malady you
> suffer from, Ditch?

Not at all.

> "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T
> feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself.
> Dutch 19/03/2002

You otoh, find it quite comfortable. It's amazing to watch.

> And
>
> " I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
> after all who was it hurting?"
> Dutch 17/03/2002

Indeed, most vegans are only harming themselves, certainly my delusions were
quite invisible to the outside world.

> And
>
> "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> need invent ways to try either, which is the
> real relief."
> Dutch 16/02/2002

I wish you could experience the relief.

> If you were lying then, and "inventing ways" (lying)

Inventing arguments isn't the same as lying. *You* are constantly inventing
arguments, finding quotes from philosophy or logic websites, anything you
can dredge up that you think will support your cause. They usually don't,
because you almost never understand what you're reading, but that doesn't
make you a liar, just a fool.

> so you could continue deluding yourself, how do
> we know you're cured and not still lying to us even
> now?

I wasn't lying then, I used arguments I thought made sense, when I found
they didn't I looked for others. None of them were satisfactory, and I soon
realized the whole vegan thing was a house of cards. It was all a very
healthy learning experience, you should it try it sometime.

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> ===========================
> You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur
> for our diets.

You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with
a part of your diet: grass fed beef.

I didn't ask about the beef you eat, because I knew you
were going to lie about it by claiming your particular grass
fed beef is different from all other grass fed beef and
doesn't accrue any collateral deaths at all, and it seems I
was right. So I'll ask again.

"Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
deaths?"

> > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> =====================
> No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up

Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
accept that the *general* production, storage, and
distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
deaths.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
> > > >
> > > > > Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
> > > > >
> > > > Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
> > > > in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
> > > > You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
> > > > only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
> > > > you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
> > > > waking hours butting heads with a blue-footed carpenter
> > > > at the keyboard. Some life you have for yourself for all
> > > > the effort you've put into it, pally. Between the two of
> > > > us, who's the real idiot. Who's REALLY wasting their
> > > > valuable time, fool?
> > >
> > > That's what it's all about for you, "butting heads" with people
> > > far more intelligent than yourself
> >
> > Are you that deluded that you forgot your own
> > confessions to having this delusional malady you
> > suffer from, Ditch?
>
> Not at all.
>
Good. I'm glad to see you're still brave enough to admit it.

> > "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T
> > feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself.
> > Dutch 19/03/2002
>
> You otoh, find it quite comfortable.

I don't suffer from delusions, although you, on the
other hand do suffer from them and have admitted
it often.

> > And
> >
> > " I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
> > after all who was it hurting?"
> > Dutch 17/03/2002
>
> Indeed, most vegans are only harming themselves,

They aren't deluding themselves as you do. If your
argument rests on the premise that vegans must be
delusional to follow their choices, then your argument
is nothing more than one huge Ad hominem. And that.
coming from a self-confessed delusional is hysterical.

> certainly my delusions were quite invisible to the
> outside world.
>
Your delusions made you lie and invent ways to
continue clinging to illusions, so no, you weren't
just hurting yourself because you were lying to
everyone, which is a form of harm.

> > And
> >
> > "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> > is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> > need invent ways to try either, which is the
> > real relief."
> > Dutch 16/02/2002
>
> I wish you could experience the relief.
>
I'm quite sane and don't need any relief for something
I don't suffer from.

> > If you were lying then, and "inventing ways" (lying)
>
> Inventing arguments isn't the same as lying.

"Inventing ways", dummy; that's what you were
inventing. You lied to yourself and others while
trying to pretend a support for animal rights.
>
> > so you could continue deluding yourself, how do
> > we know you're cured and not still lying to us even
> > now?
>
> I wasn't lying then

You were lying, and you knew it because you had
to "invent ways" to cling to illusions you knew you
couldn't support.
"I no longer cling to that illusion because it
is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
need invent ways to try either, which is the
real relief."
Dutch 16/02/2002

>I used arguments I thought made sense, when I found
> they didn't I looked for others.

You invented lies. That's all.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
> > > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the collateral
> > > > deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution
> > > > and habitat loss concerning HIS grass fed beef, Dutch?
> > >
> > > Because AR supporters are never allowed to bring in personal efforts
> > > they have made with regard to their individual diets; they are
> > > assumed to be responsible for CDs involved in all kinds of
> > > agribusiness.
> > =================
> > You're as stupid as twits, dolt. Meat eaters have not denied that
animals
> > die as a result of our diet.
>
> You're denying they die for your grass fed beef, so
> you're lying here again Rick. "Do you accept that
> the *general* production, storage, and distribution
> of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral deaths?"
> ============================
No fool, I haven't said that at all. Like you, I only talk about 'my' diet.
Kinda like your fallen apples and stuff. Afterall, it's only *your*
specific diet
that you think matters. Why is it everybody elses general diets? Because
you're the hypocritical ignorant fool you are?


>

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
news
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote
> > > > > "Bill" > wrote
> > > > > > Ipse dixit wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated
> > > > > with his diet while at the same time criticising vegans for
> > > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
> > > > > argument against vegans is a double standard.
> > > >
> > > > Do you actually think people read the discussions between
> > > > you and rick etter?
> > > >
> > > How the heck is that supposed to prove you aren't using
> > > a double standard with Jon's CD argument, or that Rick
> > > isn't denying the existence of collateral deaths associated
> > > with grass fed beef?
> > >
> > > > If you have a specific quote to present that shows a
> > > > double standard then do so.
> > > >
> > > I have produced it already and in context at the beginning
> > > of this thread.
> > >
> > > If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and
> > > myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt that
> > > Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef
> > > accrues collateral deaths despite evidence provided
> > > from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department
> > > of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.
> > ==========================
> > No you unethical fool. You have continued to unethically
> > snip my posts. Why is that, except for your typical deceit?
> >
> I have not snipped them at all, and the proof of it is
> still in google archives for anyone to see that for
> themselves.
============================
Lying fool. You have snipped them, each and every time.
Deceit is all you have in the defense of you ignorance.


> > > [start]
> > > >> >> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
> > > >> >> >> >exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
> > > >> >> >> >"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
> > > >> >> >> >of animals killed by the U.S. Department of
> > > >> >> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included
> > > >> >> >> >86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220
> > > >> >> >> >bobcats and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds,
> > > >> >> >> >9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300
> > > >> >> >> >black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others,
> > > >> >> >> >were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
> > > >> >> >> >inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include
> > > >> >> >> >poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their
> > > >> >> >> >dens.
> > > >> >> >> ======================
> > > >> >> >> ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to
> > > >> >> >> protect crops
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> > Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues
> > > >> >> > collateral deaths, so why do you ignore them, hypocrite?
> > > >> >> ======================
> > > >> >> Nope.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
> > > >> ======================
> > > >> Nope.
> > > >>
> > > >Yep. They do exist.
> > > =================
> > > Nope.
> > > [end]
> > >
> > There you a proof showing Rick denial of the collateral
> > deaths associated with grass fed beef.
> > =======================
> > Nope. You have unethically snipped my real posts.
>
> I have not snipped them at all, and the proof of it is
> still in google archives for anyone to see that for
> themselves.
==========================
Yes, you have. And the proof is right here in the posts you continue to
repeat.
By all means, go to google. you will revealed for the liar you are, killer.


>
> I didn't ask about the beef you eat, because I knew you
> were going to lie about it by claiming your particular grass
> fed beef is different from all other grass fed beef and
> doesn't accrue any collateral deaths at all, and it seems I
> was right. So I'll ask again.
===========================
Why would your 'know' that I would ly about my diet? Because that is what
*you* do
constantly? You can't base everybody else on your unethical actions,
hypocrite. My diet
compared to yours *IS* what is under discussion. Not some fantasy diet that
either you
don't eat, or I don't eat. that's the whole point fool. This discussion
has always been about
individual diets, not diets in 'general' because all you have power over is
your own impact
on the death and suffering *YOU* cause.

>
> "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> deaths?"
> ============================
No fool, I haven't said that at all. Like you, I only talk about 'my' diet.
Kinda like your fallen apples and stuff. Afterall, it's only *your*
specific diet that you think matters. Why is it everybody elses general
diets? Because
you're the hypocritical ignorant fool you are?

now, try again loser. Your unethical spew and rants are dead...


>
>