I'm not sure how old this is, but I just discovered Bruce Friedrich's
"Veganism in a Nutshell" at http://brucefriedrich.org

Most who've been vegans for some time will already be familiar with the
information presented, but I've found that his succint discussion can be
a great way to help friends/family better understand the vegan lifestyle.
There's no copyright on the material, so you can *legally* make copies
and distribute them freely. Good stuff!

--
me.kirchhoff

me.kirchhoff wrote:
> I'm not sure how old this is, but I just discovered Bruce Friedrich's
> "Veganism in a Nutshell" at http://brucefriedrich.org

It's old. Here's some background info on the pathetic little nutcase:

Bruce Friedrich

Background
PETA’s director of vegan outreach, Bruce Friedrich, nakedly exposes his
views -- and everything else. Arrested in London in July 2001 for
streaking Buckingham Palace with the words “go vegan” painted on his
body, Friedrich specializes in confrontation. He threw a glass of water
at London’s visiting mayor in Washington, DC when he didn’t like the
mayor’s answer to a question about pigeon food. Friedrich also spent
over a year in prison for attacking an Air Force fighter plane with a
hammer.

Friedrich believes sport hunters should be viewed “with the same
revulsion we presently reserve for Nazi doctors and slave traders.” He
spearheads PETA’s absurd “Jesus Was a Vegetarian” campaign. Friedrich
has even denounced teenage animal-rights activists who dare to question
the appropriateness of violent protest.

Timothy McVeigh “should not be allowed to take even one more life,”
wrote Friedrich, urging the terrorist’s warden to serve the condemned
prisoner only meatless meals. When McVeigh opted for a vegetarian “last
meal,” Friedrich proclaimed that the mass murderer’s decision to abstain
from meat “groups him with some of the world’s greatest visionaries,
including Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein.”


Quotes
"If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be
free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going
to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the
record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it’s a
great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be a great
thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and
these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I
think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them
through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to
the people who are willing to do it."
- “Animal Rights 2001” convention (July 2, 2001)

"[Eating meat] is not your personal decision, any more than, you know,
whether somebody beats their child is their personal decision."
- “Animal Rights 2002” convention (June 29, 2002)

"If you can take Ronald McDonald and turn him into a psychotic, bloody
butcher … that’s going to adversely affect McDonald’s’ stock price."
- “Animal Rights 2002” convention (July 2, 2002)

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activ...fm?BIO_ID=1460

> Most who've been vegans for some time will already be familiar with the
> information presented, but I've found that his succint discussion can be
> a great way to help friends/family better understand the vegan lifestyle.

Do you support his PETA terrorist-front organization?

> There's no copyright on the material, so you can *legally* make copies
> and distribute them freely. Good stuff!

It's bad stuff. See:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activ....cfm?ORG_ID=21

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> me.kirchhoff wrote:

>
> Friedrich believes sport hunters should be viewed “with the same
> revulsion we presently reserve for Nazi doctors and slave traders.” He
> spearheads PETA’s absurd “Jesus Was a Vegetarian” campaign. Friedrich
> has even denounced teenage animal-rights activists who dare to question
> the appropriateness of violent protest.

I used his Jesus was a vegetarian on the TV show I produce-he had a very
nice screen presence-and was nicely done-It was to coincide with the Pope
visiting the USA a few years ago.
I never met him personally and those peta people are a bit fanatic for me-in
my later years-
but the younger crowd has energy to burn and don't wear furs..ha ha-
Michael

Michael Balarama wrote:
>>Friedrich believes sport hunters should be viewed “with the same
>>revulsion we presently reserve for Nazi doctors and slave traders.” He
>>spearheads PETA’s absurd “Jesus Was a Vegetarian” campaign. Friedrich
>>has even denounced teenage animal-rights activists who dare to question
>>the appropriateness of violent protest.
>
> I used his Jesus was a vegetarian on the TV show I produce-he had a very
> nice screen presence

I think he's very nerdy. I also think his inflammatory rhetoric and open
support for violence should cause sincere and peaceable people to
reconsider their support for PETA.

In any event, this is my rebuttal to claims that Jesus was vegetarian
and/or pro-AR. It's taken from my post in aaev/tpa, so pardon some of
the remarks in it (like references to Hyland, a liberal author) and the
possible break-up of the formatting.

[I wrote:]
>> Jesus and his disciples fished and fed people fish. Was that an
example of misuse of animals?
>

[Another poster:]
> Yes. (Actually, I don't read that Jesus himself fished in person).

[My reply:]
Why did he help (or "enable") them?

When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into
deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."

Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't
caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the
nets."

When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish
that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners
in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and
filled both boats so full that they began to sink.

When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go
away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his
companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had
taken...
Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account)

Is the following a misuse of animals?
Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion
for these people; they have already been with me three days and
have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or
they may collapse on the way."

His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this
remote place to feed such a crowd?"

"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.

"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the
seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he
broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to
the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the
disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were
left over.
-- Mathew 15:32-37

Or how about his eating fish himself?
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And
while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate
it in their presence.
-- Luke 24:40-43

Fact: his disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Fact: he went out
with them. Fact: he told them where and when to find fish. Fact: he fed
fish to others. Fact: he ate fish himself.

Shall we get into the Passover seder?

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was
customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked
him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you
to eat the Passover?"

So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the
city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow
him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and
ready. Make preparations for us there."

The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as
Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
-- Mark 14:12-16

Did he forbid the lamb? No. Hyland has a mountain of evidence against
his positions on animal sacrifice. Even if you refuse to accept the fish
and lamb, consider the following.

A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If
you are willing, you can make me clean."

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched
the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the
leprosy left him and he was cured.

Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you
don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest
and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your
cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 1:40-44

And why did Mary and Joseph offer sacrifices? Were these in accordance
with the Law of Moses or an abuse?

[end]

Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the
animal rights or "vegan" position. People who make such claims pervert
the truth for their own agendas. It's not called "scholarship" when they
do that, it's called propaganda. It's disrespectful, disingenuous, and
deceitful. People who want to make positive change in the world -- for
their fellow man or for the beasts -- need to start from a point of honesty.

> -and was nicely done-It was to coincide with the Pope
> visiting the USA a few years ago.
> I never met him personally and those peta people are a bit fanatic for me-in
> my later years-
> but the younger crowd has energy to burn and don't wear furs..ha ha-

I didn't support PETA for a number of reasons, but I'm in staunch
opposition to them since learning of their connections to ALF-ELF
terrorists. Anyone who supports PETA supports terror.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activ....cfm?ORG_ID=21

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:40 -0500, usual suspect wrote:

> me.kirchhoff wrote:
>> I'm not sure how old this is, but I just discovered Bruce Friedrich's
>> "Veganism in a Nutshell" at http://brucefriedrich.org
>
> It's old. Here's some background info on the pathetic little nutcase:

Interesting. The man fights vehemently for what he believes and you
label him a "pathetic little nutcase."


> Friedrich believes sport hunters should be viewed “with the same
> revulsion we presently reserve for Nazi doctors and slave traders.

They prey on the weak, those with no voice of their own. The
similarities are there. Killing animals for "sport" is one of the most
execrable acts a human can commit.

>
> Timothy McVeigh “should not be allowed to take even one more life,”
> wrote Friedrich, urging the terrorist’s warden to serve the condemned
> prisoner only meatless meals. When McVeigh opted for a vegetarian “last
> meal,” Friedrich proclaimed that the mass murderer’s decision to abstain
> from meat “groups him with some of the world’s greatest visionaries,
> including Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein.”

The fact that a mass murderer like McVeigh might come to understand the
hideousness of murder--on *any* level--is quite remarkable. I question
Friedrich's comparison, if the source is accurate, however. Then again,
he tends to be as incendiery as possible whenever possible.

> Quotes
> "If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be
> free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going
> to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the
> record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it’s a
> great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be a great
> thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and
> these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I
> think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them
> through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to
> the people who are willing to do it." - “Animal Rights 2001” convention
> (July 2, 2001)
>
> "[Eating meat] is not your personal decision, any more than, you know,
> whether somebody beats their child is their personal decision." -
> “Animal Rights 2002” convention (June 29, 2002)
>
> "If you can take Ronald McDonald and turn him into a psychotic, bloody
> butcher … that’s going to adversely affect McDonald’s’ stock price." -
> “Animal Rights 2002” convention (July 2, 2002)

I don't see how these quotes help your case...

> Do you support his PETA terrorist-front organization?

Many of the acts by members of groups like ALF are reprehensible, such as
placing bombs in McDonald's restaurants, acts that endanger lives. But
many of them are misanthropes who do not accurately represent the goal of
these groups. There are always rogues.

Do I support the clandestine
freeing of lab animals from research facilities? Absolutely. Even if
there might be property damage involved? Absolutely. I do not agree with
many of the puerile acts committed by some individuals, such as spray
painting obscenities after such incidents; these simply negatively affect
peoples' perceptions of their goals.

Other acts by similar groups, such as the ELF's spiking of old-growth
trees, I do not approve of, as these spikes can cause serious injury to
loggers when struck by their chainsaws.

I support political legislation and non-violent protest above all else,
but there are times when the most ethical choice is not necessarily the
one complying with the law.

>> There's no copyright on the material, so you can *legally* make copies
>> and distribute them freely. Good stuff!
>
> It's bad stuff. See:

I question many of those claims; they mostly read as spurious jibes from those
who fear a group dedicated wholeheartedly to the welfare of animalkind.
Making statements like "well, they only contribute x% of their funds to
y" is ridiculous. This is a group whose sole goal is to raise awareness
and spread activism for the rights of animals. That's like saying to a
welfare worker, "you're bad because you only spend x% of your time
helping hispanic families when they need much more than that." It's the
classic 'red herring' line of argumentation, of the most common fallacies
of logic.

I cannot imagine further debate with you to be fruitful. You've clearly
decided that the murder of animals for matters of convenience, tradition,
and historical precedence is ethically sound.

I value your arguments, however, as they serve to affirm my values.

--
me.kirchhoff

"me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
newsan.2003.11.26.23.17.29.416787.337@0ubliette. org...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:40 -0500, usual suspect wrote:
>
> > me.kirchhoff wrote:
> >> I'm not sure how old this is, but I just discovered Bruce Friedrich's
> >> "Veganism in a Nutshell" at http://brucefriedrich.org
> >
> > It's old. Here's some background info on the pathetic little nutcase:
>
> Interesting. The man fights vehemently for what he believes and you
> label him a "pathetic little nutcase."
>
>
> > Friedrich believes sport hunters should be viewed "with the same
> > revulsion we presently reserve for Nazi doctors and slave traders.
>
> They prey on the weak, those with no voice of their own. The
> similarities are there. Killing animals for "sport" is one of the most
> execrable acts a human can commit.
=============================
Really? You are really a pathetic nutcase too then. Why is it then that
you can contribute to the death and suffering of millions and millions of
animals for your entertainment, but rant about anybody elses? Your
contributions to unnecessary animal death and suffering are just as great,
so where do you have any standing to fault anyone elses life?


>
> >
> > Timothy McVeigh "should not be allowed to take even one more life,"
> > wrote Friedrich, urging the terrorist's warden to serve the condemned
> > prisoner only meatless meals. When McVeigh opted for a vegetarian "last
> > meal," Friedrich proclaimed that the mass murderer's decision to abstain
> > from meat "groups him with some of the world's greatest visionaries,
> > including Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein."
>
> The fact that a mass murderer like McVeigh might come to understand the
> hideousness of murder--on *any* level--is quite remarkable. I question
> Friedrich's comparison, if the source is accurate, however. Then again,
> he tends to be as incendiery as possible whenever possible.
=================
No, he tends to be a nutcase.


>
> > Quotes
> > "If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be
> > free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going
> > to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the
> > record, I don't do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it's a
> > great way to bring about animal liberation . I think it would be a great
> > thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and
> > these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I
> > think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them
> > through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to
> > the people who are willing to do it." - "Animal Rights 2001" convention
> > (July 2, 2001)
> >
> > "[Eating meat] is not your personal decision, any more than, you know,
> > whether somebody beats their child is their personal decision." -
> > "Animal Rights 2002" convention (June 29, 2002)
> >
> > "If you can take Ronald McDonald and turn him into a psychotic, bloody
> > butcher . that's going to adversely affect McDonald's' stock price." -
> > "Animal Rights 2002" convention (July 2, 2002)
>
> I don't see how these quotes help your case...
>
> > Do you support his PETA terrorist-front organization?
>
> Many of the acts by members of groups like ALF are reprehensible, such as
> placing bombs in McDonald's restaurants, acts that endanger lives. But
> many of them are misanthropes who do not accurately represent the goal of
> these groups. There are always rogues.
======================
Really? yet these groups still provide support for those that take these
actions. Why is that
if, as you say, their actions don't represent the goal of those groups?


>
> Do I support the clandestine
> freeing of lab animals from research facilities? Absolutely. Even if
> there might be property damage involved? Absolutely.
=======================
Even when it causes the death of those and other animals? Figures? See, it
isn't about animals at all.
Animals are just the tools.



I do not agree with
> many of the puerile acts committed by some individuals, such as spray
> painting obscenities after such incidents; these simply negatively affect
> peoples' perceptions of their goals.
>
> Other acts by similar groups, such as the ELF's spiking of old-growth
> trees, I do not approve of, as these spikes can cause serious injury to
> loggers when struck by their chainsaws.
>
> I support political legislation and non-violent protest above all else,
> but there are times when the most ethical choice is not necessarily the
> one complying with the law.
>
> >> There's no copyright on the material, so you can *legally* make copies
> >> and distribute them freely. Good stuff!
> >
> > It's bad stuff. See:
>
> I question many of those claims; they mostly read as spurious jibes from
those
> who fear a group dedicated wholeheartedly to the welfare of animalkind.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Like PeTA? the 'e' is lower case in their logo for a reason. You
do know that they kill more animals than they save once they get their
bloody hands on them, don't you?


> Making statements like "well, they only contribute x% of their funds to
> y" is ridiculous. This is a group whose sole goal is to raise awareness
> and spread activism for the rights of animals. That's like saying to a
> welfare worker, "you're bad because you only spend x% of your time
> helping hispanic families when they need much more than that." It's the
> classic 'red herring' line of argumentation, of the most common fallacies
> of logic.
>
> I cannot imagine further debate with you to be fruitful.
====================
Probably not, your ideology has blinded you to any real facts. Too bad, you
could do something to help animals for real, but then, as long as you have
that simple rule for simple minds, you're quite happy, eh killer?



You've clearly
> decided that the murder of animals for matters of convenience, tradition,
> and historical precedence is ethically sound.
========\
Animals can't be murdered. That's your dogma talking again, hypocrite...


>
> I value your arguments, however, as they serve to affirm my values.
================
No, they blow yours out of the water, because you cannot back up any vegan
claims that you actually do anything to help animals.

>
> --
> me.kirchhoff

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:24:00 -0500, rick etter wrote:


> "me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
> newsan.2003.11.26.23.17.29.416787.337@0ubliette. org...
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:40 -0500, usual suspect wrote:
>>
>> > me.kirchhoff wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure how old this is, but I just discovered Bruce
>> >> Friedrich's "Veganism in a Nutshell" at http://brucefriedrich.org
>> >
>> > It's old. Here's some background info on the pathetic little nutcase:
>>
>> Interesting. The man fights vehemently for what he believes and you
>> label him a "pathetic little nutcase."
>>
>>
>> > Friedrich believes sport hunters should be viewed "with the same
>> > revulsion we presently reserve for Nazi doctors and slave traders.
>>
>> They prey on the weak, those with no voice of their own. The
>> similarities are there. Killing animals for "sport" is one of the most
>> execrable acts a human can commit.
> =============================
> Really? You are really a pathetic nutcase too then. Why is it then
> that you can contribute to the death and suffering of millions and
> millions of animals for your entertainment, but rant about anybody
> elses? Your contributions to unnecessary animal death and suffering are
> just as great, so where do you have any standing to fault anyone elses
> life?

Wow, you really *don't* get it, do you? How difficult is it to understand
the fundamental, critical difference between a lifestyle *based* on the
murder of animals and one *based* on the belief that intentionally
killing animals and eating their flesh is unethical? Anti-vegans sadly
fall back on the tired argument that a vegan lifestyle results in as many
deaths as omnivorous ones without understanding the basic ethical
difference at stake. I won't touch your slanderous statement.

>
>> > Timothy McVeigh "should not be allowed to take even one more life,"
>> > wrote Friedrich, urging the terrorist's warden to serve the condemned
>> > prisoner only meatless meals. When McVeigh opted for a vegetarian
>> > "last meal," Friedrich proclaimed that the mass murderer's decision
>> > to abstain from meat "groups him with some of the world's greatest
>> > visionaries, including Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and
>> > Albert Einstein."
>>
>> The fact that a mass murderer like McVeigh might come to understand the
>> hideousness of murder--on *any* level--is quite remarkable. I question
>> Friedrich's comparison, if the source is accurate, however. Then again,
>> he tends to be as incendiery as possible whenever possible.
> =================
> No, he tends to be a nutcase.

More useless ad hominem attacks.

>
>> > Quotes
>> > "If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be
>> > free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're
>> > going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows.
>> > For the record, I don't do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think
>> > it's a great way to bring about animal liberation . I think it would
>> > be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these
>> > slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them
>> > exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to
>> > take bricks and toss them through the windows, and everything else
>> > along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." -
>> > "Animal Rights 2001" convention (July 2, 2001)
>> >
>> > "[Eating meat] is not your personal decision, any more than, you
>> > know, whether somebody beats their child is their personal decision."
>> > - "Animal Rights 2002" convention (June 29, 2002)
>> >
>> > "If you can take Ronald McDonald and turn him into a psychotic,
>> > bloody butcher . that's going to adversely affect McDonald's' stock
>> > price." - "Animal Rights 2002" convention (July 2, 2002)
>>
>> I don't see how these quotes help your case...
>>
>> > Do you support his PETA terrorist-front organization?
>>
>> Many of the acts by members of groups like ALF are reprehensible, such
>> as placing bombs in McDonald's restaurants, acts that endanger lives.
>> But many of them are misanthropes who do not accurately represent the
>> goal of these groups. There are always rogues.
> ======================
> Really? yet these groups still provide support for those that take
> these actions. Why is that
> if, as you say, their actions don't represent the goal of those groups?

Again, they support the ELF, not necessarily an extremist who goes too
far. The difference is clear.

>> Do I support the clandestine
>> freeing of lab animals from research facilities? Absolutely. Even if
>> there might be property damage involved? Absolutely.
> =======================
> Even when it causes the death of those and other animals? Figures? See,
> it isn't about animals at all.
> Animals are just the tools.

Unfortunately, deaths will occur. But the intent is to free these
animals from hideous environments in which they will be killed if no
action is taken. Your argument, again, is fundamentally fallacious.

> I do not agree with
>> many of the puerile acts committed by some individuals, such as spray
>> painting obscenities after such incidents; these simply negatively
>> affect peoples' perceptions of their goals.
>>
>> Other acts by similar groups, such as the ELF's spiking of old-growth
>> trees, I do not approve of, as these spikes can cause serious injury to
>> loggers when struck by their chainsaws.
>>
>> I support political legislation and non-violent protest above all else,
>> but there are times when the most ethical choice is not necessarily the
>> one complying with the law.
>>
>> >> There's no copyright on the material, so you can *legally* make
>> >> copies and distribute them freely. Good stuff!
>> >
>> > It's bad stuff. See:
>>
>> I question many of those claims; they mostly read as spurious jibes
>> from
> those
>> who fear a group dedicated wholeheartedly to the welfare of animalkind.
> =======================
> ROTFLMAO Like PeTA? the 'e' is lower case in their logo for a reason.
> You do know that they kill more animals than they save once they get
> their bloody hands on them, don't you?

Again, you're making little sense. PeTA's goal is to raise awareness and
increase activism for animal rights. You make it sound as though their
goal is to kill as many animals as possible.

>> Making statements like "well, they only contribute x% of their funds to
>> y" is ridiculous. This is a group whose sole goal is to raise
>> awareness and spread activism for the rights of animals. That's like
>> saying to a welfare worker, "you're bad because you only spend x% of
>> your time helping hispanic families when they need much more than
>> that." It's the classic 'red herring' line of argumentation, of the
>> most common fallacies of logic.
>>
>> I cannot imagine further debate with you to be fruitful.
> ====================
>Probably not, your ideology has blinded you to any real facts. Too bad,
>you could do something to help animals for real, but then, as long as
>you have that simple rule for simple minds, you're quite happy, eh
>killer?

Funny, I would say that your "facts" have blinded you from taking any
sort of ethical stance. I suppose that by eating meat I would helping
animals? Yet again, your logic is faulty. And, yes, I am quite happy
knowing that I have dedicated my life to helping the world's oppressed,
whether it be animals or humans.

> You've clearly
>> decided that the murder of animals for matters of convenience,
>> tradition, and historical precedence is ethically sound.
> ========\
> Animals can't be murdered. That's your dogma talking again,
> hypocrite...

Killed. Murdered. Shot to death. It's semantics. Take your pick.

>> I value your arguments, however, as they serve to affirm my values.
> ================
> No, they blow yours out of the water, because you cannot back up any
> vegan claims that you actually do anything to help animals.

I have personally rescued animals facing certain death who will now live
out their lives in peace. What have you done? I you have actually done
anything to contribute to the welfare of animals, I applaud you.

--
me.kirchhoff

"me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
newsan.2003.11.27.01.04.17.229886.337@0ubliette. org...
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:24:00 -0500, rick etter wrote:
>
>
> > "me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
> > newsan.2003.11.26.23.17.29.416787.337@0ubliette. org...
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:40 -0500, usual suspect wrote:
> >>
> >> > me.kirchhoff wrote:
> >> >> I'm not sure how old this is, but I just discovered Bruce
> >> >> Friedrich's "Veganism in a Nutshell" at http://brucefriedrich.org
> >> >
> >> > It's old. Here's some background info on the pathetic little nutcase:
> >>
> >> Interesting. The man fights vehemently for what he believes and you
> >> label him a "pathetic little nutcase."
> >>
> >>
> >> > Friedrich believes sport hunters should be viewed "with the same
> >> > revulsion we presently reserve for Nazi doctors and slave traders.
> >>
> >> They prey on the weak, those with no voice of their own. The
> >> similarities are there. Killing animals for "sport" is one of the most
> >> execrable acts a human can commit.
> > =============================
> > Really? You are really a pathetic nutcase too then. Why is it then
> > that you can contribute to the death and suffering of millions and
> > millions of animals for your entertainment, but rant about anybody
> > elses? Your contributions to unnecessary animal death and suffering are
> > just as great, so where do you have any standing to fault anyone elses
> > life?
>
> Wow, you really *don't* get it, do you?
--------------------------
And you really are delusional about your lifestyle, aren't you?


How difficult is it to understand
> the fundamental, critical difference between a lifestyle *based* on the
> murder of animals and one *based* on the belief that intentionally
> killing animals and eating their flesh is unethical?
============================
That's something that you haven't proven. Animals are intentionally killed
for your veggies. Why is it ethical to kill animals and let them rot?
Your diet causes more death and suffering than some meat included diets.
How is it 'ethical' to kill more, and still be so sanctimoniously smug and
hypocritical?



Anti-vegans sadly
> fall back on the tired argument that a vegan lifestyle results in as many
> deaths as omnivorous ones without understanding the basic ethical
> difference at stake. I won't touch your slanderous statement.
======================
Because you can't. You cannot defend the death and suffering you cause
despite the fact that you could cause less.


>
> >
> >> > Timothy McVeigh "should not be allowed to take even one more life,"
> >> > wrote Friedrich, urging the terrorist's warden to serve the condemned
> >> > prisoner only meatless meals. When McVeigh opted for a vegetarian
> >> > "last meal," Friedrich proclaimed that the mass murderer's decision
> >> > to abstain from meat "groups him with some of the world's greatest
> >> > visionaries, including Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and
> >> > Albert Einstein."
> >>
> >> The fact that a mass murderer like McVeigh might come to understand the
> >> hideousness of murder--on *any* level--is quite remarkable. I question
> >> Friedrich's comparison, if the source is accurate, however. Then again,
> >> he tends to be as incendiery as possible whenever possible.
> > =================
> > No, he tends to be a nutcase.
>
> More useless ad hominem attacks.
==================
LOL can't refute that either, I see.

>
> >
> >> > Quotes
> >> > "If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be
> >> > free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're
> >> > going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows.
> >> > For the record, I don't do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think
> >> > it's a great way to bring about animal liberation . I think it would
> >> > be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these
> >> > slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them
> >> > exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to
> >> > take bricks and toss them through the windows, and everything else
> >> > along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." -
> >> > "Animal Rights 2001" convention (July 2, 2001)
> >> >
> >> > "[Eating meat] is not your personal decision, any more than, you
> >> > know, whether somebody beats their child is their personal decision."
> >> > - "Animal Rights 2002" convention (June 29, 2002)
> >> >
> >> > "If you can take Ronald McDonald and turn him into a psychotic,
> >> > bloody butcher . that's going to adversely affect McDonald's' stock
> >> > price." - "Animal Rights 2002" convention (July 2, 2002)
> >>
> >> I don't see how these quotes help your case...
> >>
> >> > Do you support his PETA terrorist-front organization?
> >>
> >> Many of the acts by members of groups like ALF are reprehensible, such
> >> as placing bombs in McDonald's restaurants, acts that endanger lives.
> >> But many of them are misanthropes who do not accurately represent the
> >> goal of these groups. There are always rogues.
> > ======================
> > Really? yet these groups still provide support for those that take
> > these actions. Why is that
> > if, as you say, their actions don't represent the goal of those groups?
>
> Again, they support the ELF, not necessarily an extremist who goes too
> far. The difference is clear.
======================
No, they support individuals that been caught perpetrating these crimes.
The differences aren't there. They support terrorists.

>
> >> Do I support the clandestine
> >> freeing of lab animals from research facilities? Absolutely. Even if
> >> there might be property damage involved? Absolutely.
> > =======================
> > Even when it causes the death of those and other animals? Figures? See,
> > it isn't about animals at all.
> > Animals are just the tools.
>
> Unfortunately, deaths will occur. But the intent is to free these
> animals from hideous environments in which they will be killed if no
> action is taken. Your argument, again, is fundamentally fallacious.
\=================
No, it's your excuses for the death and suffering you cause that is
hypocritical.
Animals are intentionally killed to provide you with cheap, convenient
veggies.



>
> > I do not agree with
> >> many of the puerile acts committed by some individuals, such as spray
> >> painting obscenities after such incidents; these simply negatively
> >> affect peoples' perceptions of their goals.
> >>
> >> Other acts by similar groups, such as the ELF's spiking of old-growth
> >> trees, I do not approve of, as these spikes can cause serious injury to
> >> loggers when struck by their chainsaws.
> >>
> >> I support political legislation and non-violent protest above all else,
> >> but there are times when the most ethical choice is not necessarily the
> >> one complying with the law.
> >>
> >> >> There's no copyright on the material, so you can *legally* make
> >> >> copies and distribute them freely. Good stuff!
> >> >
> >> > It's bad stuff. See:
> >>
> >> I question many of those claims; they mostly read as spurious jibes
> >> from
> > those
> >> who fear a group dedicated wholeheartedly to the welfare of animalkind.
> > =======================
> > ROTFLMAO Like PeTA? the 'e' is lower case in their logo for a reason.
> > You do know that they kill more animals than they save once they get
> > their bloody hands on them, don't you?
>
> Again, you're making little sense. PeTA's goal is to raise awareness and
> increase activism for animal rights. You make it sound as though their
> goal is to kill as many animals as possible.
===========================
Just stating the facts. look them up if you dare. Once PeTA gets their
hands on an animal, they are more then likely to kill it than to save it.
Of course, while they do have it, they will milk the rubes for all the
donations they can, once those fall off...


>
> >> Making statements like "well, they only contribute x% of their funds to
> >> y" is ridiculous. This is a group whose sole goal is to raise
> >> awareness and spread activism for the rights of animals. That's like
> >> saying to a welfare worker, "you're bad because you only spend x% of
> >> your time helping hispanic families when they need much more than
> >> that." It's the classic 'red herring' line of argumentation, of the
> >> most common fallacies of logic.
> >>
> >> I cannot imagine further debate with you to be fruitful.
> > ====================
> >Probably not, your ideology has blinded you to any real facts. Too bad,
> >you could do something to help animals for real, but then, as long as
> >you have that simple rule for simple minds, you're quite happy, eh
> >killer?
>
> Funny, I would say that your "facts" have blinded you from taking any
> sort of ethical stance. I suppose that by eating meat I would helping
> animals?
========================
yes. It's your categorical statements about meat that are ignorant and
inane.
I'm sure you don't even make choices among you own foods depending on which
ones cause more
or less death and suffering. There are meats that cause far less death and
suffering than almost any crop you care to mention.
You don't make real choices because you have the simple rule that not eating
meat means
no/less/fewer animals die. Unfortunately for the animals, that's not
always the case. But then, you
don't care about that because animals are just the tools of your religion.



Yet again, your logic is faulty. And, yes, I am quite happy
> knowing that I have dedicated my life to helping the world's oppressed,
> whether it be animals or humans.
========================
ROTFLMAO You really are that insane, aren't you? So, how many animals died
for this inane little post of yours?
Enjoying your entertainment?


>
> > You've clearly
> >> decided that the murder of animals for matters of convenience,
> >> tradition, and historical precedence is ethically sound.
> > ========\
> > Animals can't be murdered. That's your dogma talking again,
> > hypocrite...
>
> Killed. Murdered. Shot to death. It's semantics. Take your pick.
=======================
No, it's an emotive bit of gimmickery. It's all vegans have since they
cannot prove their idiotic claims
of saving animals.

>
> >> I value your arguments, however, as they serve to affirm my values.
> > ================
> > No, they blow yours out of the water, because you cannot back up any
> > vegan claims that you actually do anything to help animals.
>
> I have personally rescued animals facing certain death who will now live
> out their lives in peace. What have you done? I you have actually done
> anything to contribute to the welfare of animals, I applaud you.
===========================
Well whoopi. We have dogs rescued from shelters too. But that doesn't
address the hypocrisy of you dietary claims.



>
> --
> me.kirchhoff

me.kirchhoff wrote:

> I'm not sure how old this is, but I just discovered Bruce Friedrich's
> "Veganism in a Nutshell" at http://brucefriedrich.org
>
> Most who've been vegans for some time will already be familiar with the
> information presented, but I've found that his succint discussion can be
> a great way to help friends/family better understand the vegan lifestyle.
> There's no copyright on the material, so you can *legally* make copies
> and distribute them freely. Good stuff!

It's worthless and incoherent. Here's just one
example, not from the "essay" itself but from his
"question and answer" section. He starts with an
introduction, which includes the following:

Please note that none of these questions addresses
the fact that meat-eating is the worst thing you can
do for the environment, supports human injustices
both in the U.S. and globally, and harms your own
health. Nor do any of these questions address the
gratuitous animal abuse on factory farms and in
slaughterhouses.

Then he gets to the first question:

Animals eat one another in nature, so why shouldn’t
we eat animals?

His answer does EXACTLY what his introduction says he's
not going to address:

Please examine what we do to animals on factory
farms and in slaughterhouses, denying animals
everything that is natural to them and then killing
them in gruesome ways, and try to tell me that this
is moral.


It's all downhill from there. "veganism" is not a
principled ethics, and nothing this semi-terrorist
Friedrich write does anything to invest "veganism" with
even a hint of moral principle.

"Essay" is taken from the french "essai", a noun
meaning "attempt" or "try". Friedrich's try is a very
bad effort.