Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"St." Tom Regan, utilitarian wolf in deontological rat's clothing
From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper:
Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan concludes that humans are morally obligated to consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in the loss of many animals of the field, he said that while that may be true, we are still obligated to consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in total it would cause the least harm to animals*** (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to current agriculture. [emphasis added] http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
Jonathan Ball wrote: > From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper: > > Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan > concludes that humans are morally obligated to > consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was > pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in > the loss of many animals of the field, he said that > while that may be true, we are still obligated to > consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in > total it would cause the least harm to animals*** > (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to > current agriculture. [emphasis added] > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference. As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet (and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics). Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper: > > > > Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan > > concludes that humans are morally obligated to > > consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was > > pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in > > the loss of many animals of the field, he said that > > while that may be true, we are still obligated to > > consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in > > total it would cause the least harm to animals*** > > (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to > > current agriculture. [emphasis added] > > > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by > including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very > document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference. > As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider > death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals > were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet > (and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics). ====================== Nope. You lose, again, killer. You cannot explain away an omnivorous diet that includes game as the meat source using you new dietary exclusion rules. It's still just a simple rule for a simple mind, hypocrite. To atomatically claim you diey is better, while excluding other choices just says yhat your religious dogma has taken hold, not any reasoning power. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
... > > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper: > > > > Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan > > concludes that humans are morally obligated to > > consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was > > pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in > > the loss of many animals of the field, he said that > > while that may be true, we are still obligated to > > consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in > > total it would cause the least harm to animals*** > > (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to > > current agriculture. [emphasis added] > > > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by > including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very > document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference. Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical counter-arguments. > As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider > death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals > were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet > (and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics). What a convoluted tap dance that was. Death is death, and harm is harm. Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
Dutch wrote: > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message <snip> >>>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm >>Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by >>including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very >>document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference. > Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical > counter-arguments. Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one of his major critics? >>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider >>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals >>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet >>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics). > What a convoluted tap dance that was. No, not a "tap dance" Death is death, and harm is harm. Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and of itself -- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the main arguments against factory farming. > Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count. Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper: >> >> Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan >> concludes that humans are morally obligated to >> consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was >> pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in >> the loss of many animals of the field, he said that >> while that may be true, we are still obligated to >> consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in >> total it would cause the least harm to animals*** >> (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to >> current agriculture. [emphasis added] > > >> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > > Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by > including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very > document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference. Good for you. It's shit. I'll tear it apart when you attempt to use it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, Karen, for admitting you and sleazy "St." Tom are utilitariansafter all
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper: >> >> Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan >> concludes that humans are morally obligated to >> consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was >> pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in >> the loss of many animals of the field, he said that >> while that may be true, we are still obligated to >> consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in >> total it would cause the least harm to animals*** >> (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to >> current agriculture. [emphasis added] > > >> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > > Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by > including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very > document you linked. I'm sure you'll be delighted to read his 100% utilitarian defense of "St." Tom's and your position. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Dutch wrote: > > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > <snip> > > >>>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > >>Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by > >>including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very > >>document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference. > > > Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical > > counter-arguments. > > Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one > of his major critics? > > >>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider > >>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals > >>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet > >>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics). > > > What a convoluted tap dance that was. > > No, not a "tap dance" > > Death is death, and harm is harm. > > Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed > out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and > of itself ================== And what miserable life would that be, besides you own of course? You know perfectly well that there are meat-included diets that animals are treated no different than those you kill for veggies, except that the ones killed for meat have a far more humane death than the ones you slice, dice, shred and poison. Why is it your 'ethics' automatically ignore the options that do better at *all* parts of the diet excuses you give for your diet? Dishonesty? Delusion? Ignorance? Your choice, killer. =-- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the > main arguments against factory farming. > > > Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count. > > Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your > and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims. ================== None of us has claimed that 'any' omnivorous diet is. The fact remains that there are options in a omnivourous diet that do beat your killing fields, hands down. > > Rat > |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> > > Dutch wrote: > > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > <snip> > > >>>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > >>Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by > >>including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very > >>document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference. > > > Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical > > counter-arguments. > > Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one > of his major critics? Money. Look for such objective behaviour on any AR or vegan website. Happy hunting, they will be virtually non-existent. > >>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider > >>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals > >>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet > >>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics). > > > What a convoluted tap dance that was. > > No, not a "tap dance" Yes, a tap dance, a very poor one. The whole thrust of the article is that opting to include pastured or hunted meat in one's diet may be superior **wrt_harm_caused** to every vegan diet except one based on very carefully hand-grown produce. Therefore if more harm equals more injustice under Regan's system of ethics then he must advocate that diet. > Death is death, and harm is harm. > > Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed > out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and > of itself -- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the > main arguments against factory farming. That's all well and good, but you're tap dancing again, the article doesn't mention factory farming, it's all about pastured and wild. Nobody argues that in today's society factory farmed meat causes less harm than factory farmed vegetables. > > Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count. > > Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your > and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims. Rattie, rattie, *neither* diet, as narrowly defined, wins this contest hands down. That is the WHOLE point, vegans insist on concluding fallaciously that a vegan diet *does* result in less harm, categorically, even in the face of strong arguments to the contrary, just as you did above. You appear to believe that one animal kept in captivity for slaughter amounts to more harm than any number of animals killed collaterally. That's not a "least harm" philosophy, unless you have discovered some objective means of measuring the harm to an animal kept in captivity and weighing it against the harm done by animal deaths by poison or harvesting. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
Dutch wrote: <snip> >>>Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical >>>counter-arguments. >>Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one >>of his major critics? > Money. While Cohen wrote out of a pure and selfless desire to do good, no doubt. (sarcasm) Your hatred has completely destroyed your objectivity. <snip> >>>>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider >>>>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals >>>>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet >>>>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics). >>>What a convoluted tap dance that was. >>No, not a "tap dance" > Yes, a tap dance, a very poor one. The whole thrust of the article is that > opting to include pastured or hunted meat in one's diet may be superior > **wrt_harm_caused** to every vegan diet except one based on very carefully > hand-grown produce. You misrepresent the article. Try rereading it and be more honest about what it actually says. <snip> Therefore if more harm equals more injustice under > Regan's system of ethics then he must advocate that diet. >> Death is death, and harm is harm. >>Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed >>out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and >>of itself -- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the >>main arguments against factory farming. > That's all well and good, but you're tap dancing again, the article doesn't > mention factory farming, It certainly does. > it's all about pastured and wild. Nobody argues > that in today's society factory farmed meat causes less harm than factory > farmed vegetables. That's simply a lie. I argue so, Matheny argues so, and so do most of the AR writers. That's the point of Matheny's article: that the harm caused over the life-time of domestic "food" animals is a worse harm (or greater injustice) than the single act of killing involved in a field or grain elevator death for a similar wild animal. I absolutely agree this is so. >>>Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count. >>Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your >>and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims. > Rattie, rattie, *neither* diet, as narrowly defined, wins this contest hands > down. That is the WHOLE point, vegans insist on concluding fallaciously that > a vegan diet *does* result in less harm, categorically, even in the face of > strong arguments to the contrary, just as you did above. I believe it does. > You appear to believe that one animal kept in captivity for slaughter > amounts to more harm than any number of animals killed collaterally. More injustice; yes, certainly. > That's > not a "least harm" philosophy, unless you have discovered some objective > means of measuring the harm to an animal kept in captivity and weighing it > against the harm done by animal deaths by poison or harvesting. Such objective measurement is available to anyone. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Dutch wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical >>>> counter-arguments. > > >>> Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one >>> of his major critics? > > >> Money. > > > While Cohen wrote out of a pure and selfless desire to do good, no > doubt. That's true. Working at a good university (U of Mich.), he didn't need the money. Being a whore at an academic backwater, Regan did. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Dutch wrote: >>>> What a convoluted tap dance that was. > > >>> No, not a "tap dance" > > >> Yes, a tap dance, a very poor one. The whole thrust of the article is >> that >> opting to include pastured or hunted meat in one's diet may be superior >> **wrt_harm_caused** to every vegan diet except one based on very >> carefully >> hand-grown produce. > > > You misrepresent the article. Try rereading it and be more honest about > what it actually says. Try reading it for comprehension JUST ONCE. Be sure to comment on the 100% utilitarian story it tells, heh heh heh. [...] > >> You appear to believe that one animal kept in captivity for slaughter >> amounts to more harm than any number of animals killed collaterally. > > > More injustice; yes, certainly. > >> That's >> not a "least harm" philosophy, unless you have discovered some objective >> means of measuring the harm to an animal kept in captivity and >> weighing it >> against the harm done by animal deaths by poison or harvesting. > > > Such objective measurement is available to anyone. Bullshit. It's purely your subjective, dishonest, polemical sophist's opinion. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Dutch wrote: > > <snip> > > >>>Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical > >>>counter-arguments. > > >>Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one > >>of his major critics? > > > Money. > > While Cohen wrote out of a pure and selfless desire to do good, no > doubt. (sarcasm) Why would I think that? He was probably in it for the money too. > Your hatred has completely destroyed your objectivity. Those were your words, not mine, so my objectivity is not relevant. Also, I don't hate anyone. I do dislike certain ways of thinking though. I dislike them because they're harmful to the people who think that way and because they make good people do really stupid things. You for instance, you're probably quite intelligent, but you can't think straight because you're caught up in this vegan mindset. > <snip> > > > >>>>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider > >>>>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals > >>>>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet > >>>>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics). > > >>>What a convoluted tap dance that was. > > >>No, not a "tap dance" > > > Yes, a tap dance, a very poor one. The whole thrust of the article is that > > opting to include pastured or hunted meat in one's diet may be superior > > **wrt_harm_caused** to every vegan diet except one based on very carefully > > hand-grown produce. > > You misrepresent the article. Try rereading it and be more honest about > what it actually says. Are you talking about the Matheny strawman or the Davis article? > <snip> > > Therefore if more harm equals more injustice under > > Regan's system of ethics then he must advocate that diet. > > >> Death is death, and harm is harm. > > >>Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed > >>out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and > >>of itself -- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the > >>main arguments against factory farming. > > > That's all well and good, but you're tap dancing again, the article doesn't > > mention factory farming, > > It certainly does. Do tell, care to point it out? As far as I can see the article is recommending the "pastured/ruminant" alternative, not factory farming. I'm talking about the Davis article, not the rebuttal. If the rebuttal addresses factory farming then it's a strawman argument, Davis' article has nothing do to with factory farming. > > it's all about pastured and wild. Nobody argues > > that in today's society factory farmed meat causes less harm than factory > > farmed vegetables. > > That's simply a lie. No kidding... <?> > I argue so, Matheny argues so, and so do most of > the AR writers. You're not paying attention, read my sentence above again, slowly. > That's the point of Matheny's article: that the harm > caused over the life-time of domestic "food" animals is a worse harm (or > greater injustice) than the single act of killing involved in a field > or grain elevator death for a similar wild animal. I absolutely agree > this is so. The Davis article is about the "pastured/ruminent model", not factory farming. Matheny is pummeling a strawman, so are you. > >>>Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count. > > >>Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your > >>and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims. > > > Rattie, rattie, *neither* diet, as narrowly defined, wins this contest hands > > down. That is the WHOLE point, vegans insist on concluding fallaciously that > > a vegan diet *does* result in less harm, categorically, even in the face of > > strong arguments to the contrary, just as you did above. > > I believe it does. Based on blind dogmatism. Did you even read the web page? Here it is again http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife. > > You appear to believe that one animal kept in captivity for slaughter > > amounts to more harm than any number of animals killed collaterally. > > More injustice; yes, certainly. What about pastured animals who's lives closely reflect the lives of wild animals? That's what the article is about, read it. > > That's > > not a "least harm" philosophy, unless you have discovered some objective > > means of measuring the harm to an animal kept in captivity and weighing it > > against the harm done by animal deaths by poison or harvesting. > > Such objective measurement is available to anyone. OK, I'll bite, where? It doesn't matter anyway, the article is not about confinement farming, please read it before commenting further. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no >harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife. > And larger amounts of food can be obtained without causing any deaths at all, such as crops gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to push meat onto people as the least-harm diet when it clearly isn't, pusher. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no > >harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife. > > > And larger amounts of food can be obtained > without causing any deaths at all, such as crops > gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to > push meat onto people as the least-harm diet > when it clearly isn't, pusher. Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse grown food, they push any and all sorts of vegetables, grains and fruit, regardless of how they're grown, and do so using the most lurid and hateful rhetoric they can muster. The pastured/ruminant model as described on that page represents a viable dietary alternative that would drastically reduce the amount of animal deaths compared to current agribusiness monoculture farming, or even organic farming. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:56:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> > >> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no >> >harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife. >> > >> And larger amounts of food can be obtained >> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops >> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to >> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet >> when it clearly isn't, pusher. > >Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse grown food, they push any >and all sorts of vegetables, grains and fruit, regardless of how they're >grown, Straw man. Vegans do not promote veg regardless of how it's grown. You'll need to support that claim. >and do so using the most lurid and hateful rhetoric they can muster. You are trying but failing to divert attention away from the point in that you are pushing meat onto vegans as THE least-harm diet while knowing a better vegetarian alternative is to eat crops grown under glass or foraging. You're a pusher peddling a lie to coerce ethical people into taking a product they don't want or think ethical. Do you understand what I'm getting at yet, pusher? |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:56:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >"ipse dixit" > wrote > > > >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > > >> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no > >> >harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife. > >> > > >> And larger amounts of food can be obtained > >> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops > >> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to > >> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet > >> when it clearly isn't, pusher. > > > >Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse grown food, they push any > >and all sorts of vegetables, grains and fruit, regardless of how they're > >grown, > > Straw man. Vegans do not promote veg regardless > of how it's grown. You'll need to support that claim. You're promoting disinformation now. Vegans promote the idea that organically grown and local produce is the best, so do most omnivores. Nonetheless they push the idea that vegetable based food is *categorically* better than *any* meat wrt to animal death. Here's vegetarianism in a nutshell from one of the leading vegetarian websites- http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/nutshell.htm They are pushing a vegetarian diet regardless of the source. > >and do so using the most lurid and hateful rhetoric they can muster. > > You are trying but failing to divert attention away > from the point I'm not here to reinforce YOUR attempts at distraction. Vegan/ARA's use of lurid rhetoric is indicative of their corrupt mindset. in that you are pushing meat onto > vegans as THE least-harm diet Meat is not a diet, it's a class of food. A diet *containing* pastured meat would easily trump a diet containing an equivalent amount of agribusiness plant foods. Here, read the article http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm. > while knowing > a better vegetarian alternative is to eat crops > grown under glass or foraging. I have no objection to people eating hothouse veggies, I buy them myself, but it's rather unrealistic to imply that all veggies, not to mention the world's fruit and grains could be grown this way. The point of the Davis article is that "pastured/ruminent model" offers an alternative to the factory farmed vegetables that many people eat, and which vegans *assume falsely* automatically cause less animal death than any meat product. You're a pusher > peddling a lie to coerce ethical people into taking > a product they don't want or think ethical. Why would anyone buy something they don't want? I wouldn't. > Do you understand what I'm getting at yet, pusher? Yes, I read you like a cheap paperback, you're attempting to distract from the Davis et al findings regarding the advantages of the pastured/ruminant model by resorting to schoolyard name-calling, that's nothing new for you. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:18:58 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:56:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote >> >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one >> >> >death*, no cultivation, no harvesting, no spraying, >> >> >no decimation of indigenous wildlife. >> >> > >> >> And larger amounts of food can be obtained >> >> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops >> >> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to >> >> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet >> >> when it clearly isn't, pusher. >> > >> >Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse >> >grown food, they push any and all sorts of vegetables, >> >grains and fruit, regardless of how they're grown, >> >> Straw man. Vegans do not promote veg regardless >> of how it's grown. You'll need to support that claim. > >You're promoting disinformation now. Vegans promote the idea that >organically grown and local produce is the best, so do most omnivores. You haven't supported you claim. In fact you've just contradicted it. You initially stated, "vegans push any and all sorts of vegetables" etc., but now you're stating, "Vegans promote the idea that organically grown and local produce is the best..." Make up your dull mind. > >> >and do so using the most lurid and hateful rhetoric they can muster. >> >> You are trying but failing to divert attention away >> from the point > >I'm not here to reinforce YOUR attempts at distraction. It's your distraction away from the fact that you are pushing a product onto people as the least- harm diet that I'm bringing attention to. You know it isn't the least-harm diet yet you continue to promote it as such in the hope you'll persuade people into buying it. You're a pusher, just like any other pusher in the street pushing harmful substances onto kids and telling them it'll be good for them, and that it's entirely alright to take it. Like them, you peddle your product by lying to your target victim, pusher. |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, jonnie: a good rebuttal
"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
... > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:18:58 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:56:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one > >> >> >death*, no cultivation, no harvesting, no spraying, > >> >> >no decimation of indigenous wildlife. > >> >> > > >> >> And larger amounts of food can be obtained > >> >> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops > >> >> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to > >> >> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet > >> >> when it clearly isn't, pusher. > >> > > >> >Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse > >> >grown food, they push any and all sorts of vegetables, > >> >grains and fruit, regardless of how they're grown, > >> > >> Straw man. Vegans do not promote veg regardless > >> of how it's grown. You'll need to support that claim. > > > >You're promoting disinformation now. Vegans promote the idea that > >organically grown and local produce is the best, so do most omnivores. > > You haven't supported you claim. In fact you've > just contradicted it. You initially stated, "vegans > push any and all sorts of vegetables" etc., but now > you're stating, "Vegans promote the idea that > organically grown and local produce is the best..." > Make up your dull mind. You're just waaay to stupid for this.. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What You Need To Know About How To Open A Clothing Boutique | General Cooking | |||
Clothing Manufacturers | Asian Cooking | |||
Bitten clothing | Sushi | |||
ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks. | Vegan | |||
A rejection of utilitarianism, by Tom Regan | Vegan |