****wit David Harrison choked:
> Dieter wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>
>>
>>>Dieter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>>And you don't CARE, ****wit. That's why YOU eat
>>>>Chicken McNuggets.
>>>
>>>
>>> How many times have I eaten them Gonad?
>>
>>You eat them, ****wit.
>
>
> How many times have I eaten them Gonad?

You eat them, ****wit. You eat Chicken McNuggets, you
eat grain-fed beef, you eat whatever
low-quality-of-life meat you can get your grubby paws on.

>
>
>>>>It's why you're a lying hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But I am opposed to the battery method
>>>>>of keeping chickens,
>>>>
>>>>No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>>>>products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>>>>SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
>>>raising the chickens.
>>
>>That's a LIE, ****wit. You are NOT opposed to battery
>>use in raising chickens.
>
>
> That's a lie.

That's not a lie, ****wit. You eat chicken products
and eggs from battery raised hens.

>
>
>>Stop lying.
>>
>>You eat any old eggs and chicken you can find, ****wit.
>> You do NOT first check that they are "free range" or
>>some other kind of non-battery confined chickens.
>
>
> You "ARAs" really are ignorant as well as stupid and
> dishonest.

I'm not an "ara", ****wit, which you have always known.
I'm also scrupulously honest, ****wit, which you also
have always known, and I'm smart.

You eat battery-raised chicken products.

>
>>Stop LYING, ****wit, you chickenshit cocksucker.
>
>

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:05:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >
>> >> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
>> >> >> of keeping chickens,
>> >> >
>> >> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>> >> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>> >> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
>> >> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
>> >> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
>> >> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
>> >> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
>> >> there is no way you can convince me that it would.
>> >
>> >Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily seen,
>if
>> >a million people did the same
>>
>> As ALWAYS your comparisons are nothing similar to reality.
>
>Are you saying that there are not a million consumers of battery eggs?
>
>> >it would make a huge difference, and clearly
>> >"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.
>>
>> How stupid. So when I die, how will it influence chicken
>> or egg production?
>
>It will decrease by an amount exactly proportional to your consumption.

You are insane.

>Do you use the same cop-out logic to avoid bothering to vote in elections,
>because your vote won't change anything?

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:05:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> >> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
> >> >> >> of keeping chickens,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
> >> >> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
> >> >> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
> >> >> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
> >> >> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
> >> >> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
> >> >> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
> >> >> there is no way you can convince me that it would.
> >> >
> >> >Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily
seen,
> >if
> >> >a million people did the same
> >>
> >> As ALWAYS your comparisons are nothing similar to reality.
> >
> >Are you saying that there are not a million consumers of battery eggs?
> >
> >> >it would make a huge difference, and clearly
> >> >"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.
> >>
> >> How stupid. So when I die, how will it influence chicken
> >> or egg production?
> >
> >It will decrease by an amount exactly proportional to your consumption.
>
> You are insane.

That's the economic equation. Of course, a single consumer is not going to
affect levels of production, but the principle is accurate, it just takes a
number of consumers to affect a perceptible change.

> >Do you use the same cop-out logic to avoid bothering to vote in
elections,
> >because your vote won't change anything?

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "farrell77" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > >> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
> > > > >> >> of keeping chickens,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
> > > > >> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
> > > > >> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
> > > > >> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
> > > > >> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
> > > > >> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
> > > > >> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
> > > > >> there is no way you can convince me that it would.
> > > > >
> > > > >Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily
> > seen,
> > > if
> > > > >a million people did the same
> > > >
> > > > As ALWAYS your comparisons are nothing similar to reality.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that there are not a million consumers of battery eggs?
> > >
> > > > >it would make a huge difference, and clearly
> > > > >"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.
> > > >
> > > > How stupid. So when I die, how will it influence chicken
> > > > or egg production?
> > >
> > > It will decrease by an amount exactly proportional to your
consumption.
> > >
> > > Do you use the same cop-out logic to avoid bothering to vote in
> elections,
> > > because your vote won't change anything?
> >
> > Cop-out logic?
>
> Yes, cop-out logic, do nothing because I'm only one person, how can one
> person make a difference?
>
> > Isn't it the same logic used by you
> > when you wrote the following line in another discussion?
> >
> > "..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When I
> > finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing veganism
> > is ..."
>
> No it's not the same logic at all. ...

He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure. Sure
looks like the same reasoning to me.


> ...Prior to being conscious of collateral
> deaths my perception lacked the necessary context to make a rational
> assessment. I fell victim of the typical vegan fallacy, I believe because
I
> was seduced by the idea of being on a higher moral plane.

farrell77 wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>

>>>Cop-out logic?
>>
>>Yes, cop-out logic, do nothing because I'm only one person, how can one
>>person make a difference?
>>
>>
>>>Isn't it the same logic used by you
>>>when you wrote the following line in another discussion?
>>>
>>>"..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When I
>>>finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing veganism
>>>is ..."
>>
>>No it's not the same logic at all. ...
>
>
> He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.

That's a COP-OUT, you moron, and it is exactly the same
cop-out as that employed by "vegans" when it comes to
collateral deaths. This is the fact that tied Karen
Winter up in knots.

FACT: Abstaining from the consumption of all animal
products, i.e. "being 'vegan'", doesn't make ANY
significant difference in the number of animals killed.

FACT: Abstaining from CD-causing products *also*
doesn't make any significant difference in the number
of animals collaterally killed.

FACT: Both are entirely symbolic gestures when done at
the individual level, but BOTH must be done if either
is done, in order to maintain intellectual and ethical
consistency.

FACT: "vegans" do the easy one - abstain from
consuming animal products - but make ZERO effort at the
hard one.


****wit David Harrison is no different, and Dutch is
correct to say that ****wit is making a cop-out.
Actually, ****wit is just making a total WHIFF-OFF that
completely guts his claim. ****wit claims he is
telling people to encourage "decent lives for farm
animals", when we ALLLLLLLLLL know he is merely trying
to fool people into supporting existence for farm
animals; this is the second-most well-established fact
EVER in the "ar"-related newsgroups, following the
moral bankruptcy of "vegans". ****wit doesn't support
"decent lives for farm animals" AT ALL, as his
consumption of standard commercially produced meat
shows. He eats grain-fed grocery store beef and
battery-raised poultry; he eats whatever is cheap in
his Winn-Dixie supermarket, or whatever shitty regional
chain he shops at.

> You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.

No, he dropped "veganism" because he saw that it is
intellectually bankrupt.

> Sure looks like the same reasoning to me.

Your false claim sure looks like a strawman to me.

>
>
>
>>...Prior to being conscious of collateral
>>deaths my perception lacked the necessary context to make a rational
>>assessment. I fell victim of the typical vegan fallacy, I believe because
>>I was seduced by the idea of being on a higher moral plane.

It is his REJECTION of the empty moral pose of
"veganism" that caused him to renounce it, not some
problem with it only being a partial measure.

AS usual, Sophist Boob Black gets it wrong.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> farrell77 wrote:
>
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
>
> >>>Cop-out logic?
> >>
> >>Yes, cop-out logic, do nothing because I'm only one person, how can one
> >>person make a difference?
> >>
> >>
> >>>Isn't it the same logic used by you
> >>>when you wrote the following line in another discussion?
> >>>
> >>>"..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When I
> >>>finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing veganism
> >>>is ..."
> >>
> >>No it's not the same logic at all. ...
> >
> >
> > He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
>
> That's a COP-OUT, you moron, ...

Just as stopping an action on the grounds that it's a paltry
partial measure is a cop-out.


> ...and it is exactly the same
> cop-out as that employed by "vegans" when it comes to
> collateral deaths. This is the fact that tied Karen
> Winter up in knots.
>
> FACT: Abstaining from the consumption of all animal
> products, i.e. "being 'vegan'", doesn't make ANY
> significant difference in the number of animals killed.

Unless enough people do it.


> FACT: Abstaining from CD-causing products *also*
> doesn't make any significant difference in the number
> of animals collaterally killed.

Unless enough people do it.


> FACT: Both are entirely symbolic gestures when done at
> the individual level, but BOTH must be done if either
> is done, in order to maintain intellectual and ethical
> consistency.

Ipse dixit.


> FACT: "vegans" do the easy one - abstain from
> consuming animal products - but make ZERO effort at the
> hard one.

Unproven assertion.


> ****wit David Harrison is no different, and Dutch is
> correct to say that ****wit is making a cop-out.
> Actually, ****wit is just making a total WHIFF-OFF that
> completely guts his claim. ****wit claims he is
> telling people to encourage "decent lives for farm
> animals", when we ALLLLLLLLLL know he is merely trying
> to fool people into supporting existence for farm
> animals; this is the second-most well-established fact
> EVER in the "ar"-related newsgroups, following the
> moral bankruptcy of "vegans". ****wit doesn't support
> "decent lives for farm animals" AT ALL, as his
> consumption of standard commercially produced meat
> shows. He eats grain-fed grocery store beef and
> battery-raised poultry; he eats whatever is cheap in
> his Winn-Dixie supermarket, or whatever shitty regional
> chain he shops at.
>
> > You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
>
> No, he dropped "veganism" because he saw that it is
> intellectually bankrupt.

He strongly implied just the other day that it was because
he came to see it as a "paltry partial-measure."


> > Sure looks like the same reasoning to me.
>
> Your false claim sure looks like a strawman to me.

What false claim?


> >>...Prior to being conscious of collateral
> >>deaths my perception lacked the necessary context to make a rational
> >>assessment. I fell victim of the typical vegan fallacy, I believe
because
> >>I was seduced by the idea of being on a higher moral plane.
>
> It is his REJECTION of the empty moral pose of
> "veganism" that caused him to renounce it, not some
> problem with it only being a partial measure.

There is no moral pose in veganism. It's a set of
ideas. Ideas don't have moral poses. People may,
but ideas don't. If he reacted to a moral pose, he
was reacting to people.

[...]

"farrell77" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote

> > > "..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When I
> > > finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing veganism
> > > is ..."
> >
> > No it's not the same logic at all. ...
>
> He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.

Right, he illogically concludes that his actions have no effect when his
actions have as much effect as anyone's.

> You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.

Because I had wrongly assumed that veganism has far more significance than
it does. It does not mean the difference between harming animals and not,
that's an illusion.

> Sure
> looks like the same reasoning to me.

No, because I understand that by eating a hamburger or not or using free
range eggs or not, *does* have an effect, I'm not saying it doesn't. I
realize that one person abstaining from eating meat does make a difference.
It's just not the difference I thought it was. My logic is based on looking
at diet in the context of cds, his is based on drawing an illogical
conclusion, that one person's actions have no effect.

Speaking of Harrison's illogical conclusions, don't you find the subject of
this thread humorous?

farrell77 wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>farrell77 wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>>Isn't it the same logic used by you
>>>>>when you wrote the following line in another discussion?
>>>>>
>>>>>"..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When I
>>>>>finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing veganism
>>>>>is ..."
>>>>
>>>>No it's not the same logic at all. ...
>>>
>>>
>>>He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
>>
>>That's a COP-OUT, you moron, ...
>
>
> Just as stopping an action on the grounds that it's a paltry
> partial measure is a cop-out.

Which is NOT the reason he stopped it, you STUPID ****.
Can't you read?!


>>...and it is exactly the same
>>cop-out as that employed by "vegans" when it comes to
>>collateral deaths. This is the fact that tied Karen
>>Winter up in knots.
>>
>>FACT: Abstaining from the consumption of all animal
>>products, i.e. "being 'vegan'", doesn't make ANY
>>significant difference in the number of animals killed.
>
>
> Unless enough people do it.

Wrong, and irrelevant. We're talking about individuals
and their own measurable impact and awareness of that
impact.

>
>
>
>>FACT: Abstaining from CD-causing products *also*
>>doesn't make any significant difference in the number
>>of animals collaterally killed.
>
>
> Unless enough people do it.

Same.

>
>
>
>>FACT: Both are entirely symbolic gestures when done at
>>the individual level, but BOTH must be done if either
>>is done, in order to maintain intellectual and ethical
>>consistency.
>
>
> Ipse dixit.

No, absolutely true, and you know it. BOTH are
symbolic, and BOTH must be done by someone committed to
doing his part, however small, to stop killing animals.

As always, you're deviating from the topic. The topic
is whether or not Dutch "copped out". He didn't.
****wit is.


>
>>FACT: "vegans" do the easy one - abstain from
>>consuming animal products - but make ZERO effort at the
>>hard one.
>
>
> Unproven assertion.

Proved beyond dispute. Also not the topic. Stay on
topic, you stupid shit-stained cocksucker. The topic
is whether or not Dutch copped out. He didn't; ****wit is.


>>****wit David Harrison is no different, and Dutch is
>>correct to say that ****wit is making a cop-out.
>>Actually, ****wit is just making a total WHIFF-OFF that
>>completely guts his claim. ****wit claims he is
>>telling people to encourage "decent lives for farm
>>animals", when we ALLLLLLLLLL know he is merely trying
>>to fool people into supporting existence for farm
>>animals; this is the second-most well-established fact
>>EVER in the "ar"-related newsgroups, following the
>>moral bankruptcy of "vegans". ****wit doesn't support
>>"decent lives for farm animals" AT ALL, as his
>>consumption of standard commercially produced meat
>>shows. He eats grain-fed grocery store beef and
>>battery-raised poultry; he eats whatever is cheap in
>>his Winn-Dixie supermarket, or whatever shitty regional
>>chain he shops at.
>>
>>
>>>You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
>>
>>No, he dropped "veganism" because he saw that it is
>>intellectually bankrupt.
>
>
> He strongly implied just the other day that it was because
> he came to see it as a "paltry partial-measure."

He did not strongly imply that that's the reason he
renounced it, you stupid ****. You inferred that,
incorrectly; you almost always make wrong inferences.

>
>
>
>>>Sure looks like the same reasoning to me.
>>
>>Your false claim sure looks like a strawman to me.
>
>
> What false claim?

See above.

>
>
>
>>>>...Prior to being conscious of collateral
>>>>deaths my perception lacked the necessary context to make a rational
>>>>assessment. I fell victim of the typical vegan fallacy, I believe
>>>>because I was seduced by the idea of being on a higher moral plane.
>>
>>It is his REJECTION of the empty moral pose of
>>"veganism" that caused him to renounce it, not some
>>problem with it only being a partial measure.
>
>
> There is no moral pose in veganism.

There IS a disgusting, insincere moral pose in
"veganism". This is proved, beyond dispute, by the
above undeniable inconsistency. Doing ONLY the easy
emptily symbolic gesture while not doing the equally
emptily symbolic but *hard* gesture proves it.

It's proved. We may continue.

> It's a set of ideas.

It's slavish obedience to a poorly thought out
consumption rule that has NO basis in ethical
principle. "veganism" is not a set of ideas, it is a
stupid behavior.

This is established. We may continue.

> Ideas don't have moral poses.

"veganism" is not a set of ideas. Let's continue.

> People may, but ideas don't.

"vegans" are people, and they are behaving a certain
way in their consumption choices, which are dictated by
slavish obedience to a ****witted, poorly conceived
rule having no basis in ethical principle. "vegans"
are posing, and "veganism" is a pose. It is a pose of
ethical superiority that is not justified by the facts.

Let's continue.

> If he reacted to a moral pose, he was reacting to people.

Exactly.

We've finished now.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:42:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:05:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
>> >> >> >> of keeping chickens,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>> >> >> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>> >> >> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
>> >> >> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
>> >> >> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
>> >> >> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
>> >> >> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
>> >> >> there is no way you can convince me that it would.
>> >> >
>> >> >Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily
>seen,
>> >if
>> >> >a million people did the same
>> >>
>> >> As ALWAYS your comparisons are nothing similar to reality.
>> >
>> >Are you saying that there are not a million consumers of battery eggs?
>> >
>> >> >it would make a huge difference, and clearly
>> >> >"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.
>> >>
>> >> How stupid. So when I die, how will it influence chicken
>> >> or egg production?
>> >
>> >It will decrease by an amount exactly proportional to your consumption.
>>
>> You are insane.
>
>That's the economic equation. Of course, a single consumer is not going to
>affect levels of production,

even by an amount exactly proportional to consumption,

>but the principle is accurate, it just takes a
>number of consumers to affect a perceptible change.

Which is exactly why I'd like to see more people take an interest in
promoting decent lives for farm animals. If they did, the price of cage
free eggs could go down, and grass raised animal products could
become popular in super markets. And that is exactly why you do NOT
want to see more people take an interest in promoting decent lives
for farm animals. Now the only option in most stores is your meatless
veg*n substitutes, and that is EXACTLY the way you "ARAs" want it
to remain. You couldn't be any more obvious about it even if you
were honest--you would be less contemptible, but no more obvious.

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:42:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:05:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
> >> >> >> >> of keeping chickens,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
> >> >> >> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
> >> >> >> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
> >> >> >> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
> >> >> >> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
> >> >> >> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
> >> >> >> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
> >> >> >> there is no way you can convince me that it would.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily
> >seen,
> >> >if
> >> >> >a million people did the same
> >> >>
> >> >> As ALWAYS your comparisons are nothing similar to reality.
> >> >
> >> >Are you saying that there are not a million consumers of battery eggs?
> >> >
> >> >> >it would make a huge difference, and clearly
> >> >> >"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> How stupid. So when I die, how will it influence chicken
> >> >> or egg production?
> >> >
> >> >It will decrease by an amount exactly proportional to your
consumption.
> >>
> >> You are insane.
> >
> >That's the economic equation. Of course, a single consumer is not going
to
> >affect levels of production,
>
> even by an amount exactly proportional to consumption,

Yes, by an incremental amount which requires a cumulative effect to impact
producers. If everyone thinks like you, NOTHING will happen..

> >but the principle is accurate, it just takes a
> >number of consumers to affect a perceptible change.
>
> Which is exactly why I'd like to see more people take an interest in
> promoting decent lives for farm animals.

Even though you don't choose to pay the extra dollar to contribute to better
lives for hens.

> If they did, the price of cage
> free eggs could go down, and grass raised animal products could
> become popular in super markets.

In order for that to happen, individuals are required to act and believe
that their actions will make a difference. You have already admitted that
you believe your actions make no difference, so you are selfish, a liar, and
a flaming hypocrite. You *know* that your actions make an incremental
difference, you're just too goddammned lazy and indifferent to act.

>And that is exactly why you do NOT
> want to see more people take an interest in promoting decent lives
> for farm animals.

I already buy free range eggs and chicken, do you?

> Now the only option in most stores is your meatless
> veg*n substitutes, and that is EXACTLY the way you "ARAs" want it
> to remain. You couldn't be any more obvious about it even if you
> were honest--you would be less contemptible, but no more obvious.

What am I doing talking to a nitwit anyway...?

Dutch wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>

>>>That's the economic equation. Of course, a single consumer is not going
>>>to affect levels of production,
>>
>>even by an amount exactly proportional to consumption,
>
>
> Yes, by an incremental amount which requires a cumulative effect to impact
> producers. If everyone thinks like you, NOTHING will happen.

This is YET ANOTHER way in which ****wit resembles
"aras": just as they refuse to do anything to reduce
their CDs, saying that it "wouldn't do any good" to act
atomically, so ****wit refuses to "promote decent
lives" for farm animals, for exactly the same reason.
****wit eats common grocery store beef and poultry,
meaning grain-fed beef and battery-raised poultry.
****wit also eats Chicken McNuggets.

****wit is a lying hypocrite.

>
>
>>>but the principle is accurate, it just takes a
>>>number of consumers to affect a perceptible change.
>>
>> Which is exactly why I'd like to see more people take an interest in
>>promoting decent lives for farm animals.
>
>
> Even though you don't choose to pay the extra dollar to contribute to better
> lives for hens.

****wit does NOTHING to "promote decent lives" for ANY
farm animals. ****wit ONLY promotes life per se for
farm animals. This is beyond dispute.

>
>
>>If they did, the price of cage
>>free eggs could go down, and grass raised animal products could
>>become popular in super markets.
>
>
> In order for that to happen, individuals are required to act and believe
> that their actions will make a difference.

Individuals are required to do that EVEN IF they think
it never will become a prevalent practice, if they wish
to be ethically and intellectually consistent. ****wit
is EXACTLY LIKE "aras" in this regard, as he is utterly
inconsistent AND dishonest about it.

> You have already admitted that
> you believe your actions make no difference, so you are selfish, a liar, and
> a flaming hypocrite. You *know* that your actions make an incremental
> difference, you're just too goddammned lazy and indifferent to act.

****wit NEVER INTENDED to act on this alleged
conviction, because it never was a conviction. It ONLY
was a club with which to try to beat "vegans" over the
head. ****wit couldn't really swing it.

>
>
>>And that is exactly why you do NOT
>>want to see more people take an interest in promoting decent lives
>>for farm animals.
>
>
> I already buy free range eggs and chicken, do you?

NO, ****wit does not. He eats Chicken McNuggets,
for****sake.

>
>
>>Now the only option in most stores is your meatless
>>veg*n substitutes, and that is EXACTLY the way you "ARAs" want it
>>to remain. You couldn't be any more obvious about it even if you
>>were honest--you would be less contemptible, but no more obvious.
>
>
> What am I doing talking to a nitwit anyway...?

Target practice.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:12:25 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:42:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:05:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> .. .
>> >> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
>> >> >> >> >> of keeping chickens,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>> >> >> >> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>> >> >> >> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
>> >> >> >> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
>> >> >> >> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
>> >> >> >> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
>> >> >> >> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
>> >> >> >> there is no way you can convince me that it would.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily
>> >seen,
>> >> >if
>> >> >> >a million people did the same
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As ALWAYS your comparisons are nothing similar to reality.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you saying that there are not a million consumers of battery eggs?
>> >> >
>> >> >> >it would make a huge difference, and clearly
>> >> >> >"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How stupid. So when I die, how will it influence chicken
>> >> >> or egg production?
>> >> >
>> >> >It will decrease by an amount exactly proportional to your
>consumption.
>> >>
>> >> You are insane.
>> >
>> >That's the economic equation. Of course, a single consumer is not going
>to
>> >affect levels of production,
>>
>> even by an amount exactly proportional to consumption,
>
>Yes, by an incremental amount which requires a cumulative effect to impact
>producers. If everyone thinks like you, NOTHING will happen..
>
>> >but the principle is accurate, it just takes a
>> >number of consumers to affect a perceptible change.
>>
>> Which is exactly why I'd like to see more people take an interest in
>> promoting decent lives for farm animals.
>
>Even though you don't choose to pay the extra dollar to contribute to better
>lives for hens.
>
>> If they did, the price of cage
>> free eggs could go down, and grass raised animal products could
>> become popular in super markets.
>
>In order for that to happen, individuals are required to act and believe
>that their actions will make a difference. You have already admitted that
>you believe your actions make no difference,

I said that if I quit buying something it will make no difference. If
people contribute to a smaller market like grass raised animal products
that will have an impact--an impact that you "ARAs" are very obviously
VERY opposed to. You want people to contribute to your meatless
substitutes instead, regardless of any influence on animals.

>so you are selfish, a liar,

Well you can God damned bet I feel the same way about you, and
MUCH stronger than you feel it about me.

>and
>a flaming hypocrite. You *know* that your actions make an incremental
>difference, you're just too goddammned lazy and indifferent to act.
>
>>And that is exactly why you do NOT
>> want to see more people take an interest in promoting decent lives
>> for farm animals.
>
>I already buy free range eggs and chicken,

You're lying. If you did, then you wouldn't be so very opposed
to seeing people consider contributing to decent lives for farm
animals with their diet. You would encourage them to do it for
whatever reason works for them, but instead you go on and on
and on and on about how there is no moral meaning in doing so.
In fact that's another way I know you're lying...since you believe
there is no moral meaning in contributing to decent lives for farm
animals, there is no chance at all that you would go out of your
way to do it.

>do you?

I buy cage free eggs and chicken, which is good enough
for me. Now it's your turn to lie and say I don't, or whatever
lie you feel the need to respond with.

>> Now the only option in most stores is your meatless
>> veg*n substitutes, and that is EXACTLY the way you "ARAs" want it
>> to remain. You couldn't be any more obvious about it even if you
>> were honest--you would be less contemptible, but no more obvious.
>
>What am I doing talking to a nitwit anyway...?

You're not really talking to me, and we both know it. You know
you're wasting your time trying to get me to change my position.
It's anyone who is considering becoming a veg*n that you're writing to,
and your objective is to prevent them from considering any alternative
that would contribute to decent lives for farm animals. There is absolutely
NO DOUBT about that! I hope you're getting damn sick of doing it too,
but we both know the Gonad will oppose any suggested alternatives to
veg*nism, even if you do quit doing it again.

The stupid IGNORANT "ARA" who is Gonad wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>
>>>>That's the economic equation. Of course, a single consumer is not going
>>>>to affect levels of production,
>>>
>>>even by an amount exactly proportional to consumption,
>>
>>
>> Yes, by an incremental amount which requires a cumulative effect to impact
>> producers. If everyone thinks like you, NOTHING will happen.
>
>This is YET ANOTHER way in which ****wit resembles
>"aras": just as they refuse to do anything to reduce
>their CDs,

What do you do?

>saying that it "wouldn't do any good" to act
>atomically, so ****wit refuses to "promote decent
>lives" for farm animals,

How do you?

>for exactly the same reason.
>****wit eats common grocery store beef and poultry,
>meaning grain-fed beef and battery-raised poultry.

You stupid moron. Broiler chickens are not battery raised.
You are too stupid and ignorant to say anything worthwhile,
which is why you have to lie about everything. It's pretty damn
amusing that you believe common grocery store poultry is
battery-raised. I think that's a good one to share...people need
a little humor from time to time. BTW Gonad, some chicken
in grocery stores is battery-raised. Do you know which ones
they are?

>****wit also eats Chicken McNuggets.

So do you.

>****wit is a lying hypocrite.
>
>>
>>
>>>>but the principle is accurate, it just takes a
>>>>number of consumers to affect a perceptible change.
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why I'd like to see more people take an interest in
>>>promoting decent lives for farm animals.
>>
>>
>> Even though you don't choose to pay the extra dollar to contribute to better
>> lives for hens.
>
>****wit does NOTHING to "promote decent lives" for ANY
>farm animals.

That's a lie. But YOU do nothing to promote decent lives
for them.

>****wit ONLY promotes life per se for
>farm animals. This is beyond dispute.
>
>>
>>
>>>If they did, the price of cage
>>>free eggs could go down, and grass raised animal products could
>>>become popular in super markets.
>>
>>
>> In order for that to happen, individuals are required to act and believe
>> that their actions will make a difference.
>
>Individuals are required to do that EVEN IF they think
>it never will become a prevalent practice, if they wish
>to be ethically and intellectually consistent. ****wit
>is EXACTLY LIKE "aras" in this regard, as he is utterly
>inconsistent AND dishonest about it.

Explain how you are any better Gonad.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "farrell77" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
>
> > > > "..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When I
> > > > finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing veganism
> > > > is ..."
> > >
> > > No it's not the same logic at all. ...
> >
> > He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
>
> Right, he illogically concludes that his actions have no effect when his
> actions have as much effect as anyone's.
>
> > You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
>
> Because I had wrongly assumed that veganism has far more significance than
> it does. It does not mean the difference between harming animals and not,
> that's an illusion.
>
> > Sure
> > looks like the same reasoning to me.
>
> No, because I understand that by eating a hamburger or not or using free
> range eggs or not, *does* have an effect, I'm not saying it doesn't. I
> realize that one person abstaining from eating meat does make a
difference.
>
> It's just not the difference I thought it was. My logic is based on
looking
> at diet in the context of cds, his is based on drawing an illogical
> conclusion, that one person's actions have no effect.

Your argument still looks very similar to his. In your case,
the effect isn't big enough so you 'cop out" (to use your
phrase). In his case, the effect is seen as zero, so he "cops
out". If the logic isn't identical between these two (don't act
because of no effect vs. too little effect), it's certainly cut
from the same cloth.


> Speaking of Harrison's illogical conclusions, don't you find the subject
of
> this thread humorous?

Somewhat.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> farrell77 wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>farrell77 wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
> >>>>>Isn't it the same logic used by you
> >>>>>when you wrote the following line in another discussion?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When I
> >>>>>finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing veganism
> >>>>>is ..."
> >>>>
> >>>>No it's not the same logic at all. ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
> >>
> >>That's a COP-OUT, you moron, ...
> >
> >
> > Just as stopping an action on the grounds that it's a paltry
> > partial measure is a cop-out.
>
> Which is NOT the reason he stopped it, you STUPID ****.
> Can't you read?!

He stopped because it wasn't having enough of an effect.
Dave's reasoning was that it had no effect. Is there really any
significant difference there?


> >>...and it is exactly the same
> >>cop-out as that employed by "vegans" when it comes to
> >>collateral deaths. This is the fact that tied Karen
> >>Winter up in knots.
> >>
> >>FACT: Abstaining from the consumption of all animal
> >>products, i.e. "being 'vegan'", doesn't make ANY
> >>significant difference in the number of animals killed.
> >
> >
> > Unless enough people do it.
>
> Wrong, and irrelevant. We're talking about individuals
> and their own measurable impact and awareness of that
> impact.

It's not wrong. It's basic supply and demand.


> >>FACT: Abstaining from CD-causing products *also*
> >>doesn't make any significant difference in the number
> >>of animals collaterally killed.
> >
> >
> > Unless enough people do it.
>
> Same.

Same.


> >>FACT: Both are entirely symbolic gestures when done at
> >>the individual level, but BOTH must be done if either
> >>is done, in order to maintain intellectual and ethical
> >>consistency.
> >
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> No, absolutely true, and you know it. BOTH are
> symbolic, and BOTH must be done by someone committed to
> doing his part, however small, to stop killing animals.

There are differences between the two that can justify
different responses.


> As always, you're deviating from the topic. The topic
> is whether or not Dutch "copped out". He didn't.
> ****wit is.

I'm just responding to you, so credit any alleged deviation to
yourself. Dutch says the effect of his action was too small
so he stopped. Dave said that the effect was zero, so he
does nothing. The logic is the same. If the latter is a copout,
then why isn't the former?


> >>FACT: "vegans" do the easy one - abstain from
> >>consuming animal products - but make ZERO effort at the
> >>hard one.
> >
> >
> > Unproven assertion.
>
> Proved beyond dispute. Also not the topic.

If it's not the topic, why did you bring it up?

The only ZERO in evidence here is the amount of support
you've provided to back up your claim that vegans have
made "ZERO effort at the hard one [sic]".


> ...Stay on
> topic, you stupid shit-stained cocksucker. The topic
> is whether or not Dutch copped out. He didn't; ****wit is.
>
>
> >>****wit David Harrison is no different, and Dutch is
> >>correct to say that ****wit is making a cop-out.
> >>Actually, ****wit is just making a total WHIFF-OFF that
> >>completely guts his claim. ****wit claims he is
> >>telling people to encourage "decent lives for farm
> >>animals", when we ALLLLLLLLLL know he is merely trying
> >>to fool people into supporting existence for farm
> >>animals; this is the second-most well-established fact
> >>EVER in the "ar"-related newsgroups, following the
> >>moral bankruptcy of "vegans". ****wit doesn't support
> >>"decent lives for farm animals" AT ALL, as his
> >>consumption of standard commercially produced meat
> >>shows. He eats grain-fed grocery store beef and
> >>battery-raised poultry; he eats whatever is cheap in
> >>his Winn-Dixie supermarket, or whatever shitty regional
> >>chain he shops at.
> >>
> >>
> >>>You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
> >>
> >>No, he dropped "veganism" because he saw that it is
> >>intellectually bankrupt.
> >
> >
> > He strongly implied just the other day that it was because
> > he came to see it as a "paltry partial-measure."
>
> He did not strongly imply that that's the reason he
> renounced it, you stupid ****. You inferred that,
> incorrectly; you almost always make wrong inferences.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Sure looks like the same reasoning to me.
> >>
> >>Your false claim sure looks like a strawman to me.
> >
> >
> > What false claim?
>
> See above.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>...Prior to being conscious of collateral
> >>>>deaths my perception lacked the necessary context to make a rational
> >>>>assessment. I fell victim of the typical vegan fallacy, I believe
> >>>>because I was seduced by the idea of being on a higher moral plane.
> >>
> >>It is his REJECTION of the empty moral pose of
> >>"veganism" that caused him to renounce it, not some
> >>problem with it only being a partial measure.
> >
> >
> > There is no moral pose in veganism.
>
> There IS a disgusting, insincere moral pose in
> "veganism". This is proved, beyond dispute, by the
> above undeniable inconsistency. Doing ONLY the easy
> emptily symbolic gesture while not doing the equally
> emptily symbolic but *hard* gesture proves it.

That alleged inconsistency is not inherent in veganism.


> It's proved. We may continue.
>
> > It's a set of ideas.
>
> It's slavish obedience to a poorly thought out
> consumption rule that has NO basis in ethical
> principle. "veganism" is not a set of ideas, it is a
> stupid behavior.

It IS a set of ideas about how one should act.


> This is established. We may continue.
>
> > Ideas don't have moral poses.
>
> "veganism" is not a set of ideas. Let's continue.

Certainly it is.


> > People may, but ideas don't.
>
> "vegans" are people, and they are behaving a certain
> way in their consumption choices, which are dictated by
> slavish obedience to a ****witted, poorly conceived
> rule having no basis in ethical principle. "vegans"
> are posing, and "veganism" is a pose. It is a pose of
> ethical superiority that is not justified by the facts.

No, veganism is not a pose. People may pose but
'isms' don't. It's your own inferiority complex that
makes you hyper-sensitive when you fear that someone
feels superior to you. That's your problem. Get some
counseling.


> Let's continue.
>
> > If he reacted to a moral pose, he was reacting to people.
>
> Exactly.
>
> We've finished now.

Good.

farrell77 wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>

>>>>>He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
>>>>
>>>>That's a COP-OUT, you moron, ...
>>>
>>>
>>>Just as stopping an action on the grounds that it's a paltry
>>>partial measure is a cop-out.
>>
>>Which is NOT the reason he stopped it, you STUPID ****.
>> Can't you read?!
>
>
> He stopped because it wasn't having enough of an effect.

He stopped because he saw it isn't a validly ethical
response to an alleged ethical issue.

> Dave's reasoning was that it had no effect. Is there really any
> significant difference there?
>
>
>
>>>>...and it is exactly the same
>>>>cop-out as that employed by "vegans" when it comes to
>>>>collateral deaths. This is the fact that tied Karen
>>>>Winter up in knots.
>>>>
>>>>FACT: Abstaining from the consumption of all animal
>>>>products, i.e. "being 'vegan'", doesn't make ANY
>>>>significant difference in the number of animals killed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless enough people do it.
>>
>>Wrong, and irrelevant. We're talking about individuals
>>and their own measurable impact and awareness of that
>>impact.
>
>
> It's not wrong. It's basic supply and demand.

It's wrong. One person stopping from consuming meat or
from consuming CD-causing produce doesn't have any
measurable impact. Why do "vegans" engage only in the
cheap emptily symbolic gesture and not in the much more
costly emptily symbolic gesture? Why do "vegans"
abstain from meat and not from CD-causing produce when
BOTH are purely symbolic gestures that have no
measurable impact?

>
>
>
>>>>FACT: Abstaining from CD-causing products *also*
>>>>doesn't make any significant difference in the number
>>>>of animals collaterally killed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless enough people do it.
>>
>>Same.
>
>
> Same.

Your "same" is wrong: "vegans" engage in an emptily
symbolic gesture that has no impact.

>
>
>
>>>>FACT: Both are entirely symbolic gestures when done at
>>>>the individual level, but BOTH must be done if either
>>>>is done, in order to maintain intellectual and ethical
>>>>consistency.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit.
>>
>>No, absolutely true, and you know it. BOTH are
>>symbolic, and BOTH must be done by someone committed to
>>doing his part, however small, to stop killing animals.
>
>
> There are differences between the two that can justify
> different responses.

There are NO meaningful differences.

>
>
>
>>As always, you're deviating from the topic. The topic
>>is whether or not Dutch "copped out". He didn't.
>>****wit is.
>
>
> I'm just responding to you

You are just shit-stirring, as always.

>
>
>
>>>>FACT: "vegans" do the easy one - abstain from
>>>>consuming animal products - but make ZERO effort at the
>>>>hard one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unproven assertion.
>>
>>Proved beyond dispute. Also not the topic.
>
>
> If it's not the topic, why did you bring it up?
>
> The only ZERO in evidence here is the amount of support
> you've provided to back up your claim that vegans have
> made "ZERO effort at the hard one [sic]".

Why "sic", Boob? There is no misspelling, no incorrect
usage.

"vegans" make ZERO effort at the hard emptily symbolic
gesture, while making a huge noisy to-do over the easy one.


>>>>>You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
>>>>
>>>>No, he dropped "veganism" because he saw that it is
>>>>intellectually bankrupt.
>>>
>>>
>>>He strongly implied just the other day that it was because
>>>he came to see it as a "paltry partial-measure."
>>
>>He did not strongly imply that that's the reason he
>>renounced it, you stupid ****. You inferred that,
>>incorrectly; you almost always make wrong inferences.

Silence = acknowledgment of lying or misunderstanding.



>>>>It is his REJECTION of the empty moral pose of
>>>>"veganism" that caused him to renounce it, not some
>>>>problem with it only being a partial measure.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no moral pose in veganism.
>>
>>There IS a disgusting, insincere moral pose in
>>"veganism". This is proved, beyond dispute, by the
>>above undeniable inconsistency. Doing ONLY the easy
>>emptily symbolic gesture while not doing the equally
>>emptily symbolic but *hard* gesture proves it.
>
>
> That alleged inconsistency is not inherent in veganism

It is inherent in it. "veganism" is, by definition,
ONLY about not consuming animal parts. It is an
emptily symbolic gesture - there is no dispute on this
- and it omits another, much harder but still emptily
symbolic gesture that, if done, at least would mean the
"vegans" were being consistent. They fail to do it
because of an INHERENT, INTRINSIC flaw in "veganism".
Because "veganism" is ONLY the inaequate rule, "do not
consume animal parts", then the inconsistency is inherent.


>>It's proved. We may continue.
>>
>>
>>>It's a set of ideas.
>>
>>It's slavish obedience to a poorly thought out
>>consumption rule that has NO basis in ethical
>>principle. "veganism" is not a set of ideas, it is a
>>stupid behavior.
>
>
> It IS a set of ideas about how one should act.

No, it isn't. You are wrong. It is ONLY a rule, not a
set of ideas. The rule is ****witted and not based in
principle.

>
>
>
>>This is established. We may continue.
>>
>>
>>>Ideas don't have moral poses.
>>
>>"veganism" is not a set of ideas. Let's continue.
>
>
> Certainly it is.

It is not. You are wrong. It is a rule, that's all.

>
>>>People may, but ideas don't.
>>
>>"vegans" are people, and they are behaving a certain
>>way in their consumption choices, which are dictated by
>>slavish obedience to a ****witted, poorly conceived
>>rule having no basis in ethical principle. "vegans"
>>are posing, and "veganism" is a pose. It is a pose of
>>ethical superiority that is not justified by the facts.
>
>
> No, veganism is not a pose.

Yes, "veganism" is a pose, a shabby, ethically bankrupt
pose.

> People may pose but
> 'isms' don't.

Strawman, Boob. "isms" don't pose; "isms" ARE poses.


>>Let's continue.
>>
>>
>>>If he reacted to a moral pose, he was reacting to people.
>>
>>Exactly.
>>
>>We've finished now.

Leave.

"farrell77" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
> > "farrell77" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote
> >
> > > > > "..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When I
> > > > > finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing
veganism
> > > > > is ..."
> > > >
> > > > No it's not the same logic at all. ...
> > >
> > > He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
> >
> > Right, he illogically concludes that his actions have no effect when his
> > actions have as much effect as anyone's.
> >
> > > You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
> >
> > Because I had wrongly assumed that veganism has far more significance
than
> > it does. It does not mean the difference between harming animals and
not,
> > that's an illusion.
> >
> > > Sure
> > > looks like the same reasoning to me.
> >
> > No, because I understand that by eating a hamburger or not or using free
> > range eggs or not, *does* have an effect, I'm not saying it doesn't. I
> > realize that one person abstaining from eating meat does make a
> difference.
> >
> > It's just not the difference I thought it was. My logic is based on
> looking
> > at diet in the context of cds, his is based on drawing an illogical
> > conclusion, that one person's actions have no effect.
>
> Your argument still looks very similar to his.

Very superficially.

> In your case,
> the effect isn't big enough so you 'cop out" (to use your
> phrase).

I didn't cop out, I changed (and upgraded) my point of reference based on
more information.

> In his case, the effect is seen as zero, so he "cops
> out".

He clearly is mistaken, it's not zero. That's why his reasoning is
erroneous.

If the logic isn't identical between these two (don't act
> because of no effect vs. too little effect),

I continue to act, but my actions are based on a better understanding of the
facts, so my decisions are better and more informed, exactly the opposite of
****wit's.

> it's certainly cut
> from the same cloth.

The similiarity is that in both cases we are looking at some course of
action and assessing the outcomes/consquences to plot a course of action.
That's about as far as it goes. In his case if he wanted to effect better
conditions for animals he would choose products that embody good animal
welfare, but he wrongly concludes that doing so would make no difference, so
he continues on his McNugget diet. It a completely erroneous thought process
ending with a wrong choice for the goal he claimed to be aiming for.

In my case I was content to sacrifice consumption of meat based on the
belief that consumption of meat was wrong because it caused death and
suffering to animals. Once it became evident to me that not only did my
meatless diet also cause animal deaths, in some cases it might cause more.
Once there was no longer the sharp categorical difference that I once
thought existed, I viewed veganism in a different light, and definitely saw
it's flawed side. So I re-evaulated my previous stance, as I should. So far
I have not made any erroneous conclusions as far as I can see. A year or so
later, primarily for reasons of health, I resumed eating meat. So far I have
not regretted either decision. My thinking is clearer without the burden of
defending vegan/ARism, and my health is better. My wife's health is *much*
better.

> wrote
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:12:25 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>>to happen, individuals are required to act and believe
> >that their actions will make a difference. You have already admitted that
> >you believe your actions make no difference,
>
> I said that if I quit buying something it will make no difference.

You're wrong, it will make a very small difference.

If
> people contribute to a smaller market like grass raised animal products
> that will have an impact

Why would that choice make a difference and not the other?

--an impact that you "ARAs" are very obviously
> VERY opposed to.

You really need to rethink this ARA accusation, you're embarrassing
yourself.

> You want people to contribute to your meatless
> substitutes instead, regardless of any influence on animals.

Are you referring to the plight of those poor future animals who will never
get to experience life if people stop consuming animal products? How sad
that those non-existent animals are losing out. Maybe you should start a
"Rights for Future Animals" movement.

[..]
> >I already buy free range eggs and chicken,
>
> You're lying.

**** you, it's the truth.

> If you did, then you wouldn't be so very opposed
> to seeing people consider contributing to decent lives for farm
> animals with their diet.

I'm not opposed to that, I just told you to stop eating battery eggs and you
refused.

> You would encourage them to do it for
> whatever reason works for them, but instead you go on and on
> and on and on about how there is no moral meaning in doing so.

I'm not going to encourage you to promote the Logic of the Larder, it's a
stupid, corrupt way of thinking.

You need to drop it, it's pointless.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:29:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:12:25 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>to happen, individuals are required to act and believe
>> >that their actions will make a difference. You have already admitted that
>> >you believe your actions make no difference,
>>
>> I said that if I quit buying something it will make no difference.
>
>You're wrong, it will make a very small difference.
>
> If
>> people contribute to a smaller market like grass raised animal products
>> that will have an impact
>
>Why would that choice make a difference and not the other?
>
>--an impact that you "ARAs" are very obviously
>> VERY opposed to.
>
>You really need to rethink this ARA accusation, you're embarrassing
>yourself.

There's no evidence that I'm wrong.

>> You want people to contribute to your meatless
>> substitutes instead, regardless of any influence on animals.
>
>Are you referring to the plight of those poor future animals who will never
>get to experience life if people stop consuming animal products?

Many of your meatless products contain egg whites, and they all
involve more animal deaths than grass raised animal products. Not
that you "ARAs" care about such things.

>How sad
>that those non-existent animals are losing out. Maybe you should start a
>"Rights for Future Animals" movement.
>
>[..]
>> >I already buy free range eggs and chicken,
>>
>> You're lying.
>
>**** you, it's the truth.
>
>> If you did, then you wouldn't be so very opposed
>> to seeing people consider contributing to decent lives for farm
>> animals with their diet.
>
>I'm not opposed to that, I just told you to stop eating battery eggs and you
>refused.
>
>> You would encourage them to do it for
>> whatever reason works for them, but instead you go on and on
>> and on and on about how there is no moral meaning in doing so.
>
>I'm not going to encourage you to promote the Logic of the Larder, it's a
>stupid, corrupt way of thinking.
>
>You need to drop it, it's pointless.

To you, because you think veg*nism is the most ethical way humans
could go.

> wrote
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:29:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> >You really need to rethink this ARA accusation, you're embarrassing
> >yourself.
>
> There's no evidence that I'm wrong.

What colour is the sky in your world?

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "farrell77" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> > > "farrell77" > wrote
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote
> > >
> > > > > > "..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though. When
I
> > > > > > finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing
> veganism
> > > > > > is ..."
> > > > >
> > > > > No it's not the same logic at all. ...
> > > >
> > > > He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
> > >
> > > Right, he illogically concludes that his actions have no effect when
his
> > > actions have as much effect as anyone's.
> > >
> > > > You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
> > >
> > > Because I had wrongly assumed that veganism has far more significance
> than
> > > it does. It does not mean the difference between harming animals and
> not,
> > > that's an illusion.
> > >
> > > > Sure
> > > > looks like the same reasoning to me.
> > >
> > > No, because I understand that by eating a hamburger or not or using
free
> > > range eggs or not, *does* have an effect, I'm not saying it doesn't. I
> > > realize that one person abstaining from eating meat does make a
> > difference.
> > >
> > > It's just not the difference I thought it was. My logic is based on
> > looking
> > > at diet in the context of cds, his is based on drawing an illogical
> > > conclusion, that one person's actions have no effect.
> >
> > Your argument still looks very similar to his.
>
> Very superficially.

You say that your action would make a difference but not
enough of a difference. He says his action has no effect.
If anything, he has stronger grounds for his "copout".


> > In your case,
> > the effect isn't big enough so you 'cop out" (to use your
> > phrase).
>
> I didn't cop out, I changed (and upgraded) my point of reference based on
> more information.

And declined to do something that you think does make a
difference on the grounds that it doesn't make enough of
a difference. Just what David Harrison is doing. Only he
says it makes no difference.


> > In his case, the effect is seen as zero, so he "cops
> > out".
>
> He clearly is mistaken, it's not zero. That's why his reasoning is
> erroneous.

jonnie says it's zero too. In fact, he says ZERO.


> If the logic isn't identical between these two (don't act
> > because of no effect vs. too little effect),
>
> I continue to act, but my actions are based on a better understanding of
the
> facts, so my decisions are better and more informed, exactly the opposite
of
> ****wit's.

Using jonnie's puerile names doesn't strengthen your argument.


> > it's certainly cut
> > from the same cloth.
>
> The similiarity is that in both cases we are looking at some course of
> action and assessing the outcomes/consquences to plot a course of action.
> That's about as far as it goes. In his case if he wanted to effect better
> conditions for animals he would choose products that embody good animal
> welfare, but he wrongly concludes that doing so would make no difference,
so
> he continues on his McNugget diet. It a completely erroneous thought
process
> ending with a wrong choice for the goal he claimed to be aiming for.
>
> In my case I was content to sacrifice consumption of meat based on the
> belief that consumption of meat was wrong because it caused death and
> suffering to animals. Once it became evident to me that not only did my
> meatless diet also cause animal deaths, in some cases it might cause more.
> Once there was no longer the sharp categorical difference that I once
> thought existed, I viewed veganism in a different light, and definitely
saw
> it's flawed side. So I re-evaulated my previous stance, as I should. So
far
> I have not made any erroneous conclusions as far as I can see. A year or
so
> later, primarily for reasons of health, I resumed eating meat. So far I
have
> not regretted either decision. My thinking is clearer without the burden
of
> defending vegan/ARism, and my health is better. My wife's health is *much*
> better.

It comes down to this. If you started eating meat again
because abstaining was having too little effect (which is
what you seemed to say initially), then you were taking
a path that you referred to as a copout. But if you started
for another reason, then you weren't.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
k.net...
> farrell77 wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
>
> >>>>>He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
> >>>>
> >>>>That's a COP-OUT, you moron, ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Just as stopping an action on the grounds that it's a paltry
> >>>partial measure is a cop-out.
> >>
> >>Which is NOT the reason he stopped it, you STUPID ****.
> >> Can't you read?!
> >
> >
> > He stopped because it wasn't having enough of an effect.
>
> He stopped because he saw it isn't a validly ethical
> response to an alleged ethical issue.

That wasn't what he said initially.


> > Dave's reasoning was that it had no effect. Is there really any
> > significant difference there?
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>...and it is exactly the same
> >>>>cop-out as that employed by "vegans" when it comes to
> >>>>collateral deaths. This is the fact that tied Karen
> >>>>Winter up in knots.
> >>>>
> >>>>FACT: Abstaining from the consumption of all animal
> >>>>products, i.e. "being 'vegan'", doesn't make ANY
> >>>>significant difference in the number of animals killed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unless enough people do it.
> >>
> >>Wrong, and irrelevant. We're talking about individuals
> >>and their own measurable impact and awareness of that
> >>impact.
> >
> >
> > It's not wrong. It's basic supply and demand.
>
> It's wrong. One person stopping from consuming meat or
> from consuming CD-causing produce doesn't have any
> measurable impact. ...

Okay, but you said that even with the "Unless enough
people do it" qualification, it was wrong. How is that
wrong?


> ...Why do "vegans" engage only in the
> cheap emptily symbolic gesture and not in the much more
> costly emptily symbolic gesture? Why do "vegans"
> abstain from meat and not from CD-causing produce when
> BOTH are purely symbolic gestures that have no
> measurable impact?

I can't answer for all vegans, but I see the responsibility
as different in the two cases. In a different thread, I
explained why to Dutch a while back.


> >>>>FACT: Abstaining from CD-causing products *also*
> >>>>doesn't make any significant difference in the number
> >>>>of animals collaterally killed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unless enough people do it.
> >>
> >>Same.
> >
> >
> > Same.
>
> Your "same" is wrong: "vegans" engage in an emptily
> symbolic gesture that has no impact.

Unless enough people do it.


> >>>>FACT: Both are entirely symbolic gestures when done at
> >>>>the individual level, but BOTH must be done if either
> >>>>is done, in order to maintain intellectual and ethical
> >>>>consistency.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ipse dixit.
> >>
> >>No, absolutely true, and you know it. BOTH are
> >>symbolic, and BOTH must be done by someone committed to
> >>doing his part, however small, to stop killing animals.
> >
> >
> > There are differences between the two that can justify
> > different responses.
>
> There are NO meaningful differences.

I think there are. I also think you see meaningful
differences when this is applied to areas in which
you see wrongful harm.


> >>As always, you're deviating from the topic. The topic
> >>is whether or not Dutch "copped out". He didn't.
> >>****wit is.
> >
> >
> > I'm just responding to you
>
> You are just shit-stirring, as always.

I'm just responding to you. Don't make tangential
claims if you don't want responses to them.


> >>>>FACT: "vegans" do the easy one - abstain from
> >>>>consuming animal products - but make ZERO effort at the
> >>>>hard one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unproven assertion.
> >>
> >>Proved beyond dispute. Also not the topic.
> >
> >
> > If it's not the topic, why did you bring it up?
> >
> > The only ZERO in evidence here is the amount of support
> > you've provided to back up your claim that vegans have
> > made "ZERO effort at the hard one [sic]".
>
> Why "sic", Boob? There is no misspelling, no incorrect
> usage.

It's because of your capitalization of ZERO and what I see as
the awkward syntax (i.e., making an effort at a gesture).


> "vegans" make ZERO effort at the hard emptily symbolic
> gesture, while making a huge noisy to-do over the easy one.

Where's the evidence about the ZERO effort?


> >>>>>You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, he dropped "veganism" because he saw that it is
> >>>>intellectually bankrupt.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>He strongly implied just the other day that it was because
> >>>he came to see it as a "paltry partial-measure."
> >>
> >>He did not strongly imply that that's the reason he
> >>renounced it, you stupid ****. You inferred that,
> >>incorrectly; you almost always make wrong inferences.
>
> Silence = acknowledgment of lying or misunderstanding.

Here silence = wasn't worth replying to. Besides I knew that
you knew it was false anyway. The rationale of "paltry
partial-measure" came straight from him.


> >>>>It is his REJECTION of the empty moral pose of
> >>>>"veganism" that caused him to renounce it, not some
> >>>>problem with it only being a partial measure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There is no moral pose in veganism.
> >>
> >>There IS a disgusting, insincere moral pose in
> >>"veganism". This is proved, beyond dispute, by the
> >>above undeniable inconsistency. Doing ONLY the easy
> >>emptily symbolic gesture while not doing the equally
> >>emptily symbolic but *hard* gesture proves it.
> >
> >
> > That alleged inconsistency is not inherent in veganism
>
> It is inherent in it. "veganism" is, by definition,
> ONLY about not consuming animal parts. ...

It's actually about more than that, but either way
that wouldn't be a sufficient condition for demonstrating
that the alleged inconsistency is inherent in veganism.
You just can't get there from here, jonnie.


> ...It is an
> emptily symbolic gesture - there is no dispute on this

There is dispute on this.


> - and it omits another, much harder but still emptily
> symbolic gesture that, if done, at least would mean the
> "vegans" were being consistent. They fail to do it
> because of an INHERENT, INTRINSIC flaw in "veganism".
> Because "veganism" is ONLY the inaequate rule, "do not
> consume animal parts", then the inconsistency is inherent.

Even if veganism were nothing but a rule, that wouldn't
rule out having other rules. Veganism would then
correctly be seen as offering a partial guideline. There's
nothing inherent within it that precludes vegans from adopting
what you call the other "emptily symbolic gesture" or other
gestures or other measures that even you would see as
more substantial for that matter. You haven't, and can't,
demonstrate inherence here.


> >>It's proved. We may continue.
> >>
> >>
> >>>It's a set of ideas.
> >>
> >>It's slavish obedience to a poorly thought out
> >>consumption rule that has NO basis in ethical
> >>principle. "veganism" is not a set of ideas, it is a
> >>stupid behavior.
> >
> >
> > It IS a set of ideas about how one should act.
>
> No, it isn't. You are wrong. It is ONLY a rule, not a
> set of ideas. ...

A rule is an idea.


> ...The rule is ****witted and not based in
> principle.

Ipse dixit.


> >>This is established. We may continue.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ideas don't have moral poses.
> >>
> >>"veganism" is not a set of ideas. Let's continue.
> >
> >
> > Certainly it is.
>
> It is not. You are wrong. It is a rule, that's all.

A rule is a type of idea (it's certainly not a material
thing!) and in this case, it has additional ideas behind it.


> >>>People may, but ideas don't.
> >>
> >>"vegans" are people, and they are behaving a certain
> >>way in their consumption choices, which are dictated by
> >>slavish obedience to a ****witted, poorly conceived
> >>rule having no basis in ethical principle. "vegans"
> >>are posing, and "veganism" is a pose. It is a pose of
> >>ethical superiority that is not justified by the facts.
> >
> >
> > No, veganism is not a pose.
>
> Yes, "veganism" is a pose, a shabby, ethically bankrupt
> pose.

That's simply a re-statement of something you haven't been
able to show.


> > People may pose but
> > 'isms' don't.
>
> Strawman, Boob. "isms" don't pose; "isms" ARE poses.

No. They're sets of ideas and beliefs. They don't inherently
include poses.


> >>Let's continue.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If he reacted to a moral pose, he was reacting to people.
> >>
> >>Exactly.
> >>
> >>We've finished now.
>
> Leave.

No.

"farrell77" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "farrell77" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote
> > > > "farrell77" > wrote
> > > > > "Dutch" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > > "..I didn't confront the idea of collateral deaths though.
When
> I
> > > > > > > finally did I realized what a paltry partial-measure thing
> > veganism
> > > > > > > is ..."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No it's not the same logic at all. ...
> > > > >
> > > > > He doesn't act because one person doesn't make a difference.
> > > >
> > > > Right, he illogically concludes that his actions have no effect when
> his
> > > > actions have as much effect as anyone's.
> > > >
> > > > > You drop veganism because it's a paltry partial-measure.
> > > >
> > > > Because I had wrongly assumed that veganism has far more
significance
> > than
> > > > it does. It does not mean the difference between harming animals and
> > not,
> > > > that's an illusion.
> > > >
> > > > > Sure
> > > > > looks like the same reasoning to me.
> > > >
> > > > No, because I understand that by eating a hamburger or not or using
> free
> > > > range eggs or not, *does* have an effect, I'm not saying it doesn't.
I
> > > > realize that one person abstaining from eating meat does make a
> > > difference.
> > > >
> > > > It's just not the difference I thought it was. My logic is based on
> > > looking
> > > > at diet in the context of cds, his is based on drawing an illogical
> > > > conclusion, that one person's actions have no effect.
> > >
> > > Your argument still looks very similar to his.
> >
> > Very superficially.
>
> You say that your action would make a difference

It obviously makes a difference, not saying for better or worse, but it
would make a difference.

> but not
> enough of a difference.

Right, it's not the be-all and end-all that veganism preaches.

> He says his action has no effect.

Which is false.

> If anything, he has stronger grounds for his "copout".

Strong, if you value blatantly erroneous grounds..

> > > In your case,
> > > the effect isn't big enough so you 'cop out" (to use your
> > > phrase).
> >
> > I didn't cop out, I changed (and upgraded) my point of reference based
on
> > more information.
>
> And declined to do something that you think does make a
> difference on the grounds that it doesn't make enough of
> a difference.

Or may even make a difference in the opposite direction.

> Just what David Harrison is doing. Only he
> says it makes no difference.

I'm not arguing with his actions particulary, it's his reasoning that's
wrong.

> > > In his case, the effect is seen as zero, so he "cops
> > > out".
> >
> > He clearly is mistaken, it's not zero. That's why his reasoning is
> > erroneous.
>
> jonnie says it's zero too. In fact, he says ZERO.

It's not zero. If I do something it will have some effect. It's a godamm law
of physics.

> > If the logic isn't identical between these two (don't act
> > > because of no effect vs. too little effect),
> >
> > I continue to act, but my actions are based on a better understanding of
> the
> > facts, so my decisions are better and more informed, exactly the
opposite
> of
> > ****wit's.
>
> Using jonnie's puerile names doesn't strengthen your argument.

It doesn't make them weaker either.

> > > it's certainly cut
> > > from the same cloth.
> >
> > The similiarity is that in both cases we are looking at some course of
> > action and assessing the outcomes/consquences to plot a course of
action.
> > That's about as far as it goes. In his case if he wanted to effect
better
> > conditions for animals he would choose products that embody good animal
> > welfare, but he wrongly concludes that doing so would make no
difference,
> so
> > he continues on his McNugget diet. It a completely erroneous thought
> process
> > ending with a wrong choice for the goal he claimed to be aiming for.
> >
> > In my case I was content to sacrifice consumption of meat based on the
> > belief that consumption of meat was wrong because it caused death and
> > suffering to animals. Once it became evident to me that not only did my
> > meatless diet also cause animal deaths, in some cases it might cause
more.
> > Once there was no longer the sharp categorical difference that I once
> > thought existed, I viewed veganism in a different light, and definitely
> saw
> > it's flawed side. So I re-evaulated my previous stance, as I should. So
> far
> > I have not made any erroneous conclusions as far as I can see. A year or
> so
> > later, primarily for reasons of health, I resumed eating meat. So far I
> have
> > not regretted either decision. My thinking is clearer without the burden
> of
> > defending vegan/ARism, and my health is better. My wife's health is
*much*
> > better.
>
> It comes down to this. If you started eating meat again
> because abstaining was having too little effect (which is
> what you seemed to say initially), then you were taking
> a path that you referred to as a copout.

David could make a difference by choosing free range, he says it makes "no
difference", he's wrong. He claims the conditions for animals is an
important issue, but he runs away from doing anything about it by making a
completely illogical conclusion.

I otoh have reassessed the issue of animals and food and have now taken a
different position. I haven't copped out in the sense that I have abandoned
my stated goals based on some impossible conclusion as David did, I changed
my position entirely. I now accept that animals are kept and killed for me,
and I am comfortable with the idea, if not always the practice.

> But if you started
> for another reason, then you weren't.

It's a combination of both, my change of viewpoint allowed me the freedom to
experiment with meat products in my diet, while I believed in the ideas of
veganism I did not have that freedom.