wrote:

> A Meaningful Life
> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>
> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
> [...]
>
> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
If something is in their view "good", then anything
is justified in achieving that good. To "aras" like
Matt Ball, eliminating the use of animals in medical
research and testing is "good", so they feel justified
in burning down laboratories and murdering the researchers.

"ar" is a criminal enterprise. It is correct and
justified that "ar" groups are on the terrorist watch
lists of virtually all western nations.

wrote:

> A Meaningful Life
> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>
> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
> [...]
>
> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
If something is in their view "good", then anything
is justified in achieving that good. To "aras" like
Matt Ball, eliminating the use of animals in medical
research and testing is "good", so they feel justified
in burning down laboratories and murdering the researchers.

"ar" is a criminal enterprise. It is correct and
justified that "ar" groups are on the terrorist watch
lists of virtually all western nations.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> A Meaningful Life
>> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>
>> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>> [...]
>>
>> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>
>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> A Meaningful Life
>> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>
>> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>> [...]
>>
>> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>
>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".

NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
all vegans must hold that same belief system.

"Reynard" > wrote
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >
wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> A Meaningful Life
> >> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
> >>
> >> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
> >> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
> >> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
> >> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
> >> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
> >> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
> >> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
> >> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
> >
> >This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
> >"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
> >at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>
> NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
> vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
> all vegans must hold that same belief system.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

"Reynard" > wrote
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >
wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> A Meaningful Life
> >> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
> >>
> >> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
> >> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
> >> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
> >> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
> >> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
> >> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
> >> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
> >> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
> >
> >This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
> >"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
> >at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>
> NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
> vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
> all vegans must hold that same belief system.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> A Meaningful Life
>> >> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>> >>
>> >> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>> >> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>> >> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>> >> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>> >> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>> >> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>> >> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>> >> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>> >
>> >This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>> >"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>> >at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>
>> NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>> vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>> all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>
>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering

You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
what they aren't dedicated to, dummy. Only an idiot
would rest his argument on the claim that he can read
the minds of his opponents.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> A Meaningful Life
>> >> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>> >>
>> >> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>> >> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>> >> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>> >> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>> >> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>> >> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>> >> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>> >> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>> >
>> >This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>> >"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>> >at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>
>> NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>> vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>> all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>
>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering

You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
what they aren't dedicated to, dummy. Only an idiot
would rest his argument on the claim that he can read
the minds of his opponents.

> Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering,
since
> virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis
of
> the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they
will
> suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
general"
> be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
straight
> comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to
see.
> They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism.
Yet in
> reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst.
Vegans
> do not live in that world.

Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
due to it. The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
Care to start from there in comparing like to like?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering,
since
> virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis
of
> the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they
will
> suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
general"
> be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
straight
> comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to
see.
> They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism.
Yet in
> reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst.
Vegans
> do not live in that world.

Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
due to it. The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
Care to start from there in comparing like to like?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal
suffering,
> since
> > virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the
basis
> of
> > the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so
they
> will
> > suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
> general"
> > be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
> straight
> > comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want
to
> see.
> > They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of
veganism.
> Yet in
> > reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen
amongst.
> Vegans
> > do not live in that world.
>
> Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
> want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
> due to it.

Prove it.

The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
> Care to start from there in comparing like to like?

You have no goddam idea whether that's true or not.

Given that the number of deaths my diet causes in one week = X, and
Given that the number of deaths your diet causes in one week = Y,
Demonstrate that X>Y.

You can't. You have no ****ing idea whether it's true or not. You
don't know and you don't care.

You're an intellectually lazy, vapid twit.


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal
suffering,
> since
> > virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the
basis
> of
> > the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so
they
> will
> > suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
> general"
> > be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
> straight
> > comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want
to
> see.
> > They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of
veganism.
> Yet in
> > reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen
amongst.
> Vegans
> > do not live in that world.
>
> Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
> want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
> due to it.

Prove it.

The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
> Care to start from there in comparing like to like?

You have no goddam idea whether that's true or not.

Given that the number of deaths my diet causes in one week = X, and
Given that the number of deaths your diet causes in one week = Y,
Demonstrate that X>Y.

You can't. You have no ****ing idea whether it's true or not. You
don't know and you don't care.

You're an intellectually lazy, vapid twit.


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Reynard" > wrote
> >> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos
>wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> A Meaningful Life
> >> >> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
> >> >>
> >> >> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball,
veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
> >> >> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can
be
> >> >> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid
or
> >> >> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
> >> >> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
> >> >> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut
through
> >> >> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
> >> >> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
> >> >
> >> >This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
> >> >"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
> >> >at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
> >>
> >> NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
> >> vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
> >> all vegans must hold that same belief system.
> >
> >Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>
> You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
> what they aren't dedicated to, dummy. Only an idiot
> would rest his argument on the claim that he can read
> the minds of his opponents

I didn't read minds, I supported the comment with an irrefutable argument.
You did not respond to it because there IS no adequate response.

Reinsert Derek's cowardly snip....

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

Thanks for proving me right..

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Reynard" > wrote
> >> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos
>wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> A Meaningful Life
> >> >> Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
> >> >>
> >> >> v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball,
veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
> >> >> form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can
be
> >> >> traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid
or
> >> >> alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
> >> >> leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
> >> >> suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut
through
> >> >> confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
> >> >> consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
> >> >
> >> >This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
> >> >"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
> >> >at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
> >>
> >> NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
> >> vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
> >> all vegans must hold that same belief system.
> >
> >Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>
> You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
> what they aren't dedicated to, dummy. Only an idiot
> would rest his argument on the claim that he can read
> the minds of his opponents

I didn't read minds, I supported the comment with an irrefutable argument.
You did not respond to it because there IS no adequate response.

Reinsert Derek's cowardly snip....

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

Thanks for proving me right..

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering,
> since
> > virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis
> of
> > the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they
> will
> > suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
> general"
> > be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
> straight
> > comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to
> see.
> > They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism.
> Yet in
> > reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst.
> Vegans
> > do not live in that world.
>
> Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
> want to see the real results.

I haven't refused, in fact I did so yesterday.

> The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
> due to it. The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.

So what? What about all the other foods in the world, the ones people eat?
When you select foods to eat where does it say you must select from "like
categories" or some such nonsense?

> Care to start from there in comparing like to like?

I have, why are you afraid to compare all foods each against the other? Do
you think that the food will think it's unfair?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering,
> since
> > virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis
> of
> > the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they
> will
> > suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in
> general"
> > be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
> straight
> > comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to
> see.
> > They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism.
> Yet in
> > reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst.
> Vegans
> > do not live in that world.
>
> Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you don't
> want to see the real results.

I haven't refused, in fact I did so yesterday.

> The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
> due to it. The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.

So what? What about all the other foods in the world, the ones people eat?
When you select foods to eat where does it say you must select from "like
categories" or some such nonsense?

> Care to start from there in comparing like to like?

I have, why are you afraid to compare all foods each against the other? Do
you think that the food will think it's unfair?

Abner Hale wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal
> suffering,
> > since
> > > virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the
> basis
> > of
> > > the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so
> they
> > will
> > > suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets
"in
> > general"
> > > be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
> > straight
> > > comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't
want
> to
> > see.
> > > They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of
> veganism.
> > Yet in
> > > reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen
> amongst.
> > Vegans
> > > do not live in that world.
> >
> > Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you
don't
> > want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
> > due to it.
>
> Prove it.
>
> The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
> > Care to start from there in comparing like to like?
>
> You have no goddam idea whether that's true or not.
>
> Given that the number of deaths my diet causes in one week = X, and
> Given that the number of deaths your diet causes in one week = Y,
> Demonstrate that X>Y.
>
> You can't. You have no ****ing idea whether it's true or not. You
> don't know and you don't care.
>
> You're an intellectually lazy, vapid twit.
>




Shut yer piehole Ball.








> >
> >
> > --
> > SN
> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Abner Hale wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal
> suffering,
> > since
> > > virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the
> basis
> > of
> > > the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so
> they
> > will
> > > suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets
"in
> > general"
> > > be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a
> > straight
> > > comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't
want
> to
> > see.
> > > They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of
> veganism.
> > Yet in
> > > reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen
> amongst.
> > Vegans
> > > do not live in that world.
> >
> > Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you
don't
> > want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0 deaths
> > due to it.
>
> Prove it.
>
> The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
> > Care to start from there in comparing like to like?
>
> You have no goddam idea whether that's true or not.
>
> Given that the number of deaths my diet causes in one week = X, and
> Given that the number of deaths your diet causes in one week = Y,
> Demonstrate that X>Y.
>
> You can't. You have no ****ing idea whether it's true or not. You
> don't know and you don't care.
>
> You're an intellectually lazy, vapid twit.
>




Shut yer piehole Ball.








> >
> >
> > --
> > SN
> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> wrote

> Shut yer piehole Ball.

Scintillating wit, as always Ronny.

> wrote

> Shut yer piehole Ball.

Scintillating wit, as always Ronny.

wrote:
> Abner Hale wrote:
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal
> > suffering,
> > > since
> > > > virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on
the
> > basis
> > > of
> > > > the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do
so
> > they
> > > will
> > > > suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets
> "in
> > > general"
> > > > be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid
a
> > > straight
> > > > comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't
> want
> > to
> > > see.
> > > > They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of
> > veganism.
> > > Yet in
> > > > reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen
> > amongst.
> > > Vegans
> > > > do not live in that world.
> > >
> > > Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you
> don't
> > > want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0
deaths
> > > due to it.
> >
> > Prove it.
> >
> > The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
> > > Care to start from there in comparing like to like?
> >
> > You have no goddam idea whether that's true or not.
> >
> > Given that the number of deaths my diet causes in one week = X, and
> > Given that the number of deaths your diet causes in one week = Y,
> > Demonstrate that X>Y.
> >
> > You can't. You have no ****ing idea whether it's true or not. You
> > don't know and you don't care.
> >
> > You're an intellectually lazy, vapid twit.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Shut yer piehole Ball.
>
>

I'm not Jon Ball, you imbecile.


>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > SN
> > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> > > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> > > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

wrote:
> Abner Hale wrote:
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal
> > suffering,
> > > since
> > > > virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on
the
> > basis
> > > of
> > > > the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do
so
> > they
> > > will
> > > > suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets
> "in
> > > general"
> > > > be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid
a
> > > straight
> > > > comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't
> want
> > to
> > > see.
> > > > They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of
> > veganism.
> > > Yet in
> > > > reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen
> > amongst.
> > > Vegans
> > > > do not live in that world.
> > >
> > > Your refusal to compare like foods to like is showing that you
> don't
> > > want to see the real results. The best of vegan food has 0
deaths
> > > due to it.
> >
> > Prove it.
> >
> > The best of meateating, has at the very least 1 death.
> > > Care to start from there in comparing like to like?
> >
> > You have no goddam idea whether that's true or not.
> >
> > Given that the number of deaths my diet causes in one week = X, and
> > Given that the number of deaths your diet causes in one week = Y,
> > Demonstrate that X>Y.
> >
> > You can't. You have no ****ing idea whether it's true or not. You
> > don't know and you don't care.
> >
> > You're an intellectually lazy, vapid twit.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Shut yer piehole Ball.
>
>

I'm not Jon Ball, you imbecile.


>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > SN
> > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> > > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> > > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Retard wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Retard" > wrote
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>
>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>
>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>
>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>
>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>
>
> You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
> what they aren't dedicated to

Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
your dedication, quite clearly.

Retard wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Retard" > wrote
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>
>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>
>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>
>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>
>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>
>
> You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
> what they aren't dedicated to

Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
your dedication, quite clearly.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:35:08 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>>
>>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>>
>>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>>
>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>
>> You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>> what they aren't dedicated to
>
>Of course he does

No, he doesn't.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:35:08 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>>
>>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>>
>>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>>
>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>
>> You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>> what they aren't dedicated to
>
>Of course he does

No, he doesn't.

Retard wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:35:08 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>>>
>>>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>>>
>>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>>
>>>You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>>>what they aren't dedicated to
>>
>>Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
>>your dedication, quite clearly.
>
>
> No, he doesn't.

Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
your dedication, quite clearly.

Retard wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:35:08 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>>>
>>>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>>>
>>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>>
>>>You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>>>what they aren't dedicated to
>>
>>Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
>>your dedication, quite clearly.
>
>
> No, he doesn't.

Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
your dedication, quite clearly.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:07:59 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:35:08 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>>>>
>>>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>>>
>>>>You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>>>>what they aren't dedicated to
>>>
>>>Of course he does

No one gets to say what I'm dedicated to and to what I'm
not dedicated to, apart from me. Resting an argument on
an alleged ability to read the mind of one's opponent is
always bound to fail and make fools of those who try.

Ken Kercheval, aka Retard, wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:07:59 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Ken Kercheval, aka Retard, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:35:08 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ken Kercheval, aka Retard, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ken Kercheval, aka Retard, > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
>>>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>>>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>>>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>>>>>what they aren't dedicated to
>>>>
>>>>Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
>>>>your dedication, quite clearly.
>
>
> No one gets to say what I'm dedicated to and to what I'm
> not dedicated to

Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
your dedication, quite clearly.

Ken Kercheval, aka Retard, wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:07:59 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Ken Kercheval, aka Retard, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:35:08 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ken Kercheval, aka Retard, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:54:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ken Kercheval, aka Retard, > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:12:37 GMT, Jay Santos >wrote:
>>>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A Meaningful Life
>>>>>>>>>Animal Advocacy, Human Nature, & A Better World
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>v1.0, Feb. 25, 2004, Matt Ball, veganoutreach.org/meaningfullife.html |
>>>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest
>>>>>>>>>form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be
>>>>>>>>>traced to a desire for fulfillment or happiness and a need to avoid or
>>>>>>>>>alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is "good" if it
>>>>>>>>>leads to more happiness, and something is "bad" if it leads to more
>>>>>>>>>suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through
>>>>>>>>>confusion, leaving us with a single measure by which to judge the
>>>>>>>>>consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is great! Now I have the proof that animal
>>>>>>>>"rights" activists/advocates ("aras") are totalitarian
>>>>>>>>at heart. They openly preach "ends justify the means".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>NO WAY! All you've read is the belief system of one
>>>>>>>vegan, and then came to the wrong conclusion by thinking
>>>>>>>all vegans must hold that same belief system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>>>>>what they aren't dedicated to
>>>>
>>>>Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
>>>>your dedication, quite clearly.
>
>
> No one gets to say what I'm dedicated to and to what I'm
> not dedicated to

Of course he does, ****wit. You reveal the objects of
your dedication, quite clearly.

"Reynard" > wrote

>>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>>
>>> You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>>> what they aren't dedicated to
>>
>>Of course he does
>
> No, he doesn't.

I supported it, so I do.

Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.
They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
do not live in that world.

Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.

Dutch wrote:

> "Retard" > wrote
>
>
>>>>>Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering
>>>>
>>>>You don't get to say what vegans are dedicated to and
>>>>what they aren't dedicated to
>>>
>>>Of course he does
>>
>>No, he doesn't.
>
>
> I supported it, so I do.
>
> Vegans are definitely NOT dedicated to alleviating animal suffering, since
> virtually every vegan refuses to compare individual foods on the basis of
> the probable amount of suffering they cause. When asked to do so they will
> suggest that "like diets" must be compared, or that vegan diets "in general"
> be compared to non-vegan diets "in general", anything to avoid a straight
> comparison of foods and the subsequent result that they don't want to see.

Anything to avoid relinquishing their invidious
comparison with omnivores. If they let go of that,
they have nothing left.

"veganism" is about demonization.

> They desperately protect the narrow and flawed dichotomy of veganism. Yet in
> reality, individual foods are simply available to be chosen amongst. Vegans
> do not live in that world.
>
> Derek will snip the above paragraph and insert non-responsive propaganda,
> because there is no answer to it, and he cannot tolerate that.
>
>