 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article . net>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article . net>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote >> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining >> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that >> >> >> their >> >> >> diets >> >> >> are not bloodless. >> >> > >> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a >> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any >> >> > logical rationalization. >> >> ===================== >> >> No, it defies your retardation, idiot. That you can't understand that >> >> any >> >> action that you take, that you know causes the exact result you claim >> >> to >> >> be >> >> avoiding and makes you culpable, is quite amusing. >> > >> > I stated my culpability. I am participating in allowing killers to kill >> > animals to provide safety and security to those who must live in >> > proximity to people who are thrive on bloodlust and the infliction of >> > pain, suffering and death. Like paedophilia, there is no known cure for >> > individuals who delight in the killing of animals. I choose it as a >> > 'lesser of two evils'. I am fully aware of what I do and why I do it. >> > >> > I eat meat several days each week to ensure that there is an ample >> > requirement for meat products as the meat killers are unwilling to >> > accept responsibility for their actions against animals. Like most >> > treatment and cure, until they can respond to their denial I must >> > moderate my choices. Since, I do know they are unwilling to accept >> > responsibility, I make my choices. >> ================ >> Total lack of intellegent response noted. Total display of ignorance >> shown, yet again. Tell us again how yyou have determined that vegan >> food >> producers have all somehow become physco-paths, mr freud. > > Vegan food producers are rarely involved in killing. ======================= Hey fool, you made the generalization that all food growers are meat-eating killers on the prowl. Don't blame me for your stupidity, idiot. Food producers > (meat eating) producing food for vegans can and are involved in the > killing of animals. Killing animals en masse to grow a few fields is the > act of someone who is quite fine with killing. ========================== Imagine that, same way that vegan growers have to produce their crops.... Now would you like to > mention a few vegan farmers who are producing. Or will you continue to > make generalizations out of desperation. ================== LOL It's you that has been free with the generalization, pansy-boy. > > Psychopaths? Well, I'm relying on your information here. Someone who is > willing to kill rodents, amphibians, birds etc. and en masse isn't > exactly stable in my view. ===================== And the person that pays them to do this just so that their food is clean, cheap, and convenient is? To delight in the destruction of those > animals and to that degree is obviously by someone who doesn't value > animals. ====================== That woyuld be you, fool. You have other choices, yet yiou prefer to cause that aninmal death and suffering for your selfish reasons. Or, maybe you just like the idea of all that blood and guts, eh mr freud? Of course, killing amphibians to grow rice isn't really killing > an animal for food now, is it? ==================== Really? Why not? The animals is just as dead, and there is now food on your plate. > >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. >> >> ================ >> >> LOL ANy body is, fool >> > >> > Have you considered raising livestock? Your level of aggression that >> > you >> > display towards humans might be better served killing animals. >> ===================== >> Really? What animals are rasised for food for vegans, idiot? > > Do pay attention and stay on track. That you willfully ignore what Dutch > has written to further your opportunities for public abusive behaviour > makes you a prime candidate to raise livestock. ========================== Show me where I responded to a part with dutch ralking about livestock. All you have is a desire to change the subject suddenly. Why is that pansy-boy? I hope there aren't > weaker humans in your presence. Yikes, if a child or weaker individual > might disagree with you and do so in person. ======================= And that would be what, mr freud? > > As you can see, violence is the nature of the beast. Some of us are able > to contain our emotions and moderate out actions and others.... ===================== Obviously you can't, because you continue to cause as much animals death and suffering as you can. Tell us why you like to kill by proxy, mr freud. > >> >> They can live >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill. >> >> ================== >> >> What have you or I killed today? Personally I don't kill anything >> >> myself, >> >> so I guess to you I'm just as pure as a vegan, eh dolt? >> > >> > That would be correct. You and I are only responsible for our actions. >> > Neither of us killed anything today and neither did any vegan that I've >> > spoken with tody. >> ===================== >> Yes, we are responsible for our actions. That your are trying to weasel >> your way out still doesn't work, fool. You knowing take actionas that >> result in animal deaths, you are culpable. > > What actions do I take? I think you might fit into the pathology that I > was mentioning earlier. Walk to store -- nothing dies. Plan menu en > route -- nothing dies. Walk through store -- nothing dies. Buy > ingredients -- nothing dies. Take out money -- nothing dies. Go home -- > nothing dies. Eat my meal -- nothing dies. ====================== Except that you are brain-dead, fool. > > Please define my actions of killing? What weapon did I use? ================= Your lifestyle, pansy-boy... > >> > If you "feel" guilty, I suspect that is your difficulty and has nothing >> > to do with the fact that neither of killed an animal today. >> ====================== >> And it still doesn't absolve either of us from the fact that animals died >> as >> a direct result of our *actions*. Kepp up the good work displaying your >> ignorance, pansy-boy. > > As a result of my actions? There you go put forth foolish arguments. > It's like the rapist who claims, "she made me do it". I now control you. > Anything you do is my fault. You are powerless to resist my every whim. > You must respond. You have no will, desire or control over your own > behaviour. ====================== LOL Tell us why, mr freud. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article . net>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article . net>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote >> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining >> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that >> >> >> their >> >> >> diets >> >> >> are not bloodless. >> >> > >> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a >> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any >> >> > logical rationalization. >> >> ===================== >> >> No, it defies your retardation, idiot. That you can't understand that >> >> any >> >> action that you take, that you know causes the exact result you claim >> >> to >> >> be >> >> avoiding and makes you culpable, is quite amusing. >> > >> > I stated my culpability. I am participating in allowing killers to kill >> > animals to provide safety and security to those who must live in >> > proximity to people who are thrive on bloodlust and the infliction of >> > pain, suffering and death. Like paedophilia, there is no known cure for >> > individuals who delight in the killing of animals. I choose it as a >> > 'lesser of two evils'. I am fully aware of what I do and why I do it. >> > >> > I eat meat several days each week to ensure that there is an ample >> > requirement for meat products as the meat killers are unwilling to >> > accept responsibility for their actions against animals. Like most >> > treatment and cure, until they can respond to their denial I must >> > moderate my choices. Since, I do know they are unwilling to accept >> > responsibility, I make my choices. >> ================ >> Total lack of intellegent response noted. Total display of ignorance >> shown, yet again. Tell us again how yyou have determined that vegan >> food >> producers have all somehow become physco-paths, mr freud. > > Vegan food producers are rarely involved in killing. ======================= Hey fool, you made the generalization that all food growers are meat-eating killers on the prowl. Don't blame me for your stupidity, idiot. Food producers > (meat eating) producing food for vegans can and are involved in the > killing of animals. Killing animals en masse to grow a few fields is the > act of someone who is quite fine with killing. ========================== Imagine that, same way that vegan growers have to produce their crops.... Now would you like to > mention a few vegan farmers who are producing. Or will you continue to > make generalizations out of desperation. ================== LOL It's you that has been free with the generalization, pansy-boy. > > Psychopaths? Well, I'm relying on your information here. Someone who is > willing to kill rodents, amphibians, birds etc. and en masse isn't > exactly stable in my view. ===================== And the person that pays them to do this just so that their food is clean, cheap, and convenient is? To delight in the destruction of those > animals and to that degree is obviously by someone who doesn't value > animals. ====================== That woyuld be you, fool. You have other choices, yet yiou prefer to cause that aninmal death and suffering for your selfish reasons. Or, maybe you just like the idea of all that blood and guts, eh mr freud? Of course, killing amphibians to grow rice isn't really killing > an animal for food now, is it? ==================== Really? Why not? The animals is just as dead, and there is now food on your plate. > >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. >> >> ================ >> >> LOL ANy body is, fool >> > >> > Have you considered raising livestock? Your level of aggression that >> > you >> > display towards humans might be better served killing animals. >> ===================== >> Really? What animals are rasised for food for vegans, idiot? > > Do pay attention and stay on track. That you willfully ignore what Dutch > has written to further your opportunities for public abusive behaviour > makes you a prime candidate to raise livestock. ========================== Show me where I responded to a part with dutch ralking about livestock. All you have is a desire to change the subject suddenly. Why is that pansy-boy? I hope there aren't > weaker humans in your presence. Yikes, if a child or weaker individual > might disagree with you and do so in person. ======================= And that would be what, mr freud? > > As you can see, violence is the nature of the beast. Some of us are able > to contain our emotions and moderate out actions and others.... ===================== Obviously you can't, because you continue to cause as much animals death and suffering as you can. Tell us why you like to kill by proxy, mr freud. > >> >> They can live >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill. >> >> ================== >> >> What have you or I killed today? Personally I don't kill anything >> >> myself, >> >> so I guess to you I'm just as pure as a vegan, eh dolt? >> > >> > That would be correct. You and I are only responsible for our actions. >> > Neither of us killed anything today and neither did any vegan that I've >> > spoken with tody. >> ===================== >> Yes, we are responsible for our actions. That your are trying to weasel >> your way out still doesn't work, fool. You knowing take actionas that >> result in animal deaths, you are culpable. > > What actions do I take? I think you might fit into the pathology that I > was mentioning earlier. Walk to store -- nothing dies. Plan menu en > route -- nothing dies. Walk through store -- nothing dies. Buy > ingredients -- nothing dies. Take out money -- nothing dies. Go home -- > nothing dies. Eat my meal -- nothing dies. ====================== Except that you are brain-dead, fool. > > Please define my actions of killing? What weapon did I use? ================= Your lifestyle, pansy-boy... > >> > If you "feel" guilty, I suspect that is your difficulty and has nothing >> > to do with the fact that neither of killed an animal today. >> ====================== >> And it still doesn't absolve either of us from the fact that animals died >> as >> a direct result of our *actions*. Kepp up the good work displaying your >> ignorance, pansy-boy. > > As a result of my actions? There you go put forth foolish arguments. > It's like the rapist who claims, "she made me do it". I now control you. > Anything you do is my fault. You are powerless to resist my every whim. > You must respond. You have no will, desire or control over your own > behaviour. ====================== LOL Tell us why, mr freud. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote: > [..] > > >> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers > >> with impunity? > > > > Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is > > prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse > > for their original desire anyway. > > So a smart and moral thing to do in Rons' World if you get fed up with an > annoying spouse, child or in-law would be to simply hire someone to bump > them off, with impunity. Pretty scary world. Nope, just the killer goes to prison. Once again, Dutch is relying on a very inconsistent legal system as grounds for a logical argument. > > Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they. > > Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some > > people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those > > are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are > > being hired for those killings. > > None of those exceptional circumstances gives us the right to have any > person killed we choose to kill. I can't make you do anything that you haven't made a choice to do. Blaming others is just convenient. > > Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an > > example of logic. > > Yes it is. If it is considered immoral to hire killers, then it is logical > to make it illegal. I don't consider it immoral, so you are wrong. It is illegal. Anyone idiot willing to kill for a handful of cash is foolish and ought to be penalized for their actions. Blaming others is irrelevant to the action. > > I just provided several examples where the law DOES > > allow for the hiring of killers. > > Neither exceptions nor violations invalidate a moral rule. Morality is not > mathematics, it's a social construct that is used to modify behaviour. LOL. Yes, it does. Clearly, hiring killers is legal and therefore moral in many circumstances. As we discussed, using the logically inconsistency of law as a basis for morality or logic is just flawed. Frankly, hire as many hit men as you see fit. The one who I choose to see penalized is the one who pulls the trigger. They are the ones who are responsible. But feel better in a frightening world with such laws. A law against hiring a killer doesn't stop anyone from doing anything -- it's a feel good proposition for people who feel afraid and vulnerable. > >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their > >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live > >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill. > >> >> > >> >> Who or what will you kill today? > >> > > >> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on > >> > that role for me. > >> > >> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point > > > > Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the > > killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent > > position for the vegan hater. The vegan is certainly better than me that > > they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons > > to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others. > > According to your logic neither you nor the vegan is responsible for what > others do, and since neither of you is killing any animals, how do you > conclude that the vegan is better than you? The vegan isn't willing to see an animal suffer for a human to live. I am. I'd say they are quite right to take the "moral high ground". On further reflection, I am similar to the vegan, we just have different approaches to resolving the same problem of human aggression and violence. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article >, "Dutch" > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote > >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "John Deere" > wrote > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > John Deere wrote: > >> >> >> > ... > >> >> >> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or > >> >> >> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent > >> >> >> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little > >> >> >> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed > >> >> >> > vegetarian of some kind? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed > >> >> >> > with much hatred. It would be springing from > >> >> >> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of > >> >> >> > will by finding some "justification"! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached > >> >> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet > >> >> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on > >> >> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made > >> >> >> > once does deserve some praise. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan > >> >> >> self-flattery. > >> >> > > >> >> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a > >> >> > culture > >> >> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage > >> >> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything. > >> >> > >> >> What are you going to kill today? > >> > > >> > I'm doing a community service. By keeping those who enjoy killing > >> > focused on killing animals we can avoid them killing humans. I've > >> > killed > >> > nothing today. Not even an infection to destroy. Oh, the nature of man > >> > -- if it moves kill it. > >> > >> Non-responsive. > > > > I've never killed for fun, food or profit. I leave those activities to > > those who are mentally disturbed and derive pleasure from such actions. > > Then by what logic is a vegan better than you? It isn't a logical perspective. Morals are not logic. It is a judgment. I consider the vegan superior in that they are unwilling to see animals killed to save humans. I am. I am willing to excuse someone killing a hundred animals if it means they won't vent that aggression onto the human community. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy and > > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills and > > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile and > > passing responsibility for their own actions. > > Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market? You do, Dutch. I'm not responsible for my own actions under your theoretical constructs. Someone else _must_ be responsible for my demand. How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions. If the killer of animals isn't responsible for their actions then, how did I become responsible for my actions? > > Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who > > delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict that > > aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue. > > As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or > > some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the > > community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses. > > Right, a process admittedly supported by you. Yup. Support it, hell, I'm willing to see government grants for former and potential killers to keep them away from others. Better the cow gets it, than the famer's wife, kid, or someone in a nearby town. Someone who has to kill that much is just plain mentally ill and needs help. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article . net>, > > "rick etter" > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article et>, > >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > In article >, > >> >> > usual suspect > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" > >> >> >> food > >> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, > >> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> humane slaughter which they object. > >> >> > > >> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters. > >> >> ================= > >> >> You have proof of this bit of delusional insight, fool? Try to back > >> >> it > >> >> up. > >> > > >> > What is the difficulty? People who raise and kill pigs eat pork > >> > products. People who raise and kill cows eat beef products. People who > >> > raise and kill seafood eat fish products. What is the difficulty here, > >> > usual? > >> ================================ > >> Don't know who you're talking to even anymore, eh fool? Try reading for > >> comprehension, for a chnage. The comment was about those people that > >> produce food for vegans. You remember them, don't you? They're the > >> loons > >> we've been talking about for weeks now. Now, you like to spew about > >> those > >> that produce beef, pork, and seafood. Seems to me that none of those are > >> vegan foods, are they? > > > > Same group. Who does produce food for vegans. > ====================== > Not the same ones that rasie meat, fool. > > > Who are the rice growers > > of the world? Meat eater, or vegan? > ===================== > Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of rice growers world-wide are > not vegan. > > Who are the people who use the > > products and chemicals that you so kindly point out are responsible > > (oops, there's that word) for the collateral death of animals. > ========================== > Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of organic growers are not > vegan. > > > Who is > > that is killing the rodents, amphibians and such -- the meat eater or > > the vegan. Farmers and growers are the killers. > =================== > Exactly. But that doesn't mean that all of them are meat-eaters, now does > it, fool? > > > Some of us tolerate > > their violence in the world. > ======================= > And are culpable for it. Thanks for pointing that out, pansy-boy.... > > > > > > >> Your request for proof suggests that the typical grower and > >> > killer of animals would be vegan and that's just being silly on your > >> > part. > >> ======================= > >> Why fool? Are you really this clueless? Oh wait, you've already proven > >> that, haven't you. Try checking out any number of growers that claim to > >> be > >> 'organic'. I'd bet more than a few would be vegan, yet their farming > >> will > >> still cause animals to die. > > > > AH, a few might be vegan. Shall we do a comparison of farms operated by > > vegans and meat eaters and killers. it's always easy and intellectually > > dishonest to generalize to avoid reality. > ============================== > ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! It was you that generalized all growers, you > ignorant fool! Man, what a maroon... Besides, if you could read for > comprhension, you'd see that this discussion was about 'vegan' food! Not > meats. Of course, we know that your comprehension is sorely lacking. > > > > > >> Occam's Razor: what is more likely that those raise and kill > >> > animals are vegan or meat eater? > >> ============================ > >> And again, we aren't talking here about meat, fool. Those are hardly > >> vegan > >> foods. > > > > Do pay attention. Dutch specifically spoke to raising livestock. > ===================== > Not at the top of this thread were I responded fool. Your response was to > Usual, and the discussion was not about livestock. Need a refresher, fool? > try reading for comprehension. > quoted text.... > Usual>>> > This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" > food > > production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, > > drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the > > humane slaughter which they object. > > You>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters. When the vegan buys the > ingredients > for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who > rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such > products, continues to kill. > end quoted text.... > > You're an idiot, pansy-boy.... > > > > >> Besides, if you really understood the term, you'd realize that it is > >> you that has made assumptions of farmers, without actually having any > >> info, > >> must less the minimun needed, fool. Have you questioned however many > >> farmers there are? Remember, not all farmers raise animals, yet they > >> still > >> kill them. > >> > >> Keep up the good work in proving your ignorance, pansy-boy. > > > > You must raise livestock. Your propensity for abuse and violence is > > familiar to those of us reading. And if not, you might find some > > 'release' in those acts. I imagine eating meat is less satisfactory than > > actually being hands on with killing. > ======================= > Tell us all about your bloody hands, mr freud... > > > > > > But let's go another round of blaming the vegan for the actions of > > others. It is consistent with our culture of passing the buck -- no one > > is responsible for anything, everyone is responsible for everything. > ============================== > ROTFLMAO You really are a hoot! Thanks for stateing exactly what I have > been saying. That vegans, and you now, continue to pass the buck for the > actions they(you) take, knowing full well that the choices they/you make > cause death and suffering to animals. It is vegans and you that are trying > to deny their responsibility. Thanks for proving your stupidity yet > again,pansy-boy... I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there aren't children in your vicinity. The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article . net>, > > "rick etter" > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article . net>, > >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote > >> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining > >> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that > >> >> >> their > >> >> >> diets > >> >> >> are not bloodless. > >> >> > > >> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a > >> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any > >> >> > logical rationalization. > >> >> ===================== > >> >> No, it defies your retardation, idiot. That you can't understand that > >> >> any > >> >> action that you take, that you know causes the exact result you claim > >> >> to > >> >> be > >> >> avoiding and makes you culpable, is quite amusing. > >> > > >> > I stated my culpability. I am participating in allowing killers to kill > >> > animals to provide safety and security to those who must live in > >> > proximity to people who are thrive on bloodlust and the infliction of > >> > pain, suffering and death. Like paedophilia, there is no known cure for > >> > individuals who delight in the killing of animals. I choose it as a > >> > 'lesser of two evils'. I am fully aware of what I do and why I do it. > >> > > >> > I eat meat several days each week to ensure that there is an ample > >> > requirement for meat products as the meat killers are unwilling to > >> > accept responsibility for their actions against animals. Like most > >> > treatment and cure, until they can respond to their denial I must > >> > moderate my choices. Since, I do know they are unwilling to accept > >> > responsibility, I make my choices. > >> ================ > >> Total lack of intellegent response noted. Total display of ignorance > >> shown, yet again. Tell us again how yyou have determined that vegan > >> food > >> producers have all somehow become physco-paths, mr freud. > > > > Vegan food producers are rarely involved in killing. > ======================= > Hey fool, you made the generalization that all food growers are meat-eating > killers on the prowl. Don't blame me for your stupidity, idiot. Incorrect. I applied Occam's Razor. In a situation where growers may be meat eater or vegan, what was more likely. > Food producers > > (meat eating) producing food for vegans can and are involved in the > > killing of animals. Killing animals en masse to grow a few fields is the > > act of someone who is quite fine with killing. > ========================== > Imagine that, same way that vegan growers have to produce their crops.... CHOOSE TO. No one has to do anything unless they've chosen to do it. The vegan CHOOSES to avoid killing animals which they accomplish. The grower CHOOSES to kill animals such as birds, frogs, etc. > Now would you like to > > mention a few vegan farmers who are producing. Or will you continue to > > make generalizations out of desperation. > ================== > LOL It's you that has been free with the generalization, pansy-boy. I fear for any humans in your presence. This level of aggression is quite disturbing. > > Psychopaths? Well, I'm relying on your information here. Someone who is > > willing to kill rodents, amphibians, birds etc. and en masse isn't > > exactly stable in my view. > ===================== > And the person that pays them to do this just so that their food is clean, > cheap, and convenient is? .. . not responsible for the choices of others. You are simply another person who misguidedly assumes because of a few inconsistencies in law that this theory is logical or moral. Holding a second person responsible for the actions of another is an oddity in law, not a consistently applied position. > To delight in the destruction of those > > animals and to that degree is obviously by someone who doesn't value > > animals. > ====================== > That woyuld be you, fool. You have other choices, yet yiou prefer to cause > that aninmal death and suffering for your selfish reasons. Or, maybe you > just like the idea of all that blood and guts, eh mr freud? Not at all. As I stated, I prefer to see killers killing animals rather than killing humans. That is the choice that I make. Since people won't seek help for their aggressive tendencies, I must make a choice. > Of course, killing amphibians to grow rice isn't really killing > > an animal for food now, is it? > ==================== > Really? Why not? The animals is just as dead, and there is now food on > your plate. The animal is dead because someone other than me killed it. They are, of course, powerless to resist. They are powerless, of course, to choose another occupation than killer of animals, or collateral killer of animals. They must do my bidding. I command them. I am all powerful. I demand and the world must respond. Like a pharoah, I pay a pittance and the rest of the world must respond. > >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their > >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. > >> >> ================ > >> >> LOL ANy body is, fool > >> > > >> > Have you considered raising livestock? Your level of aggression that > >> > you > >> > display towards humans might be better served killing animals. > >> ===================== > >> Really? What animals are rasised for food for vegans, idiot? > > > > Do pay attention and stay on track. That you willfully ignore what Dutch > > has written to further your opportunities for public abusive behaviour > > makes you a prime candidate to raise livestock. > ========================== > Show me where I responded to a part with dutch ralking about livestock. All > you have is a desire to change the subject suddenly. Why is that pansy-boy? You responded to me where I was responding to Dutch. Please. Feigning just doesn't suit you. > I hope there aren't > > weaker humans in your presence. Yikes, if a child or weaker individual > > might disagree with you and do so in person. > ======================= > And that would be what, mr freud? You've demonstrated that you cannot contain your emotions when I disagree with you. I question what you are capable of doing to other humans who may disagree with you, or worse. > > As you can see, violence is the nature of the beast. Some of us are able > > to contain our emotions and moderate out actions and others.... > ===================== > Obviously you can't, because you continue to cause as much animals death and > suffering as you can. Tell us why you like to kill by proxy, mr freud. As possible? Clearly you know nothing of me, of my daily diet, or eating habits. As stated, I allow through my inaction those killers to vent their anger and aggression on animals to save the human community. > >> >> They can live > >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill. > >> >> ================== > >> >> What have you or I killed today? Personally I don't kill anything > >> >> myself, > >> >> so I guess to you I'm just as pure as a vegan, eh dolt? > >> > > >> > That would be correct. You and I are only responsible for our actions. > >> > Neither of us killed anything today and neither did any vegan that I've > >> > spoken with tody. > >> ===================== > >> Yes, we are responsible for our actions. That your are trying to weasel > >> your way out still doesn't work, fool. You knowing take actionas that > >> result in animal deaths, you are culpable. You are responsible for my actions? Do tell. This will be interesting. > > What actions do I take? I think you might fit into the pathology that I > > was mentioning earlier. Walk to store -- nothing dies. Plan menu en > > route -- nothing dies. Walk through store -- nothing dies. Buy > > ingredients -- nothing dies. Take out money -- nothing dies. Go home -- > > nothing dies. Eat my meal -- nothing dies. > ====================== > Except that you are brain-dead, fool. Have you considered buying a farm? That aggression is certainly not well controlled. > > Please define my actions of killing? What weapon did I use? > ================= > Your lifestyle, pansy-boy... More vagueness. I'll leave that as an ability to articulate a cogent argument in response. > >> > If you "feel" guilty, I suspect that is your difficulty and has nothing > >> > to do with the fact that neither of killed an animal today. > >> ====================== > >> And it still doesn't absolve either of us from the fact that animals died > >> as > >> a direct result of our *actions*. Kepp up the good work displaying your > >> ignorance, pansy-boy. > > > > As a result of my actions? There you go put forth foolish arguments. > > It's like the rapist who claims, "she made me do it". I now control you. > > Anything you do is my fault. You are powerless to resist my every whim. > > You must respond. You have no will, desire or control over your own > > behaviour. > ====================== > LOL Tell us why, mr freud. I control the farmers of the world. I only need to want meat and they all do my bidding. I am all powerful. I only need to think about my meals for tomorrow and the poor slaves must rush out and kill in a mass frenzy of blood and guts. I AM powerful. I walk into a grocery store and people he world over feel an overwhelming compulsion to go out and kill animals of all kinds. I AM the man. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote: >> [..] >> >> >> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire >> >> murderers >> >> with impunity? >> > >> > Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is >> > prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an >> > excuse >> > for their original desire anyway. >> >> So a smart and moral thing to do in Rons' World if you get fed up with an >> annoying spouse, child or in-law would be to simply hire someone to bump >> them off, with impunity. Pretty scary world. > > Nope, just the killer goes to prison. Once again, Dutch is relying on a > very inconsistent legal system as grounds for a logical argument. That's not logical, hiring someone to commit murder is just as bad as actually comitting murder. Both acts contribute to an unjust death. The killer would not do it without a motive, the one doing the hiring provides that. >> > Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they. >> > Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some >> > people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those >> > are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are >> > being hired for those killings. >> >> None of those exceptional circumstances gives us the right to have any >> person killed we choose to kill. > > I can't make you do anything that you haven't made a choice to do. > Blaming others is just convenient. It doesn't matter that you can't "make" me do it, it only matters that you attempt to coerce me to do it and believe that I will carry it out. >> > Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an >> > example of logic. >> >> Yes it is. If it is considered immoral to hire killers, then it is >> logical >> to make it illegal. > > I don't consider it immoral, so you are wrong. It is illegal. Anyone > idiot willing to kill for a handful of cash is foolish and ought to be > penalized for their actions. Blaming others is irrelevant to the action. Those who hire murderers deserve to be blamed for doing so. >> > I just provided several examples where the law DOES >> > allow for the hiring of killers. >> >> Neither exceptions nor violations invalidate a moral rule. Morality is >> not >> mathematics, it's a social construct that is used to modify behaviour. > > LOL. Yes, it does. Clearly, hiring killers is legal and therefore moral > in many circumstances. As we discussed, using the logically > inconsistency of law as a basis for morality or logic is just flawed. It's not logically inconsistent, morality is always situational. Murder is defined as an "unlawful" killing. Killing an enemy soldier in battle is not unlawful. > Frankly, hire as many hit men as you see fit. Bad idea. > The one who I choose to > see penalized is the one who pulls the trigger. They are the ones who > are responsible. Not the only ones. > But feel better in a frightening world with such laws. > A law against hiring a killer doesn't stop anyone from doing anything -- > it's a feel good proposition for people who feel afraid and vulnerable. Sure it does, every time an undercover cop takes money to perform a hit, a criminal goes to prison and a murder is averted. >> >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to >> >> >> > their >> >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can >> >> >> > live >> >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill. >> >> >> >> >> >> Who or what will you kill today? >> >> > >> >> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take >> >> > on >> >> > that role for me. >> >> >> >> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point >> > >> > Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others >> > (the >> > killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent >> > position for the vegan hater. The vegan is certainly better than me >> > that >> > they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons >> > to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others. >> >> According to your logic neither you nor the vegan is responsible for what >> others do, and since neither of you is killing any animals, how do you >> conclude that the vegan is better than you? > > The vegan isn't willing to see an animal suffer for a human to live. You haven't been listening, vegans are quite willing to see animals suffer to live. > I > am. So are they. > I'd say they are quite right to take the "moral high ground". They haven't taken the moral high ground, they've taken on a self-serving illusion, not much more rational than your hilarious rationalization of keeping the killers occupied in the slaughterhouses. > On > further reflection, I am similar to the vegan, we just have different > approaches to resolving the same problem of human aggression and > violence. You are similiar indeed, you are both quite willing to see animals die to serve your desires, and you are both deluded about it. Except, as I said, you're just trolling. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote >> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "John Deere" > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > John Deere wrote: >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, >> >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent >> >> >> >> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) >> >> >> >> >> situation. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little >> >> >> >> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed >> >> >> >> > vegetarian of some kind? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed >> >> >> >> > with much hatred. It would be springing from >> >> >> >> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of >> >> >> >> > will by finding some "justification"! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached >> >> >> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet >> >> >> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on >> >> >> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made >> >> >> >> > once does deserve some praise. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan >> >> >> >> self-flattery. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a >> >> >> > culture >> >> >> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to >> >> >> > manage >> >> >> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything. >> >> >> >> >> >> What are you going to kill today? >> >> > >> >> > I'm doing a community service. By keeping those who enjoy killing >> >> > focused on killing animals we can avoid them killing humans. I've >> >> > killed >> >> > nothing today. Not even an infection to destroy. Oh, the nature of >> >> > man >> >> > -- if it moves kill it. >> >> >> >> Non-responsive. >> > >> > I've never killed for fun, food or profit. I leave those activities to >> > those who are mentally disturbed and derive pleasure from such actions. >> >> Then by what logic is a vegan better than you? > > It isn't a logical perspective. Morals are not logic. > It is a judgment. I consider the vegan superior in that they are > unwilling to see animals killed to save humans. I am. Wrong conclusion, where have you been the past couple of weeks.? > I am willing to > excuse someone killing a hundred animals if it means they won't vent > that aggression onto the human community. Rubbish |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote: >> > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy and >> > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills and >> > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile and >> > passing responsibility for their own actions. >> >> Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market? > > You do, Dutch. Bad answer. > I'm not responsible for my own actions under your > theoretical constructs. Nope, wrong again. > Someone else _must_ be responsible for my > demand. Nope, it's you. > How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions. How could anyone else? If the > killer of animals isn't responsible for their actions They are. > then, how did I > become responsible for my actions? You always were. >> > Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who >> > delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict >> > that >> > aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue. >> > As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or >> > some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the >> > community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses. >> >> Right, a process admittedly supported by you. > > Yup. Support it, hell, I'm willing to see government grants for former > and potential killers to keep them away from others. Nonsense > > Better the cow gets it, than the famer's wife, kid, or someone in a > nearby town. Someone who has to kill that much is just plain mentally > ill and needs help. tripe |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article et>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article . net>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article et>, >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> >> ... >> >> >> > In article >, >> >> >> > usual suspect > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" >> >> >> >> food >> >> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, >> >> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> humane slaughter which they object. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters. >> >> >> ================= >> >> >> You have proof of this bit of delusional insight, fool? Try to >> >> >> back >> >> >> it >> >> >> up. >> >> > >> >> > What is the difficulty? People who raise and kill pigs eat pork >> >> > products. People who raise and kill cows eat beef products. People >> >> > who >> >> > raise and kill seafood eat fish products. What is the difficulty >> >> > here, >> >> > usual? >> >> ================================ >> >> Don't know who you're talking to even anymore, eh fool? Try reading >> >> for >> >> comprehension, for a chnage. The comment was about those people that >> >> produce food for vegans. You remember them, don't you? They're the >> >> loons >> >> we've been talking about for weeks now. Now, you like to spew about >> >> those >> >> that produce beef, pork, and seafood. Seems to me that none of those >> >> are >> >> vegan foods, are they? >> > >> > Same group. Who does produce food for vegans. >> ====================== >> Not the same ones that rasie meat, fool. >> >> >> Who are the rice growers >> > of the world? Meat eater, or vegan? >> ===================== >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of rice growers world-wide >> are >> not vegan. >> >> Who are the people who use the >> > products and chemicals that you so kindly point out are responsible >> > (oops, there's that word) for the collateral death of animals. >> ========================== >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of organic growers are not >> vegan. >> >> >> Who is >> > that is killing the rodents, amphibians and such -- the meat eater or >> > the vegan. Farmers and growers are the killers. >> =================== >> Exactly. But that doesn't mean that all of them are meat-eaters, now >> does >> it, fool? >> >> >> Some of us tolerate >> > their violence in the world. >> ======================= >> And are culpable for it. Thanks for pointing that out, pansy-boy.... >> >> >> >> > >> >> Your request for proof suggests that the typical grower and >> >> > killer of animals would be vegan and that's just being silly on your >> >> > part. >> >> ======================= >> >> Why fool? Are you really this clueless? Oh wait, you've already >> >> proven >> >> that, haven't you. Try checking out any number of growers that claim >> >> to >> >> be >> >> 'organic'. I'd bet more than a few would be vegan, yet their farming >> >> will >> >> still cause animals to die. >> > >> > AH, a few might be vegan. Shall we do a comparison of farms operated by >> > vegans and meat eaters and killers. it's always easy and intellectually >> > dishonest to generalize to avoid reality. >> ============================== >> ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! It was you that generalized all growers, you >> ignorant fool! Man, what a maroon... Besides, if you could read for >> comprhension, you'd see that this discussion was about 'vegan' food! Not >> meats. Of course, we know that your comprehension is sorely lacking. >> >> >> > >> >> Occam's Razor: what is more likely that those raise and kill >> >> > animals are vegan or meat eater? >> >> ============================ >> >> And again, we aren't talking here about meat, fool. Those are hardly >> >> vegan >> >> foods. >> > >> > Do pay attention. Dutch specifically spoke to raising livestock. >> ===================== >> Not at the top of this thread were I responded fool. Your response was >> to >> Usual, and the discussion was not about livestock. Need a refresher, >> fool? >> try reading for comprehension. >> quoted text.... >> Usual>>> > This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of >> "vegan" >> food >> > production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, >> > drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the >> > humane slaughter which they object. >> >> You>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters. When the vegan buys the >> ingredients >> for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who >> rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such >> products, continues to kill. >> end quoted text.... >> >> You're an idiot, pansy-boy.... Lack of comment noted, pansy-boy.... Finally figure out your stupidity? >> >> > >> >> Besides, if you really understood the term, you'd realize that it is >> >> you that has made assumptions of farmers, without actually having any >> >> info, >> >> must less the minimun needed, fool. Have you questioned however many >> >> farmers there are? Remember, not all farmers raise animals, yet they >> >> still >> >> kill them. >> >> >> >> Keep up the good work in proving your ignorance, pansy-boy. >> > >> > You must raise livestock. Your propensity for abuse and violence is >> > familiar to those of us reading. And if not, you might find some >> > 'release' in those acts. I imagine eating meat is less satisfactory >> > than >> > actually being hands on with killing. >> ======================= >> Tell us all about your bloody hands, mr freud... >> >> >> > >> > But let's go another round of blaming the vegan for the actions of >> > others. It is consistent with our culture of passing the buck -- no one >> > is responsible for anything, everyone is responsible for everything. >> ============================== >> ROTFLMAO You really are a hoot! Thanks for stateing exactly what I >> have >> been saying. That vegans, and you now, continue to pass the buck for the >> actions they(you) take, knowing full well that the choices they/you make >> cause death and suffering to animals. It is vegans and you that are >> trying >> to deny their responsibility. Thanks for proving your stupidity yet >> again,pansy-boy... > > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there > aren't children in your vicinity. > > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. =============== Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving your ignorance and stupidity.... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article et>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article . net>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article et>, >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> >> ... >> >> >> > In article >, >> >> >> > usual suspect > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" >> >> >> >> food >> >> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, >> >> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> humane slaughter which they object. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters. >> >> >> ================= >> >> >> You have proof of this bit of delusional insight, fool? Try to >> >> >> back >> >> >> it >> >> >> up. >> >> > >> >> > What is the difficulty? People who raise and kill pigs eat pork >> >> > products. People who raise and kill cows eat beef products. People >> >> > who >> >> > raise and kill seafood eat fish products. What is the difficulty >> >> > here, >> >> > usual? >> >> ================================ >> >> Don't know who you're talking to even anymore, eh fool? Try reading >> >> for >> >> comprehension, for a chnage. The comment was about those people that >> >> produce food for vegans. You remember them, don't you? They're the >> >> loons >> >> we've been talking about for weeks now. Now, you like to spew about >> >> those >> >> that produce beef, pork, and seafood. Seems to me that none of those >> >> are >> >> vegan foods, are they? >> > >> > Same group. Who does produce food for vegans. >> ====================== >> Not the same ones that rasie meat, fool. >> >> >> Who are the rice growers >> > of the world? Meat eater, or vegan? >> ===================== >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of rice growers world-wide >> are >> not vegan. >> >> Who are the people who use the >> > products and chemicals that you so kindly point out are responsible >> > (oops, there's that word) for the collateral death of animals. >> ========================== >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of organic growers are not >> vegan. >> >> >> Who is >> > that is killing the rodents, amphibians and such -- the meat eater or >> > the vegan. Farmers and growers are the killers. >> =================== >> Exactly. But that doesn't mean that all of them are meat-eaters, now >> does >> it, fool? >> >> >> Some of us tolerate >> > their violence in the world. >> ======================= >> And are culpable for it. Thanks for pointing that out, pansy-boy.... >> >> >> >> > >> >> Your request for proof suggests that the typical grower and >> >> > killer of animals would be vegan and that's just being silly on your >> >> > part. >> >> ======================= >> >> Why fool? Are you really this clueless? Oh wait, you've already >> >> proven >> >> that, haven't you. Try checking out any number of growers that claim >> >> to >> >> be >> >> 'organic'. I'd bet more than a few would be vegan, yet their farming >> >> will >> >> still cause animals to die. >> > >> > AH, a few might be vegan. Shall we do a comparison of farms operated by >> > vegans and meat eaters and killers. it's always easy and intellectually >> > dishonest to generalize to avoid reality. >> ============================== >> ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! It was you that generalized all growers, you >> ignorant fool! Man, what a maroon... Besides, if you could read for >> comprhension, you'd see that this discussion was about 'vegan' food! Not >> meats. Of course, we know that your comprehension is sorely lacking. >> >> >> > >> >> Occam's Razor: what is more likely that those raise and kill >> >> > animals are vegan or meat eater? >> >> ============================ >> >> And again, we aren't talking here about meat, fool. Those are hardly >> >> vegan >> >> foods. >> > >> > Do pay attention. Dutch specifically spoke to raising livestock. >> ===================== >> Not at the top of this thread were I responded fool. Your response was >> to >> Usual, and the discussion was not about livestock. Need a refresher, >> fool? >> try reading for comprehension. >> quoted text.... >> Usual>>> > This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of >> "vegan" >> food >> > production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, >> > drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the >> > humane slaughter which they object. >> >> You>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters. When the vegan buys the >> ingredients >> for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who >> rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such >> products, continues to kill. >> end quoted text.... >> >> You're an idiot, pansy-boy.... Lack of comment noted, pansy-boy.... Finally figure out your stupidity? >> >> > >> >> Besides, if you really understood the term, you'd realize that it is >> >> you that has made assumptions of farmers, without actually having any >> >> info, >> >> must less the minimun needed, fool. Have you questioned however many >> >> farmers there are? Remember, not all farmers raise animals, yet they >> >> still >> >> kill them. >> >> >> >> Keep up the good work in proving your ignorance, pansy-boy. >> > >> > You must raise livestock. Your propensity for abuse and violence is >> > familiar to those of us reading. And if not, you might find some >> > 'release' in those acts. I imagine eating meat is less satisfactory >> > than >> > actually being hands on with killing. >> ======================= >> Tell us all about your bloody hands, mr freud... >> >> >> > >> > But let's go another round of blaming the vegan for the actions of >> > others. It is consistent with our culture of passing the buck -- no one >> > is responsible for anything, everyone is responsible for everything. >> ============================== >> ROTFLMAO You really are a hoot! Thanks for stateing exactly what I >> have >> been saying. That vegans, and you now, continue to pass the buck for the >> actions they(you) take, knowing full well that the choices they/you make >> cause death and suffering to animals. It is vegans and you that are >> trying >> to deny their responsibility. Thanks for proving your stupidity yet >> again,pansy-boy... > > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there > aren't children in your vicinity. > > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. =============== Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving your ignorance and stupidity.... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote > >> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> "John Deere" > wrote > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > John Deere wrote: > >> >> >> >> > ... > >> >> >> >> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, > >> >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent > >> >> >> >> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) > >> >> >> >> >> situation. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little > >> >> >> >> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed > >> >> >> >> > vegetarian of some kind? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed > >> >> >> >> > with much hatred. It would be springing from > >> >> >> >> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of > >> >> >> >> > will by finding some "justification"! > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached > >> >> >> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet > >> >> >> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on > >> >> >> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made > >> >> >> >> > once does deserve some praise. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan > >> >> >> >> self-flattery. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a > >> >> >> > culture > >> >> >> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to > >> >> >> > manage > >> >> >> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What are you going to kill today? > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm doing a community service. By keeping those who enjoy killing > >> >> > focused on killing animals we can avoid them killing humans. I've > >> >> > killed > >> >> > nothing today. Not even an infection to destroy. Oh, the nature of > >> >> > man > >> >> > -- if it moves kill it. > >> >> > >> >> Non-responsive. > >> > > >> > I've never killed for fun, food or profit. I leave those activities to > >> > those who are mentally disturbed and derive pleasure from such actions. > >> > >> Then by what logic is a vegan better than you? > > > > It isn't a logical perspective. Morals are not logic. > > It is a judgment. I consider the vegan superior in that they are > > unwilling to see animals killed to save humans. I am. > > Wrong conclusion, where have you been the past couple of weeks.? I didn't know that I'm required to account for my time and to you? Are we dating? > > I am willing to > > excuse someone killing a hundred animals if it means they won't vent > > that aggression onto the human community. > > Rubbish Well, thanks for telling me what I believe. Wow. I'm impressed with your ability to read my mind. Killers need a place to vent their aggression. Aggression can often be misdirected. It is safer for the human community to have that aggression directed to other animals rather than humans. Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a bullet in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing, shooting, etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to a certain degree. Keep em busy and keep em away from me. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote > >> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> "John Deere" > wrote > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > John Deere wrote: > >> >> >> >> > ... > >> >> >> >> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, > >> >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent > >> >> >> >> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) > >> >> >> >> >> situation. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little > >> >> >> >> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed > >> >> >> >> > vegetarian of some kind? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed > >> >> >> >> > with much hatred. It would be springing from > >> >> >> >> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of > >> >> >> >> > will by finding some "justification"! > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached > >> >> >> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet > >> >> >> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on > >> >> >> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made > >> >> >> >> > once does deserve some praise. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan > >> >> >> >> self-flattery. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a > >> >> >> > culture > >> >> >> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to > >> >> >> > manage > >> >> >> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What are you going to kill today? > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm doing a community service. By keeping those who enjoy killing > >> >> > focused on killing animals we can avoid them killing humans. I've > >> >> > killed > >> >> > nothing today. Not even an infection to destroy. Oh, the nature of > >> >> > man > >> >> > -- if it moves kill it. > >> >> > >> >> Non-responsive. > >> > > >> > I've never killed for fun, food or profit. I leave those activities to > >> > those who are mentally disturbed and derive pleasure from such actions. > >> > >> Then by what logic is a vegan better than you? > > > > It isn't a logical perspective. Morals are not logic. > > It is a judgment. I consider the vegan superior in that they are > > unwilling to see animals killed to save humans. I am. > > Wrong conclusion, where have you been the past couple of weeks.? I didn't know that I'm required to account for my time and to you? Are we dating? > > I am willing to > > excuse someone killing a hundred animals if it means they won't vent > > that aggression onto the human community. > > Rubbish Well, thanks for telling me what I believe. Wow. I'm impressed with your ability to read my mind. Killers need a place to vent their aggression. Aggression can often be misdirected. It is safer for the human community to have that aggression directed to other animals rather than humans. Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a bullet in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing, shooting, etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to a certain degree. Keep em busy and keep em away from me. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article et>, > > "rick etter" > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article . net>, > >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > In article et>, > >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> > In article >, > >> >> >> > usual suspect > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" > >> >> >> >> food > >> >> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, > >> >> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> humane slaughter which they object. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters. > >> >> >> ================= > >> >> >> You have proof of this bit of delusional insight, fool? Try to > >> >> >> back > >> >> >> it > >> >> >> up. > >> >> > > >> >> > What is the difficulty? People who raise and kill pigs eat pork > >> >> > products. People who raise and kill cows eat beef products. People > >> >> > who > >> >> > raise and kill seafood eat fish products. What is the difficulty > >> >> > here, > >> >> > usual? > >> >> ================================ > >> >> Don't know who you're talking to even anymore, eh fool? Try reading > >> >> for > >> >> comprehension, for a chnage. The comment was about those people that > >> >> produce food for vegans. You remember them, don't you? They're the > >> >> loons > >> >> we've been talking about for weeks now. Now, you like to spew about > >> >> those > >> >> that produce beef, pork, and seafood. Seems to me that none of those > >> >> are > >> >> vegan foods, are they? > >> > > >> > Same group. Who does produce food for vegans. > >> ====================== > >> Not the same ones that rasie meat, fool. > >> > >> > >> Who are the rice growers > >> > of the world? Meat eater, or vegan? > >> ===================== > >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of rice growers world-wide > >> are > >> not vegan. > >> > >> Who are the people who use the > >> > products and chemicals that you so kindly point out are responsible > >> > (oops, there's that word) for the collateral death of animals. > >> ========================== > >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of organic growers are not > >> vegan. > >> > >> > >> Who is > >> > that is killing the rodents, amphibians and such -- the meat eater or > >> > the vegan. Farmers and growers are the killers. > >> =================== > >> Exactly. But that doesn't mean that all of them are meat-eaters, now > >> does > >> it, fool? > >> > >> > >> Some of us tolerate > >> > their violence in the world. > >> ======================= > >> And are culpable for it. Thanks for pointing that out, pansy-boy.... > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> Your request for proof suggests that the typical grower and > >> >> > killer of animals would be vegan and that's just being silly on your > >> >> > part. > >> >> ======================= > >> >> Why fool? Are you really this clueless? Oh wait, you've already > >> >> proven > >> >> that, haven't you. Try checking out any number of growers that claim > >> >> to > >> >> be > >> >> 'organic'. I'd bet more than a few would be vegan, yet their farming > >> >> will > >> >> still cause animals to die. > >> > > >> > AH, a few might be vegan. Shall we do a comparison of farms operated by > >> > vegans and meat eaters and killers. it's always easy and intellectually > >> > dishonest to generalize to avoid reality. > >> ============================== > >> ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! It was you that generalized all growers, you > >> ignorant fool! Man, what a maroon... Besides, if you could read for > >> comprhension, you'd see that this discussion was about 'vegan' food! Not > >> meats. Of course, we know that your comprehension is sorely lacking. > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> Occam's Razor: what is more likely that those raise and kill > >> >> > animals are vegan or meat eater? > >> >> ============================ > >> >> And again, we aren't talking here about meat, fool. Those are hardly > >> >> vegan > >> >> foods. > >> > > >> > Do pay attention. Dutch specifically spoke to raising livestock. > >> ===================== > >> Not at the top of this thread were I responded fool. Your response was > >> to > >> Usual, and the discussion was not about livestock. Need a refresher, > >> fool? > >> try reading for comprehension. > >> quoted text.... > >> Usual>>> > This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of > >> "vegan" > >> food > >> > production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, > >> > drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the > >> > humane slaughter which they object. > >> > >> You>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters. When the vegan buys the > >> ingredients > >> for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who > >> rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such > >> products, continues to kill. > >> end quoted text.... > >> > >> You're an idiot, pansy-boy.... > > Lack of comment noted, pansy-boy.... Finally figure out your stupidity? > > > >> > >> > > >> >> Besides, if you really understood the term, you'd realize that it is > >> >> you that has made assumptions of farmers, without actually having any > >> >> info, > >> >> must less the minimun needed, fool. Have you questioned however many > >> >> farmers there are? Remember, not all farmers raise animals, yet they > >> >> still > >> >> kill them. > >> >> > >> >> Keep up the good work in proving your ignorance, pansy-boy. > >> > > >> > You must raise livestock. Your propensity for abuse and violence is > >> > familiar to those of us reading. And if not, you might find some > >> > 'release' in those acts. I imagine eating meat is less satisfactory > >> > than > >> > actually being hands on with killing. > >> ======================= > >> Tell us all about your bloody hands, mr freud... > >> > >> > >> > > >> > But let's go another round of blaming the vegan for the actions of > >> > others. It is consistent with our culture of passing the buck -- no one > >> > is responsible for anything, everyone is responsible for everything. > >> ============================== > >> ROTFLMAO You really are a hoot! Thanks for stateing exactly what I > >> have > >> been saying. That vegans, and you now, continue to pass the buck for the > >> actions they(you) take, knowing full well that the choices they/you make > >> cause death and suffering to animals. It is vegans and you that are > >> trying > >> to deny their responsibility. Thanks for proving your stupidity yet > >> again,pansy-boy... > > > > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a > > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there > > aren't children in your vicinity. > > > > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer > > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made > > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless > > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are > > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. > =============== > Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving > your ignorance and stupidity.... Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the other, but not vice versa. I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look bad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article et>, > > "rick etter" > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article . net>, > >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > In article et>, > >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> > In article >, > >> >> >> > usual suspect > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" > >> >> >> >> food > >> >> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, > >> >> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> humane slaughter which they object. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters. > >> >> >> ================= > >> >> >> You have proof of this bit of delusional insight, fool? Try to > >> >> >> back > >> >> >> it > >> >> >> up. > >> >> > > >> >> > What is the difficulty? People who raise and kill pigs eat pork > >> >> > products. People who raise and kill cows eat beef products. People > >> >> > who > >> >> > raise and kill seafood eat fish products. What is the difficulty > >> >> > here, > >> >> > usual? > >> >> ================================ > >> >> Don't know who you're talking to even anymore, eh fool? Try reading > >> >> for > >> >> comprehension, for a chnage. The comment was about those people that > >> >> produce food for vegans. You remember them, don't you? They're the > >> >> loons > >> >> we've been talking about for weeks now. Now, you like to spew about > >> >> those > >> >> that produce beef, pork, and seafood. Seems to me that none of those > >> >> are > >> >> vegan foods, are they? > >> > > >> > Same group. Who does produce food for vegans. > >> ====================== > >> Not the same ones that rasie meat, fool. > >> > >> > >> Who are the rice growers > >> > of the world? Meat eater, or vegan? > >> ===================== > >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of rice growers world-wide > >> are > >> not vegan. > >> > >> Who are the people who use the > >> > products and chemicals that you so kindly point out are responsible > >> > (oops, there's that word) for the collateral death of animals. > >> ========================== > >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of organic growers are not > >> vegan. > >> > >> > >> Who is > >> > that is killing the rodents, amphibians and such -- the meat eater or > >> > the vegan. Farmers and growers are the killers. > >> =================== > >> Exactly. But that doesn't mean that all of them are meat-eaters, now > >> does > >> it, fool? > >> > >> > >> Some of us tolerate > >> > their violence in the world. > >> ======================= > >> And are culpable for it. Thanks for pointing that out, pansy-boy.... > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> Your request for proof suggests that the typical grower and > >> >> > killer of animals would be vegan and that's just being silly on your > >> >> > part. > >> >> ======================= > >> >> Why fool? Are you really this clueless? Oh wait, you've already > >> >> proven > >> >> that, haven't you. Try checking out any number of growers that claim > >> >> to > >> >> be > >> >> 'organic'. I'd bet more than a few would be vegan, yet their farming > >> >> will > >> >> still cause animals to die. > >> > > >> > AH, a few might be vegan. Shall we do a comparison of farms operated by > >> > vegans and meat eaters and killers. it's always easy and intellectually > >> > dishonest to generalize to avoid reality. > >> ============================== > >> ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! It was you that generalized all growers, you > >> ignorant fool! Man, what a maroon... Besides, if you could read for > >> comprhension, you'd see that this discussion was about 'vegan' food! Not > >> meats. Of course, we know that your comprehension is sorely lacking. > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> Occam's Razor: what is more likely that those raise and kill > >> >> > animals are vegan or meat eater? > >> >> ============================ > >> >> And again, we aren't talking here about meat, fool. Those are hardly > >> >> vegan > >> >> foods. > >> > > >> > Do pay attention. Dutch specifically spoke to raising livestock. > >> ===================== > >> Not at the top of this thread were I responded fool. Your response was > >> to > >> Usual, and the discussion was not about livestock. Need a refresher, > >> fool? > >> try reading for comprehension. > >> quoted text.... > >> Usual>>> > This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of > >> "vegan" > >> food > >> > production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, > >> > drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the > >> > humane slaughter which they object. > >> > >> You>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters. When the vegan buys the > >> ingredients > >> for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who > >> rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such > >> products, continues to kill. > >> end quoted text.... > >> > >> You're an idiot, pansy-boy.... > > Lack of comment noted, pansy-boy.... Finally figure out your stupidity? > > > >> > >> > > >> >> Besides, if you really understood the term, you'd realize that it is > >> >> you that has made assumptions of farmers, without actually having any > >> >> info, > >> >> must less the minimun needed, fool. Have you questioned however many > >> >> farmers there are? Remember, not all farmers raise animals, yet they > >> >> still > >> >> kill them. > >> >> > >> >> Keep up the good work in proving your ignorance, pansy-boy. > >> > > >> > You must raise livestock. Your propensity for abuse and violence is > >> > familiar to those of us reading. And if not, you might find some > >> > 'release' in those acts. I imagine eating meat is less satisfactory > >> > than > >> > actually being hands on with killing. > >> ======================= > >> Tell us all about your bloody hands, mr freud... > >> > >> > >> > > >> > But let's go another round of blaming the vegan for the actions of > >> > others. It is consistent with our culture of passing the buck -- no one > >> > is responsible for anything, everyone is responsible for everything. > >> ============================== > >> ROTFLMAO You really are a hoot! Thanks for stateing exactly what I > >> have > >> been saying. That vegans, and you now, continue to pass the buck for the > >> actions they(you) take, knowing full well that the choices they/you make > >> cause death and suffering to animals. It is vegans and you that are > >> trying > >> to deny their responsibility. Thanks for proving your stupidity yet > >> again,pansy-boy... > > > > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a > > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there > > aren't children in your vicinity. > > > > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer > > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made > > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless > > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are > > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. > =============== > Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving > your ignorance and stupidity.... Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the other, but not vice versa. I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look bad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy and > >> > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills and > >> > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile and > >> > passing responsibility for their own actions. > >> > >> Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market? > > > > You do, Dutch. > > Bad answer. > > > I'm not responsible for my own actions under your > > theoretical constructs. > > Nope, wrong again. > > > Someone else _must_ be responsible for my > > demand. > > Nope, it's you. > > > How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions. > > How could anyone else? So how could I be responsible for the farmers actions? Of course, the farmer is nothing but a mindless pawn with no will. The farmer cannot go to school. The farmer cannot change occupations. The farmer cannot sell his land and use the money to start another business. The farmer is powerless in the face of me. I control their activities. I pull their strings. They are my puppets. I am ALL POWERFUL. Why should the farmer accept any responsibility for their choice to kill animals when they can blame me or a vegan. How sweet is that? They get to kill and pass the buck. What a deal? > If the > > killer of animals isn't responsible for their actions > > They are. NO they aren't. You've said as much. > > then, how did I > > become responsible for my actions? > > You always were. Did you post something a while back about changing one's position constituting the making of a hypocrite. > >> > Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who > >> > delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict > >> > that > >> > aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue. > >> > As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or > >> > some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the > >> > community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses. > >> > >> Right, a process admittedly supported by you. > > > > Yup. Support it, hell, I'm willing to see government grants for former > > and potential killers to keep them away from others. > > Nonsense Why do you think I support farming grants through the actions of my government? It keeps those who cannot control themselves and who are unwilling to stop killing animals out of my neck of the woods. Keem em busy and keep em away from me. > > Better the cow gets it, than the famer's wife, kid, or someone in a > > nearby town. Someone who has to kill that much is just plain mentally > > ill and needs help. > > tripe Please make a case that anyone who does kill and on that scale is of sound mind. G'head. Inflicting suffering on animals elicits emotions for humans. We are conscious and aware of pain and suffering. We can empathize with other animals who experience pain and suffering. To put a bullet into the forehead of another animal requires a 'dissociation' of reality. This is symbolic of the mentally ill. Further, most people don't engage in killing animals, let alone en masse. This is reserved in society for those who are unable and unwilling to control their violent tendencies. To inflict suffering on an animal requires a sadistic personality. A pleasure at seeing something else suffer. As a social response, we create "jobs" for these people to do to keep them busy and away from the rest of society. You'll notice that farms are usually positioned far enough away from cluster of humans to minimize contact with those who can act civilly. If a person killing an animal is symbolic of a psychopath or sociopath in our culture then what of the person who does it en masse. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy and > >> > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills and > >> > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile and > >> > passing responsibility for their own actions. > >> > >> Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market? > > > > You do, Dutch. > > Bad answer. > > > I'm not responsible for my own actions under your > > theoretical constructs. > > Nope, wrong again. > > > Someone else _must_ be responsible for my > > demand. > > Nope, it's you. > > > How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions. > > How could anyone else? So how could I be responsible for the farmers actions? Of course, the farmer is nothing but a mindless pawn with no will. The farmer cannot go to school. The farmer cannot change occupations. The farmer cannot sell his land and use the money to start another business. The farmer is powerless in the face of me. I control their activities. I pull their strings. They are my puppets. I am ALL POWERFUL. Why should the farmer accept any responsibility for their choice to kill animals when they can blame me or a vegan. How sweet is that? They get to kill and pass the buck. What a deal? > If the > > killer of animals isn't responsible for their actions > > They are. NO they aren't. You've said as much. > > then, how did I > > become responsible for my actions? > > You always were. Did you post something a while back about changing one's position constituting the making of a hypocrite. > >> > Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who > >> > delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict > >> > that > >> > aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue. > >> > As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or > >> > some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the > >> > community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses. > >> > >> Right, a process admittedly supported by you. > > > > Yup. Support it, hell, I'm willing to see government grants for former > > and potential killers to keep them away from others. > > Nonsense Why do you think I support farming grants through the actions of my government? It keeps those who cannot control themselves and who are unwilling to stop killing animals out of my neck of the woods. Keem em busy and keep em away from me. > > Better the cow gets it, than the famer's wife, kid, or someone in a > > nearby town. Someone who has to kill that much is just plain mentally > > ill and needs help. > > tripe Please make a case that anyone who does kill and on that scale is of sound mind. G'head. Inflicting suffering on animals elicits emotions for humans. We are conscious and aware of pain and suffering. We can empathize with other animals who experience pain and suffering. To put a bullet into the forehead of another animal requires a 'dissociation' of reality. This is symbolic of the mentally ill. Further, most people don't engage in killing animals, let alone en masse. This is reserved in society for those who are unable and unwilling to control their violent tendencies. To inflict suffering on an animal requires a sadistic personality. A pleasure at seeing something else suffer. As a social response, we create "jobs" for these people to do to keep them busy and away from the rest of society. You'll notice that farms are usually positioned far enough away from cluster of humans to minimize contact with those who can act civilly. If a person killing an animal is symbolic of a psychopath or sociopath in our culture then what of the person who does it en masse. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote:
> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached > > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet > > due to lack of will. When people are raised on > > meat in every meal, just the effort they made > > once does deserve some praise. > > I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan > self-flattery. Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower. I also realize that others may not have it, for whatever reasons. I am simply speculating that the original decision to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce the goodwill displayed by the original decision. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> "rick etter" > wrote: >> "Ron" > wrote in message ... [..] >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there >> > aren't children in your vicinity. >> > >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. >> =============== >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving >> your ignorance and stupidity.... > >Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the >killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is >responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's >actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the >other, but not vice versa. > >I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the >beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look >bad. Rick, like all the other buck-passers here insists that the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those wrong actions to continue and to make themselves fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view, his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are showing a contempt for the rights of animals when buying vegetables. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> "rick etter" > wrote: >> "Ron" > wrote in message ... [..] >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there >> > aren't children in your vicinity. >> > >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. >> =============== >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving >> your ignorance and stupidity.... > >Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the >killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is >responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's >actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the >other, but not vice versa. > >I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the >beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look >bad. Rick, like all the other buck-passers here insists that the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those wrong actions to continue and to make themselves fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view, his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are showing a contempt for the rights of animals when buying vegetables. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a bullet > in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing, shooting, > etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to a > certain degree. > > Keep em busy and keep em away from me. That's extremely lame a "justification". Except for hunters-by-choice, people associated with meat production aren't particularly psychologically impaired in the way you are presenting. It's a job that some of them happen to fall into. In fact, some people associated with meat-farming get very disturbed, and do end up veg*n. You should actually talk to some of them before you put them all down like that, and present them as psychos. Why this need for "justifications" anyway? Why not a more honest "I think vegetarianism is moral, it's just that I can't do it personally?" There are people who are that honest, you know. They gave vegetarianism/veganism a try, and then decided they just couldn't do it. But they don't go around badmouthing veg*ns and coming up with highly irrational arguments. They just say they tried and couldn't do it. A little bit of honesty can go very far. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ...
> Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who > delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict that > aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue. > As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or > some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the > community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses. Surely a society which condones violence against the most vulnerable - animals (as children have at least more legal protection), is actually perpetuating the view that (when it is carried out to meet the person's desires, wants or needs), violence, abuse and taking life is acceptable? .... 'Research Into the Violence Link: Notes for Humane Education The link between cruelty to animals and violence toward people has been well established. Randall Lockwood and Frank Ascione's recent book, Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application compiles overwhelming research evidence that cruelty to animals is a symptom of deep psychological problems. It's a clear indicator that violence and abuse toward people is happening as well. In children and adolescents, a pattern of recurrent cruelty to animals is a predictor of later aggression toward other people. ... Properly conceived and executed, humane education programs improve the treatment of both animals and people. Humane education not only provides knowledge about animals and their care but develops empathy, respect, sensitivity, responsibility, self control and self esteem. Including humane education as part of the regular school curriculum makes sure all children learn appropriate behaviours, not just those fortunate enough to come from stable, caring home environments. The research is clear on the transference and escalation of aggression from animals to people. It also shows what causes that aggression -- and some of those causes can be prevented with humane education. Furthermore, there is research that shows that improved attitudes toward animals generalize to people. If children learn to treat animals well, they're more likely to treat people well too. If children are allowed to vent their aggression on animals, they will learn to vent it on other people as well. ... Empathy, the ability to mentally put oneself in another's shoes and understand their perspective, is key to peaceful coexistence. Lack of empathy allows abuse to happen because to the unempathetic abuser, the victim is just an object, not a feeling being. Thus the development of empathy for others, human and nonhuman, must be an integral part of humane education. ... http://www.animalink.ab.ca/HumaneEdu...olencelink.htm (Those individuals who are a potential threat to society need treatment.) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ...
> Until we can find a suitable treatment or cure for individuals who > delight in take the lives of other animals and would likely inflict that > aggression on humans, my CHOICE is to allow the behaviour to continue. > As a matter of survival if it is the difference between a cow dying or > some crazed person who delights in killing animals being lose in the > community to fill their lust for blood and death -- the cow looses. Surely a society which condones violence against the most vulnerable - animals (as children have at least more legal protection), is actually perpetuating the view that (when it is carried out to meet the person's desires, wants or needs), violence, abuse and taking life is acceptable? .... 'Research Into the Violence Link: Notes for Humane Education The link between cruelty to animals and violence toward people has been well established. Randall Lockwood and Frank Ascione's recent book, Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application compiles overwhelming research evidence that cruelty to animals is a symptom of deep psychological problems. It's a clear indicator that violence and abuse toward people is happening as well. In children and adolescents, a pattern of recurrent cruelty to animals is a predictor of later aggression toward other people. ... Properly conceived and executed, humane education programs improve the treatment of both animals and people. Humane education not only provides knowledge about animals and their care but develops empathy, respect, sensitivity, responsibility, self control and self esteem. Including humane education as part of the regular school curriculum makes sure all children learn appropriate behaviours, not just those fortunate enough to come from stable, caring home environments. The research is clear on the transference and escalation of aggression from animals to people. It also shows what causes that aggression -- and some of those causes can be prevented with humane education. Furthermore, there is research that shows that improved attitudes toward animals generalize to people. If children learn to treat animals well, they're more likely to treat people well too. If children are allowed to vent their aggression on animals, they will learn to vent it on other people as well. ... Empathy, the ability to mentally put oneself in another's shoes and understand their perspective, is key to peaceful coexistence. Lack of empathy allows abuse to happen because to the unempathetic abuser, the victim is just an object, not a feeling being. Thus the development of empathy for others, human and nonhuman, must be an integral part of humane education. ... http://www.animalink.ab.ca/HumaneEdu...olencelink.htm (Those individuals who are a potential threat to society need treatment.) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote >> >> The Moving Finger writes; > >Yawn, same old tactics eh Derek? > >Nobody believes that changing one's position on something makes you a liar >or a hypocrite. In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh, so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items? He also states that he believes the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs are bad for him, animals, his environment, and the whole World, but he sings a different tune now he's become a meat pusher, so how did learning from his mistakes do that? <restore> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 and "Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely and you have much more of the latter to feed the world." usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 Those quotes belie his current pusher's position, and no amount of regret will ever undo the hypocrisy of it. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. Omar Khayyam |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote >> >> The Moving Finger writes; > >Yawn, same old tactics eh Derek? > >Nobody believes that changing one's position on something makes you a liar >or a hypocrite. In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh, so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items? He also states that he believes the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs are bad for him, animals, his environment, and the whole World, but he sings a different tune now he's become a meat pusher, so how did learning from his mistakes do that? <restore> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 and "Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely and you have much more of the latter to feed the world." usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 Those quotes belie his current pusher's position, and no amount of regret will ever undo the hypocrisy of it. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. Omar Khayyam |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> Killers need a place to vent their aggression. Aggression can often be > misdirected. It is safer for the human community to have that aggression > directed to other animals rather than humans. > > Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a bullet > in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing, shooting, > etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to a > certain degree. > > Keep em busy and keep em away from me. I don't think that's valid -- while this may apply to hunters, otherwise normal people get jobs in the meat production industry or are born in a farming household. It's just a means of livelihood, not a psychological imbalance. In fact, some of them do get disturbed enough to become veg*ns! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article om>,
"John Deere" > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a > bullet > > in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing, > shooting, > > etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to > a > > certain degree. > > > > Keep em busy and keep em away from me. > > That's extremely lame a "justification". > > Except for hunters-by-choice, people associated with > meat production aren't particularly psychologically > impaired in the way you are presenting. > > It's a job that some of them happen to fall into. > In fact, some people associated with meat-farming > get very disturbed, and do end up veg*n. > > You should actually talk to some of them before you > put them all down like that, and present them as psychos. > > Why this need for "justifications" anyway? Why not > a more honest "I think vegetarianism is moral, > it's just that I can't do it personally?" I can do it. I choose not to and for the reasons stated. Can't and won't are worlds apart. > There are people who are that honest, you know. > They gave vegetarianism/veganism a try, and then > decided they just couldn't do it. But they don't > go around badmouthing veg*ns and coming up with > highly irrational arguments. They just say they > tried and couldn't do it. There is a tendency to call many things irrational. I actually admire vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do. > A little bit of honesty can go very far. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article om>,
"John Deere" > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a > bullet > > in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing, > shooting, > > etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to > a > > certain degree. > > > > Keep em busy and keep em away from me. > > That's extremely lame a "justification". > > Except for hunters-by-choice, people associated with > meat production aren't particularly psychologically > impaired in the way you are presenting. > > It's a job that some of them happen to fall into. > In fact, some people associated with meat-farming > get very disturbed, and do end up veg*n. > > You should actually talk to some of them before you > put them all down like that, and present them as psychos. > > Why this need for "justifications" anyway? Why not > a more honest "I think vegetarianism is moral, > it's just that I can't do it personally?" I can do it. I choose not to and for the reasons stated. Can't and won't are worlds apart. > There are people who are that honest, you know. > They gave vegetarianism/veganism a try, and then > decided they just couldn't do it. But they don't > go around badmouthing veg*ns and coming up with > highly irrational arguments. They just say they > tried and couldn't do it. There is a tendency to call many things irrational. I actually admire vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do. > A little bit of honesty can go very far. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . com>,
"John Deere" > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > Killers need a place to vent their aggression. Aggression can often > be > > misdirected. It is safer for the human community to have that > aggression > > directed to other animals rather than humans. > > > > Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a > bullet > > in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing, > shooting, > > etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to > a > > certain degree. > > > > Keep em busy and keep em away from me. > > I don't think that's valid -- while this may apply > to hunters, otherwise normal people get jobs in the > meat production industry or are born in a farming household. > It's just a means of livelihood, not a psychological imbalance. > In fact, some of them do get disturbed enough to > become veg*ns! I find these poor excuses. A person born into a farming household CAN change there occupation if they want to change their occupation. When you place killing en masse on par with "it's just a job" I worry somewhat and that only fuels my belief that I am correct. If it's just a job, get another job. Unless of course, they are really enjoying the suffering they inflict. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote: > > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > [..] > >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a > >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there > >> > aren't children in your vicinity. > >> > > >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer > >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made > >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless > >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are > >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. > >> =============== > >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving > >> your ignorance and stupidity.... > > > >Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the > >killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is > >responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's > >actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the > >other, but not vice versa. > > > >I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the > >beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look > >bad. > > Rick, like all the other buck-passers here insists that > the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for > the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those > wrong actions to continue and to make themselves > fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view, > his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and > enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are > showing a contempt for the rights of animals when > buying vegetables. You've known him longer than I have. I have my own observations about his style and methods. We'll see how the discussion goes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote: > > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > [..] > >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a > >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there > >> > aren't children in your vicinity. > >> > > >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer > >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made > >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless > >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are > >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond. > >> =============== > >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving > >> your ignorance and stupidity.... > > > >Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the > >killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is > >responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's > >actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the > >other, but not vice versa. > > > >I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the > >beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look > >bad. > > Rick, like all the other buck-passers here insists that > the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for > the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those > wrong actions to continue and to make themselves > fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view, > his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and > enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are > showing a contempt for the rights of animals when > buying vegetables. You've known him longer than I have. I have my own observations about his style and methods. We'll see how the discussion goes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article et>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article et>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article . net>, >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> >> ... >> >> >> > In article et>, >> >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> > In article >, >> >> >> >> > usual suspect > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of >> >> >> >> >> "vegan" >> >> >> >> >> food >> >> >> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, >> >> >> >> >> mutilation, >> >> >> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" >> >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> humane slaughter which they object. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters. >> >> >> >> ================= >> >> >> >> You have proof of this bit of delusional insight, fool? Try to >> >> >> >> back >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> up. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What is the difficulty? People who raise and kill pigs eat pork >> >> >> > products. People who raise and kill cows eat beef products. >> >> >> > People >> >> >> > who >> >> >> > raise and kill seafood eat fish products. What is the difficulty >> >> >> > here, >> >> >> > usual? >> >> >> ================================ >> >> >> Don't know who you're talking to even anymore, eh fool? Try >> >> >> reading >> >> >> for >> >> >> comprehension, for a chnage. The comment was about those people >> >> >> that >> >> >> produce food for vegans. You remember them, don't you? They're >> >> >> the >> >> >> loons >> >> >> we've been talking about for weeks now. Now, you like to spew >> >> >> about >> >> >> those >> >> >> that produce beef, pork, and seafood. Seems to me that none of >> >> >> those >> >> >> are >> >> >> vegan foods, are they? >> >> > >> >> > Same group. Who does produce food for vegans. >> >> ====================== >> >> Not the same ones that rasie meat, fool. >> >> >> >> >> >> Who are the rice growers >> >> > of the world? Meat eater, or vegan? >> >> ===================== >> >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of rice growers >> >> world-wide >> >> are >> >> not vegan. >> >> >> >> Who are the people who use the >> >> > products and chemicals that you so kindly point out are responsible >> >> > (oops, there's that word) for the collateral death of animals. >> >> ========================== >> >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of organic growers are not >> >> vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >> Who is >> >> > that is killing the rodents, amphibians and such -- the meat eater >> >> > or >> >> > the vegan. Farmers and growers are the killers. >> >> =================== >> >> Exactly. But that doesn't mean that all of them are meat-eaters, now >> >> does >> >> it, fool? >> >> >> >> >> >> Some of us tolerate >> >> > their violence in the world. >> >> ======================= >> >> And are culpable for it. Thanks for pointing that out, pansy-boy.... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Your request for proof suggests that the typical grower and >> >> >> > killer of animals would be vegan and that's just being silly on >> >> >> > your >> >> >> > part. >> >> >> ======================= >> >> >> Why fool? Are you really this clueless? Oh wait, you've already >> >> >> proven >> >> >> that, haven't you. Try checking out any number of growers that >> >> >> claim >> >> >> to >> >> >> be >> >> >> 'organic'. I'd bet more than a few would be vegan, yet their >> >> >> farming >> >> >> will >> >> >> still cause animals to die. >> >> > >> >> > AH, a few might be vegan. Shall we do a comparison of farms operated >> >> > by >> >> > vegans and meat eaters and killers. it's always easy and >> >> > intellectually >> >> > dishonest to generalize to avoid reality. >> >> ============================== >> >> ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! It was you that generalized all growers, you >> >> ignorant fool! Man, what a maroon... Besides, if you could read for >> >> comprhension, you'd see that this discussion was about 'vegan' food! >> >> Not >> >> meats. Of course, we know that your comprehension is sorely lacking. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Occam's Razor: what is more likely that those raise and kill >> >> >> > animals are vegan or meat eater? >> >> >> ============================ >> >> >> And again, we aren't talking here about meat, fool. Those are >> >> >> hardly >> >> >> vegan >> >> >> foods. >> >> > >> >> > Do pay attention. Dutch specifically spoke to raising livestock. >> >> ===================== >> >> Not at the top of this thread were I responded fool. Your response >> >> was >> >> to >> >> Usual, and the discussion was not about livestock. Need a refresher, >> >> fool? >> >> try reading for comprehension. >> >> quoted text.... >> >> Usual>>> > This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of >> >> "vegan" >> >> food >> >> > production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, >> >> > drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the >> >> > humane slaughter which they object. >> >> >> >> You>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters. When the vegan buys the >> >> ingredients >> >> for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who >> >> rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such >> >> products, continues to kill. >> >> end quoted text.... >> >> >> >> You're an idiot, pansy-boy.... >> >> Lack of comment noted, pansy-boy.... Finally figure out your stupidity? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Besides, if you really understood the term, you'd realize that it >> >> >> is >> >> >> you that has made assumptions of farmers, without actually having >> >> >> any >> >> >> info, >> >> >> must less the minimun needed, fool. Have you questioned however >> >> >> many >> >> >> farmers there are? Remember, not all farmers raise animals, yet >> >> >> they >> >> >> still >> >> >> kill them. >> >> >> >> >> >> Keep up the good work in proving your ignorance, pansy-boy. >> >> > >> >> > You must raise livestock. Your propensity for abuse and violence is >> >> > familiar to those of us reading. And if not, you might find some >> >> > 'release' in those acts. I imagine eating meat is less satisfactory >> >> > than >> >> > actually being hands on with killing. >> >> ======================= >> >> Tell us all about your bloody hands, mr freud... >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > But let's go another round of blaming the vegan for the actions of >> >> > others. It is consistent with our culture of passing the buck -- no >> >> > one >> >> > is responsible for anything, everyone is responsible for everything. >> >> ============================== >> >> ROTFLMAO You really are a hoot! Thanks for stateing exactly what I >> >> have >> >> been saying. That vegans, and you now, continue to pass the buck for >> >> the >> >> actions they(you) take, knowing full well that the choices they/you >> >> make >> >> cause death and suffering to animals. It is vegans and you that are >> >> trying >> >> to deny their responsibility. Thanks for proving your stupidity yet >> >> again,pansy-boy... >> > >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there >> > aren't children in your vicinity. >> > >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has >> > made >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They >> > are >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions >> > respond. >> =============== >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving >> your ignorance and stupidity.... > > Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the > killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is > responsible. ====================== Nice bit of ly there pansy-boy? I suggest you get whatever it is out of your mouth and learn to read for comprehension, fool. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's > actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the > other, but not vice versa. ====================== Because you start with a ly about what I said, you have to fall back to even more ignorant spew. Thanks for proving yet again you have nothing... > > I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the > beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look > bad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article et>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article et>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article . net>, >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> >> ... >> >> >> > In article et>, >> >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> > In article >, >> >> >> >> > usual suspect > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of >> >> >> >> >> "vegan" >> >> >> >> >> food >> >> >> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, >> >> >> >> >> mutilation, >> >> >> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" >> >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> humane slaughter which they object. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters. >> >> >> >> ================= >> >> >> >> You have proof of this bit of delusional insight, fool? Try to >> >> >> >> back >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> up. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What is the difficulty? People who raise and kill pigs eat pork >> >> >> > products. People who raise and kill cows eat beef products. >> >> >> > People >> >> >> > who >> >> >> > raise and kill seafood eat fish products. What is the difficulty >> >> >> > here, >> >> >> > usual? >> >> >> ================================ >> >> >> Don't know who you're talking to even anymore, eh fool? Try >> >> >> reading >> >> >> for >> >> >> comprehension, for a chnage. The comment was about those people >> >> >> that >> >> >> produce food for vegans. You remember them, don't you? They're >> >> >> the >> >> >> loons >> >> >> we've been talking about for weeks now. Now, you like to spew >> >> >> about >> >> >> those >> >> >> that produce beef, pork, and seafood. Seems to me that none of >> >> >> those >> >> >> are >> >> >> vegan foods, are they? >> >> > >> >> > Same group. Who does produce food for vegans. >> >> ====================== >> >> Not the same ones that rasie meat, fool. >> >> >> >> >> >> Who are the rice growers >> >> > of the world? Meat eater, or vegan? >> >> ===================== >> >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of rice growers >> >> world-wide >> >> are >> >> not vegan. >> >> >> >> Who are the people who use the >> >> > products and chemicals that you so kindly point out are responsible >> >> > (oops, there's that word) for the collateral death of animals. >> >> ========================== >> >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of organic growers are not >> >> vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >> Who is >> >> > that is killing the rodents, amphibians and such -- the meat eater >> >> > or >> >> > the vegan. Farmers and growers are the killers. >> >> =================== >> >> Exactly. But that doesn't mean that all of them are meat-eaters, now >> >> does >> >> it, fool? >> >> >> >> >> >> Some of us tolerate >> >> > their violence in the world. >> >> ======================= >> >> And are culpable for it. Thanks for pointing that out, pansy-boy.... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Your request for proof suggests that the typical grower and >> >> >> > killer of animals would be vegan and that's just being silly on >> >> >> > your >> >> >> > part. >> >> >> ======================= >> >> >> Why fool? Are you really this clueless? Oh wait, you've already >> >> >> proven >> >> >> that, haven't you. Try checking out any number of growers that >> >> >> claim >> >> >> to >> >> >> be >> >> >> 'organic'. I'd bet more than a few would be vegan, yet their >> >> >> farming >> >> >> will >> >> >> still cause animals to die. >> >> > >> >> > AH, a few might be vegan. Shall we do a comparison of farms operated >> >> > by >> >> > vegans and meat eaters and killers. it's always easy and >> >> > intellectually >> >> > dishonest to generalize to avoid reality. >> >> ============================== >> >> ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! It was you that generalized all growers, you >> >> ignorant fool! Man, what a maroon... Besides, if you could read for >> >> comprhension, you'd see that this discussion was about 'vegan' food! >> >> Not >> >> meats. Of course, we know that your comprehension is sorely lacking. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Occam's Razor: what is more likely that those raise and kill >> >> >> > animals are vegan or meat eater? >> >> >> ============================ >> >> >> And again, we aren't talking here about meat, fool. Those are >> >> >> hardly >> >> >> vegan >> >> >> foods. >> >> > >> >> > Do pay attention. Dutch specifically spoke to raising livestock. >> >> ===================== >> >> Not at the top of this thread were I responded fool. Your response >> >> was >> >> to >> >> Usual, and the discussion was not about livestock. Need a refresher, >> >> fool? >> >> try reading for comprehension. >> >> quoted text.... >> >> Usual>>> > This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of >> >> "vegan" >> >> food >> >> > production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, >> >> > drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the >> >> > humane slaughter which they object. >> >> >> >> You>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters. When the vegan buys the >> >> ingredients >> >> for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who >> >> rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such >> >> products, continues to kill. >> >> end quoted text.... >> >> >> >> You're an idiot, pansy-boy.... >> >> Lack of comment noted, pansy-boy.... Finally figure out your stupidity? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Besides, if you really understood the term, you'd realize that it >> >> >> is >> >> >> you that has made assumptions of farmers, without actually having >> >> >> any >> >> >> info, >> >> >> must less the minimun needed, fool. Have you questioned however >> >> >> many >> >> >> farmers there are? Remember, not all farmers raise animals, yet >> >> >> they >> >> >> still >> >> >> kill them. >> >> >> >> >> >> Keep up the good work in proving your ignorance, pansy-boy. >> >> > >> >> > You must raise livestock. Your propensity for abuse and violence is >> >> > familiar to those of us reading. And if not, you might find some >> >> > 'release' in those acts. I imagine eating meat is less satisfactory >> >> > than >> >> > actually being hands on with killing. >> >> ======================= >> >> Tell us all about your bloody hands, mr freud... >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > But let's go another round of blaming the vegan for the actions of >> >> > others. It is consistent with our culture of passing the buck -- no >> >> > one >> >> > is responsible for anything, everyone is responsible for everything. >> >> ============================== >> >> ROTFLMAO You really are a hoot! Thanks for stateing exactly what I >> >> have >> >> been saying. That vegans, and you now, continue to pass the buck for >> >> the >> >> actions they(you) take, knowing full well that the choices they/you >> >> make >> >> cause death and suffering to animals. It is vegans and you that are >> >> trying >> >> to deny their responsibility. Thanks for proving your stupidity yet >> >> again,pansy-boy... >> > >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there >> > aren't children in your vicinity. >> > >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has >> > made >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They >> > are >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions >> > respond. >> =============== >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving >> your ignorance and stupidity.... > > Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the > killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is > responsible. ====================== Nice bit of ly there pansy-boy? I suggest you get whatever it is out of your mouth and learn to read for comprehension, fool. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's > actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the > other, but not vice versa. ====================== Because you start with a ly about what I said, you have to fall back to even more ignorant spew. Thanks for proving yet again you have nothing... > > I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the > beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look > bad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote: >> "rick etter" > wrote: >>> "Ron" > wrote in message >>> ... > [..] >>> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a >>> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there >>> > aren't children in your vicinity. >>> > >>> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer >>> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has >>> > made >>> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless >>> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They >>> > are >>> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions >>> > respond. >>> =============== >>> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work >>> proving >>> your ignorance and stupidity.... >> >>Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the >>killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is >>responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's >>actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the >>other, but not vice versa. >> >>I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the >>beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look >>bad. > > Rick, like all the other buck-passers ==================== ROTFLMAO This from the greatest buck-passer on usenet!! What a hoot! Unlike you fool, I have never passed the buck on my culpability in the death and suffering of animals. You have, in spades, killer. Even after your pal Aristotle told you that you are culpable, in english! here insists that > the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for > the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those > wrong actions to continue and to make themselves > fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view, > his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and > enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are > showing a contempt for the rights of animals when > buying vegetables. ================ Tap, tap, tap, killer. Keep dancing, you still know that it is the choices you make, even though you could make others, that lead to the death and suffering of animals that you falsely claim to care for. You are constantly passing the buck of your bloody hands onto others. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote: >> "rick etter" > wrote: >>> "Ron" > wrote in message >>> ... > [..] >>> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a >>> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there >>> > aren't children in your vicinity. >>> > >>> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer >>> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has >>> > made >>> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless >>> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They >>> > are >>> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions >>> > respond. >>> =============== >>> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work >>> proving >>> your ignorance and stupidity.... >> >>Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the >>killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is >>responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's >>actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the >>other, but not vice versa. >> >>I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the >>beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look >>bad. > > Rick, like all the other buck-passers ==================== ROTFLMAO This from the greatest buck-passer on usenet!! What a hoot! Unlike you fool, I have never passed the buck on my culpability in the death and suffering of animals. You have, in spades, killer. Even after your pal Aristotle told you that you are culpable, in english! here insists that > the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for > the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those > wrong actions to continue and to make themselves > fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view, > his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and > enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are > showing a contempt for the rights of animals when > buying vegetables. ================ Tap, tap, tap, killer. Keep dancing, you still know that it is the choices you make, even though you could make others, that lead to the death and suffering of animals that you falsely claim to care for. You are constantly passing the buck of your bloody hands onto others. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > Derek > wrote: > >> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote: >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> [..] >> >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a >> >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope >> >> > there >> >> > aren't children in your vicinity. >> >> > >> >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer >> >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has >> >> > made >> >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are >> >> > powerless >> >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They >> >> > are >> >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions >> >> > respond. >> >> =============== >> >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work >> >> proving >> >> your ignorance and stupidity.... >> > >> >Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the >> >killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is >> >responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's >> >actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the >> >other, but not vice versa. >> > >> >I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the >> >beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look >> >bad. >> >> Rick, like all the other buck-passers here insists that >> the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for >> the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those >> wrong actions to continue and to make themselves >> fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view, >> his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and >> enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are >> showing a contempt for the rights of animals when >> buying vegetables. > > You've known him longer than I have. I have my own observations about > his style and methods. We'll see how the discussion goes. ================ LOL What discussion? You can't keep from lying, and cannot even keep track of the respones that are being made, fool. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > Derek > wrote: > >> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote: >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> [..] >> >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a >> >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope >> >> > there >> >> > aren't children in your vicinity. >> >> > >> >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer >> >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has >> >> > made >> >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are >> >> > powerless >> >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They >> >> > are >> >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions >> >> > respond. >> >> =============== >> >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work >> >> proving >> >> your ignorance and stupidity.... >> > >> >Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the >> >killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is >> >responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's >> >actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the >> >other, but not vice versa. >> > >> >I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the >> >beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look >> >bad. >> >> Rick, like all the other buck-passers here insists that >> the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for >> the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those >> wrong actions to continue and to make themselves >> fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view, >> his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and >> enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are >> showing a contempt for the rights of animals when >> buying vegetables. > > You've known him longer than I have. I have my own observations about > his style and methods. We'll see how the discussion goes. ================ LOL What discussion? You can't keep from lying, and cannot even keep track of the respones that are being made, fool. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article . net>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article . net>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article . net>, >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> >> ... >> >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote >> >> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining >> >> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that >> >> >> >> their >> >> >> >> diets >> >> >> >> are not bloodless. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies >> >> >> > any >> >> >> > logical rationalization. >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> No, it defies your retardation, idiot. That you can't understand >> >> >> that >> >> >> any >> >> >> action that you take, that you know causes the exact result you >> >> >> claim >> >> >> to >> >> >> be >> >> >> avoiding and makes you culpable, is quite amusing. >> >> > >> >> > I stated my culpability. I am participating in allowing killers to >> >> > kill >> >> > animals to provide safety and security to those who must live in >> >> > proximity to people who are thrive on bloodlust and the infliction >> >> > of >> >> > pain, suffering and death. Like paedophilia, there is no known cure >> >> > for >> >> > individuals who delight in the killing of animals. I choose it as a >> >> > 'lesser of two evils'. I am fully aware of what I do and why I do >> >> > it. >> >> > >> >> > I eat meat several days each week to ensure that there is an ample >> >> > requirement for meat products as the meat killers are unwilling to >> >> > accept responsibility for their actions against animals. Like most >> >> > treatment and cure, until they can respond to their denial I must >> >> > moderate my choices. Since, I do know they are unwilling to accept >> >> > responsibility, I make my choices. >> >> ================ >> >> Total lack of intellegent response noted. Total display of ignorance >> >> shown, yet again. Tell us again how yyou have determined that vegan >> >> food >> >> producers have all somehow become physco-paths, mr freud. >> > >> > Vegan food producers are rarely involved in killing. >> ======================= >> Hey fool, you made the generalization that all food growers are >> meat-eating >> killers on the prowl. Don't blame me for your stupidity, idiot. > > Incorrect. I applied Occam's Razor. In a situation where growers may be > meat eater or vegan, what was more likely. ======================= You don't know. You made assumptions. > >> Food producers >> > (meat eating) producing food for vegans can and are involved in the >> > killing of animals. Killing animals en masse to grow a few fields is >> > the >> > act of someone who is quite fine with killing. >> ========================== >> Imagine that, same way that vegan growers have to produce their crops.... > > CHOOSE TO. No one has to do anything unless they've chosen to do it. ===================== Very good, little boy. Now, if you choose to do one thing, buying cheap, clean, conveninet veggies that you know causes massive animal death and suffering, while claiming to to be doing all you can to reduce unnecessary death and suffering to animals, you are at the least, hypocritical, and most likely ignorant to boot. Choice is the whole point here. Vegans choose based only on the simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat.' Despite the fact that they claim that animals are the primary goal. The > vegan CHOOSES to avoid killing animals which they accomplish. ====================== And your proof of this delusion is, pansy-boy? I await your cites. The grower > CHOOSES to kill animals such as birds, frogs, etc. ===================== At the behest of the consumer fool. In this case, the vegan loon who has already made it a point of making grandious claims of not killing animals. The vegan *could* make choices that don't require the death and suffering of animals, but the ones here on usenet do not make those choices,. The vegan *could* choose a grower that chooses not to cause death and suffering, or become his own grower, but agaibn, the usenet vegan doesn't. He's too into looking for scapegoats to ease the guilty conscience they have. Afterall, as long as they can focus all their energy on what they think others are doing, they can conveninetly ignore their own bloody footprints. > >> Now would you like to >> > mention a few vegan farmers who are producing. Or will you continue to >> > make generalizations out of desperation. >> ================== >> LOL It's you that has been free with the generalization, pansy-boy. > > I fear for any humans in your presence. This level of aggression is > quite disturbing. ==================== I fear that you have nothing left to say, do you pansy-boy? lack of intelligent response, noted. > >> > Psychopaths? Well, I'm relying on your information here. Someone who is >> > willing to kill rodents, amphibians, birds etc. and en masse isn't >> > exactly stable in my view. >> ===================== >> And the person that pays them to do this just so that their food is >> clean, >> cheap, and convenient is? > > . . not responsible for the choices of others. ======================== He is responsible for his choices fool, and if those choices knowingly include the choice of buying the product of this mythical dereanged killer of your, the he, and you, are culpabale. You are simply another > person who misguidedly assumes because of a few inconsistencies in law > that this theory is logical or moral. Holding a second person > responsible for the actions of another is an oddity in law, not a > consistently applied position. > ============================ LOL, lack of intelligent response, noted. >> To delight in the destruction of those >> > animals and to that degree is obviously by someone who doesn't value >> > animals. >> ====================== >> That woyuld be you, fool. You have other choices, yet yiou prefer to >> cause >> that aninmal death and suffering for your selfish reasons. Or, maybe you >> just like the idea of all that blood and guts, eh mr freud? > > Not at all. As I stated, I prefer to see killers killing animals rather > than killing humans. That is the choice that I make. Since people won't > seek help for their aggressive tendencies, I must make a choice. =========== lack of intelligent response, noted. > >> Of course, killing amphibians to grow rice isn't really killing >> > an animal for food now, is it? >> ==================== >> Really? Why not? The animals is just as dead, and there is now food on >> your plate. > > The animal is dead because someone other than me killed it. They are, of > course, powerless to resist. They are powerless, of course, to choose > another occupation than killer of animals, or collateral killer of > animals. They must do my bidding. I command them. I am all powerful. I > demand and the world must respond. Like a pharoah, I pay a pittance and > the rest of the world must respond. ================== lack of intelligent response, noted. > >> >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to >> >> >> > their >> >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. >> >> >> ================ >> >> >> LOL ANy body is, fool >> >> > >> >> > Have you considered raising livestock? Your level of aggression that >> >> > you >> >> > display towards humans might be better served killing animals. >> >> ===================== >> >> Really? What animals are rasised for food for vegans, idiot? >> > >> > Do pay attention and stay on track. That you willfully ignore what >> > Dutch >> > has written to further your opportunities for public abusive behaviour >> > makes you a prime candidate to raise livestock. >> ========================== >> Show me where I responded to a part with dutch ralking about livestock. >> All >> you have is a desire to change the subject suddenly. Why is that >> pansy-boy? > > You responded to me where I was responding to Dutch. Please. Feigning > just doesn't suit you. > ============================== And no mention of livestock was in the response I replied to. You lied, again, But >> I hope there aren't >> > weaker humans in your presence. Yikes, if a child or weaker individual >> > might disagree with you and do so in person. >> ======================= >> And that would be what, mr freud? > > You've demonstrated that you cannot contain your emotions when I > disagree with you. I question what you are capable of doing to other > humans who may disagree with you, or worse. ========================== LOL This from queer-boy? What a hoot! > >> > As you can see, violence is the nature of the beast. Some of us are >> > able >> > to contain our emotions and moderate out actions and others.... >> ===================== >> Obviously you can't, because you continue to cause as much animals death >> and >> suffering as you can. Tell us why you like to kill by proxy, mr freud. > > As possible? Clearly you know nothing of me, of my daily diet, or eating > habits. As stated, I allow through my inaction those killers to vent > their anger and aggression on animals to save the human community. > =============== lack of intelligent response, noted. >> >> >> They can live >> >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill. >> >> >> ================== >> >> >> What have you or I killed today? Personally I don't kill anything >> >> >> myself, >> >> >> so I guess to you I'm just as pure as a vegan, eh dolt? >> >> > >> >> > That would be correct. You and I are only responsible for our >> >> > actions. >> >> > Neither of us killed anything today and neither did any vegan that >> >> > I've >> >> > spoken with tody. >> >> ===================== >> >> Yes, we are responsible for our actions. That your are trying to >> >> weasel >> >> your way out still doesn't work, fool. You knowing take actionas >> >> that >> >> result in animal deaths, you are culpable. > > You are responsible for my actions? Do tell. This will be interesting. ================== Comprehension problems rearing its ugly head again Isee, eh pansy-boy? > >> > What actions do I take? I think you might fit into the pathology that I >> > was mentioning earlier. Walk to store -- nothing dies. Plan menu en >> > route -- nothing dies. Walk through store -- nothing dies. Buy >> > ingredients -- nothing dies. Take out money -- nothing dies. Go home -- >> > nothing dies. Eat my meal -- nothing dies. >> ====================== >> Except that you are brain-dead, fool. > > Have you considered buying a farm? That aggression is certainly not well > controlled. > ====================== lack of intelligent response, noted. >> > Please define my actions of killing? What weapon did I use? >> ================= >> Your lifestyle, pansy-boy... > > More vagueness. I'll leave that as an ability to articulate a cogent > argument in response. > ======================== lack of intelligent response, noted. >> >> > If you "feel" guilty, I suspect that is your difficulty and has >> >> > nothing >> >> > to do with the fact that neither of killed an animal today. >> >> ====================== >> >> And it still doesn't absolve either of us from the fact that animals >> >> died >> >> as >> >> a direct result of our *actions*. Kepp up the good work displaying >> >> your >> >> ignorance, pansy-boy. >> > >> > As a result of my actions? There you go put forth foolish arguments. >> > It's like the rapist who claims, "she made me do it". I now control >> > you. >> > Anything you do is my fault. You are powerless to resist my every whim. >> > You must respond. You have no will, desire or control over your own >> > behaviour. >> ====================== >> LOL Tell us why, mr freud. > > I control the farmers of the world. I only need to want meat and they > all do my bidding. I am all powerful. I only need to think about my > meals for tomorrow and the poor slaves must rush out and kill in a mass > frenzy of blood and guts. I AM powerful. I walk into a grocery store and > people he world over feel an overwhelming compulsion to go out and kill > animals of all kinds. I AM the man. ==================== lack of intelligent response, noted. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article et>, > > "rick etter" > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article et>, > >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > In article . net>, > >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> > In article et>, > >> >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> >> > In article >, > >> >> >> >> > usual suspect > wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of > >> >> >> >> >> "vegan" > >> >> >> >> >> food > >> >> >> >> >> production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, > >> >> >> >> >> mutilation, > >> >> >> >> >> drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" > >> >> >> >> >> than > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> humane slaughter which they object. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters. > >> >> >> >> ================= > >> >> >> >> You have proof of this bit of delusional insight, fool? Try to > >> >> >> >> back > >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> up. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > What is the difficulty? People who raise and kill pigs eat pork > >> >> >> > products. People who raise and kill cows eat beef products. > >> >> >> > People > >> >> >> > who > >> >> >> > raise and kill seafood eat fish products. What is the difficulty > >> >> >> > here, > >> >> >> > usual? > >> >> >> ================================ > >> >> >> Don't know who you're talking to even anymore, eh fool? Try > >> >> >> reading > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> comprehension, for a chnage. The comment was about those people > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> produce food for vegans. You remember them, don't you? They're > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> loons > >> >> >> we've been talking about for weeks now. Now, you like to spew > >> >> >> about > >> >> >> those > >> >> >> that produce beef, pork, and seafood. Seems to me that none of > >> >> >> those > >> >> >> are > >> >> >> vegan foods, are they? > >> >> > > >> >> > Same group. Who does produce food for vegans. > >> >> ====================== > >> >> Not the same ones that rasie meat, fool. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Who are the rice growers > >> >> > of the world? Meat eater, or vegan? > >> >> ===================== > >> >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of rice growers > >> >> world-wide > >> >> are > >> >> not vegan. > >> >> > >> >> Who are the people who use the > >> >> > products and chemicals that you so kindly point out are responsible > >> >> > (oops, there's that word) for the collateral death of animals. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> Have you checked? Prove that a fair number of organic growers are not > >> >> vegan. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Who is > >> >> > that is killing the rodents, amphibians and such -- the meat eater > >> >> > or > >> >> > the vegan. Farmers and growers are the killers. > >> >> =================== > >> >> Exactly. But that doesn't mean that all of them are meat-eaters, now > >> >> does > >> >> it, fool? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Some of us tolerate > >> >> > their violence in the world. > >> >> ======================= > >> >> And are culpable for it. Thanks for pointing that out, pansy-boy.... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Your request for proof suggests that the typical grower and > >> >> >> > killer of animals would be vegan and that's just being silly on > >> >> >> > your > >> >> >> > part. > >> >> >> ======================= > >> >> >> Why fool? Are you really this clueless? Oh wait, you've already > >> >> >> proven > >> >> >> that, haven't you. Try checking out any number of growers that > >> >> >> claim > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> be > >> >> >> 'organic'. I'd bet more than a few would be vegan, yet their > >> >> >> farming > >> >> >> will > >> >> >> still cause animals to die. > >> >> > > >> >> > AH, a few might be vegan. Shall we do a comparison of farms operated > >> >> > by > >> >> > vegans and meat eaters and killers. it's always easy and > >> >> > intellectually > >> >> > dishonest to generalize to avoid reality. > >> >> ============================== > >> >> ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! It was you that generalized all growers, you > >> >> ignorant fool! Man, what a maroon... Besides, if you could read for > >> >> comprhension, you'd see that this discussion was about 'vegan' food! > >> >> Not > >> >> meats. Of course, we know that your comprehension is sorely lacking. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Occam's Razor: what is more likely that those raise and kill > >> >> >> > animals are vegan or meat eater? > >> >> >> ============================ > >> >> >> And again, we aren't talking here about meat, fool. Those are > >> >> >> hardly > >> >> >> vegan > >> >> >> foods. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do pay attention. Dutch specifically spoke to raising livestock. > >> >> ===================== > >> >> Not at the top of this thread were I responded fool. Your response > >> >> was > >> >> to > >> >> Usual, and the discussion was not about livestock. Need a refresher, > >> >> fool? > >> >> try reading for comprehension. > >> >> quoted text.... > >> >> Usual>>> > This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of > >> >> "vegan" > >> >> food > >> >> > production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, > >> >> > drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the > >> >> > humane slaughter which they object. > >> >> > >> >> You>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters. When the vegan buys the > >> >> ingredients > >> >> for the day's meal, the killing is usually done by the meat eater who > >> >> rather than finding 'ethical' means of growing or harvesting such > >> >> products, continues to kill. > >> >> end quoted text.... > >> >> > >> >> You're an idiot, pansy-boy.... > >> > >> Lack of comment noted, pansy-boy.... Finally figure out your stupidity? > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Besides, if you really understood the term, you'd realize that it > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> you that has made assumptions of farmers, without actually having > >> >> >> any > >> >> >> info, > >> >> >> must less the minimun needed, fool. Have you questioned however > >> >> >> many > >> >> >> farmers there are? Remember, not all farmers raise animals, yet > >> >> >> they > >> >> >> still > >> >> >> kill them. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Keep up the good work in proving your ignorance, pansy-boy. > >> >> > > >> >> > You must raise livestock. Your propensity for abuse and violence is > >> >> > familiar to those of us reading. And if not, you might find some > >> >> > 'release' in those acts. I imagine eating meat is less satisfactory > >> >> > than > >> >> > actually being hands on with killing. > >> >> ======================= > >> >> Tell us all about your bloody hands, mr freud... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > But let's go another round of blaming the vegan for the actions of > >> >> > others. It is consistent with our culture of passing the buck -- no > >> >> > one > >> >> > is responsible for anything, everyone is responsible for everything. > >> >> ============================== > >> >> ROTFLMAO You really are a hoot! Thanks for stateing exactly what I > >> >> have > >> >> been saying. That vegans, and you now, continue to pass the buck for > >> >> the > >> >> actions they(you) take, knowing full well that the choices they/you > >> >> make > >> >> cause death and suffering to animals. It is vegans and you that are > >> >> trying > >> >> to deny their responsibility. Thanks for proving your stupidity yet > >> >> again,pansy-boy... > >> > > >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a > >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there > >> > aren't children in your vicinity. > >> > > >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer > >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has > >> > made > >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless > >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They > >> > are > >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions > >> > respond. > >> =============== > >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving > >> your ignorance and stupidity.... > > > > Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the > > killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is > > responsible. > ====================== > Nice bit of ly there pansy-boy? I suggest you get whatever it is out of > your mouth and learn to read for comprehension, fool. More of the same. Then please clarify if I am mistaken. (Something I view differently than a lie but that's me.) Do state your position for the record. Do you think that a vegan is responsible for the what the growers and food producers do as usual and Dutch have stated. > I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's > > actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the > > other, but not vice versa. > ====================== > Because you start with a ly about what I said, you have to fall back to even > more ignorant spew. Thanks for proving yet again you have nothing... That you jump to the conclusion that a possible mistake is a lie only creates suspicion for me about you. Please restate your position for the record. Does the vegan, as the example of the law has been provided, mean that you also agree that a vegan is also responsible for the killing of animals by others? > > I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the > > beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look > > bad. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The perfect G&T.... | General Cooking | |||
| The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
| Perfect BBQ was had | Barbecue | |||
| The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
| The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
