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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #401 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Deere" > wrote in message
ps.com...


snippage...


>
> A little bit of honesty can go very far.

=====================
Pansy-boy has no honesty.


>



  #402 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...


snippage...

>
> 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.

====================
What would that be, pansy-boy?


>
>> A little bit of honesty can go very far.



  #403 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "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.


Make a case, Rick. All Dutch has managed to do is to reiterate the
logically fallacies that can be found in law to support his argument.
How about you? Are you going to tell us about 'aiding and abetting'
also? A position that the laws takes very inconsistent and only in
certain circumstances is hardly strong reasoning for a logical position.
  #404 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.

==================
"Goodwill" also doesn't mean you are causing any less death and suffering
either, killer.


>



  #405 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.

==================
"Goodwill" also doesn't mean you are causing any less death and suffering
either, killer.


>





  #406 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "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.


The discussion above seems to be about responsibility and misplaced
responsibility. Yet, I find nothing in your comments related to the
issue of responsibility.

Please clarify. Are you in agreement with Dutch and usual that I am
responsible for the killing that others do, or not?
  #407 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "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.


The discussion above seems to be about responsibility and misplaced
responsibility. Yet, I find nothing in your comments related to the
issue of responsibility.

Please clarify. Are you in agreement with Dutch and usual that I am
responsible for the killing that others do, or not?
  #408 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "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.

>
> Make a case, Rick.

==================
Already have, pansy-boy.



All Dutch has managed to do is to reiterate the
> logically fallacies that can be found in law to support his argument.

====================
Where have I just discussed the law?


> How about you? Are you going to tell us about 'aiding and abetting'
> also? A position that the laws takes very inconsistent and only in
> certain circumstances is hardly strong reasoning for a logical position.

====================
It's your stupidity that is logically inconsistant, fool. You claim that I
am the one passing the buck and blaiming others, yet that is alll that you
have done here. Thanks for continuing to prove your total lack of any
knowledge on the subject, pansy-boy.



  #409 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "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.

>
> Make a case, Rick.

==================
Already have, pansy-boy.



All Dutch has managed to do is to reiterate the
> logically fallacies that can be found in law to support his argument.

====================
Where have I just discussed the law?


> How about you? Are you going to tell us about 'aiding and abetting'
> also? A position that the laws takes very inconsistent and only in
> certain circumstances is hardly strong reasoning for a logical position.

====================
It's your stupidity that is logically inconsistant, fool. You claim that I
am the one passing the buck and blaiming others, yet that is alll that you
have done here. Thanks for continuing to prove your total lack of any
knowledge on the subject, pansy-boy.



  #410 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:44:22 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>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.


Sorry for 'poisoning the well'. I certainly don't intend to
enter into this debate to insult Rick, only for the discussion
to be turned from it's original track and onto him instead.

> We'll see how the discussion goes.


I understand.


  #411 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:44:22 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>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.


Sorry for 'poisoning the well'. I certainly don't intend to
enter into this debate to insult Rick, only for the discussion
to be turned from it's original track and onto him instead.

> We'll see how the discussion goes.


I understand.
  #412 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:


snippage...

>> >> >> > 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?

==============
No comment?


>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> 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.

=================
lack of intelligent response, noted.


>
> Then please clarify if I am mistaken. (Something I view differently than
> a lie but that's me.)

====================
Read what is written. You continue to ly about what I have said.


>
> 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.

=====================
They haven't been saying that either, fool. Nice strawman, too bad it gets
blown to pieces. Oh, wait, that's why you build them, isn't it, pansy-boy?
You, I, vegans are responsible for the actions we take. If we make choices
that we know results in actions that are contrary to our stated beliefs,
when other choices that do not result in those actions are available, then
yes, we are culpable for the death and suffering that occurs. Does that
absolve the farmer? No. And no one has said it does fool. Your strawman
to the contrary. Your ignorance and stupidity, and obvious hatred is well
displayed, pansy-boy.


>
>> 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.

======================
Because you keep repeating it, like it's your new mantra, pansy-boy.

>
> 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?

========================
When he knowingly makes choices that result in the death and suffering of
animals, despite the fact that he claims to care and make no effort to make
other choices, then yes.


>
>> > 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.

====================
LOL I don't have to try. They do just by opening their mouths, fool. Now,
so do you. Keep up the good work proving your ignorance, stupidity and
hatred, pansy-boy.


  #413 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:


snippage...

>> >> >> > 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?

==============
No comment?


>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> 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.

=================
lack of intelligent response, noted.


>
> Then please clarify if I am mistaken. (Something I view differently than
> a lie but that's me.)

====================
Read what is written. You continue to ly about what I have said.


>
> 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.

=====================
They haven't been saying that either, fool. Nice strawman, too bad it gets
blown to pieces. Oh, wait, that's why you build them, isn't it, pansy-boy?
You, I, vegans are responsible for the actions we take. If we make choices
that we know results in actions that are contrary to our stated beliefs,
when other choices that do not result in those actions are available, then
yes, we are culpable for the death and suffering that occurs. Does that
absolve the farmer? No. And no one has said it does fool. Your strawman
to the contrary. Your ignorance and stupidity, and obvious hatred is well
displayed, pansy-boy.


>
>> 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.

======================
Because you keep repeating it, like it's your new mantra, pansy-boy.

>
> 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?

========================
When he knowingly makes choices that result in the death and suffering of
animals, despite the fact that he claims to care and make no effort to make
other choices, then yes.


>
>> > 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.

====================
LOL I don't have to try. They do just by opening their mouths, fool. Now,
so do you. Keep up the good work proving your ignorance, stupidity and
hatred, pansy-boy.


  #414 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "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.

>
> The discussion above seems to be about responsibility and misplaced
> responsibility. Yet, I find nothing in your comments related to the
> issue of responsibility.
>
> Please clarify. Are you in agreement with Dutch and usual that I am
> responsible for the killing that others do, or not?

==========================
When the actions you knowingly take result in those deaths, then yes, you
are culpable. You can continue to try and pass the buck here, pansy-boy,
but you have already lost, again.



  #415 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"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 . 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.


Uh, ya. That's why I wrote that I was applying Occam's Razor to the
situation. Re-stating the obvious is just foolish.

> >> 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.


I'm not responsible for what others do. I don't control what they do.

The second flaw in your reasoning, once again, is this silly notion that
one must do all to conform to a logical argument. We covered this with
the example of sodomizing children. Since you and I have time to
exchange witticisms then, we are not doing all that is possible to
protect children, ergo we must think it okay for children to be
sodomized. That is the product of your reasoning, Rick.

> The
> > vegan CHOOSES to avoid killing animals which they accomplish.

> ======================
> And your proof of this delusion is, pansy-boy? I await your cites.


Aw, another person who is going to google us to death. Cut and paste is
a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. I offered to examine
statistics, each time being declined.

> 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.


Behest? You do make me laugh. They are my minions after all. I control
all the food growers with a single thought. I want and they must
respond. They have no choice. They must kill. I control their arms and
their equipment. I AM ALL POWERFUL. I think of meat or throw down a few
dollars and suddenly growers the world over feel compelled to respond to
my needs. They are my pawns in this delicious game of control that I
exert over everyone.

> >> 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.


Ah, the true mark of a coward. Will you threaten me with violence next?

> > 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.



  #416 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"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 . 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.


Uh, ya. That's why I wrote that I was applying Occam's Razor to the
situation. Re-stating the obvious is just foolish.

> >> 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.


I'm not responsible for what others do. I don't control what they do.

The second flaw in your reasoning, once again, is this silly notion that
one must do all to conform to a logical argument. We covered this with
the example of sodomizing children. Since you and I have time to
exchange witticisms then, we are not doing all that is possible to
protect children, ergo we must think it okay for children to be
sodomized. That is the product of your reasoning, Rick.

> The
> > vegan CHOOSES to avoid killing animals which they accomplish.

> ======================
> And your proof of this delusion is, pansy-boy? I await your cites.


Aw, another person who is going to google us to death. Cut and paste is
a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. I offered to examine
statistics, each time being declined.

> 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.


Behest? You do make me laugh. They are my minions after all. I control
all the food growers with a single thought. I want and they must
respond. They have no choice. They must kill. I control their arms and
their equipment. I AM ALL POWERFUL. I think of meat or throw down a few
dollars and suddenly growers the world over feel compelled to respond to
my needs. They are my pawns in this delicious game of control that I
exert over everyone.

> >> 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.


Ah, the true mark of a coward. Will you threaten me with violence next?

> > 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.

  #417 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> snippage...
>
> >
> > 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.

> ====================
> What would that be, pansy-boy?


Once again, we see the bait for yet another round of 2 flawed pieces of
reasoning.
  #418 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> snippage...
>
> >
> > 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.

> ====================
> What would that be, pansy-boy?


Once again, we see the bait for yet another round of 2 flawed pieces of
reasoning.
  #419 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >
> >> "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.

> >
> > Make a case, Rick.

> ==================
> Already have, pansy-boy.
>
>
>
> All Dutch has managed to do is to reiterate the
> > logically fallacies that can be found in law to support his argument.

> ====================
> Where have I just discussed the law?
>
>
> > How about you? Are you going to tell us about 'aiding and abetting'
> > also? A position that the laws takes very inconsistent and only in
> > certain circumstances is hardly strong reasoning for a logical position.

> ====================
> It's your stupidity that is logically inconsistant, fool. You claim that I
> am the one passing the buck and blaiming others, yet that is alll that you
> have done here. Thanks for continuing to prove your total lack of any
> knowledge on the subject, pansy-boy.


Let's be more specific, Rick. Who have I blamed and for what? I have, in
my view, attributed responsibility for the action being performed to the
person acting.

Next thing, you'll be saying is that I make you write pansy-boy. Of
course, it is my fault that you write these things. I must cause you to
act. You have no control over the keyboard. You have no control over
your fingers.
  #420 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >
> >> "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.

> >
> > Make a case, Rick.

> ==================
> Already have, pansy-boy.
>
>
>
> All Dutch has managed to do is to reiterate the
> > logically fallacies that can be found in law to support his argument.

> ====================
> Where have I just discussed the law?
>
>
> > How about you? Are you going to tell us about 'aiding and abetting'
> > also? A position that the laws takes very inconsistent and only in
> > certain circumstances is hardly strong reasoning for a logical position.

> ====================
> It's your stupidity that is logically inconsistant, fool. You claim that I
> am the one passing the buck and blaiming others, yet that is alll that you
> have done here. Thanks for continuing to prove your total lack of any
> knowledge on the subject, pansy-boy.


Let's be more specific, Rick. Who have I blamed and for what? I have, in
my view, attributed responsibility for the action being performed to the
person acting.

Next thing, you'll be saying is that I make you write pansy-boy. Of
course, it is my fault that you write these things. I must cause you to
act. You have no control over the keyboard. You have no control over
your fingers.


  #421 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> LOL I don't have to try. They do just by opening their mouths, fool. Now,
> so do you. Keep up the good work proving your ignorance, stupidity and
> hatred, pansy-boy.


Hatred? Ah, ok.
  #422 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> LOL I don't have to try. They do just by opening their mouths, fool. Now,
> so do you. Keep up the good work proving your ignorance, stupidity and
> hatred, pansy-boy.


Hatred? Ah, ok.
  #423 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> When he knowingly makes choices that result in the death and suffering of
> animals, despite the fact that he claims to care and make no effort to make
> other choices, then yes.


I am not responsible for the outcome of your choices. When a producer of
food kills to accomplish there goals they are responsible for the
actions not each and every possible outcome.

I give one animal an antibiotic and it lives. I give an animal and
anitbiotic and it dies. I have performed the same ACT in both cases. The
outcomes are independent of my actions. My actions are coincidental and
not causal.
  #424 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> When he knowingly makes choices that result in the death and suffering of
> animals, despite the fact that he claims to care and make no effort to make
> other choices, then yes.


I am not responsible for the outcome of your choices. When a producer of
food kills to accomplish there goals they are responsible for the
actions not each and every possible outcome.

I give one animal an antibiotic and it lives. I give an animal and
anitbiotic and it dies. I have performed the same ACT in both cases. The
outcomes are independent of my actions. My actions are coincidental and
not causal.
  #425 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> When the actions you knowingly take result in those deaths, then yes, you
> are culpable. You can continue to try and pass the buck here, pansy-boy,
> but you have already lost, again.


Same difficulty. My actions are independent of the outcomes.

I could for example pay a hitman 10K. He might kill a person. He might
use the money for charity. He might take the money and run. He might do
any number of things. I am not responsible for his action and the
outcomes of his actions.

What are often described as logical consequences of actions are
indicative of flawed reasoning.


  #426 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> When the actions you knowingly take result in those deaths, then yes, you
> are culpable. You can continue to try and pass the buck here, pansy-boy,
> but you have already lost, again.


Same difficulty. My actions are independent of the outcomes.

I could for example pay a hitman 10K. He might kill a person. He might
use the money for charity. He might take the money and run. He might do
any number of things. I am not responsible for his action and the
outcomes of his actions.

What are often described as logical consequences of actions are
indicative of flawed reasoning.
  #427 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote nothing

Nothing you say warrants a response, you're a troll.


  #428 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote nothing

Nothing you say warrants a response, you're a troll.


  #429 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


>> "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?


You're not, you're responsibile for your choice to support him by doing
business with him.

-snip-


  #430 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


>> "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?


You're not, you're responsibile for your choice to support him by doing
business with him.

-snip-




  #431 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Deere" > wrote
[..]

> 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 don't believe you, I think you have a desperate need to flatter yourself.

> I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.


There you go..

> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.


And a little moral relativity as a kicker..

> I am simply speculating that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral.


The decision may have originated in a genuine empathy towards animals, or it
may have originated in a desire to become a member of an exclusive club, you
don't know. What is clear is that it inevitably results in the vegan having
an inflated, flattering view of themselves in the scheme of things.

> Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.


In fact, in matters of morality it is always the actions, the end result
that matters, not good intentions.

I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
*intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so very
well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
self-aggrandizement.


  #432 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Deere" > wrote
[..]

> 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 don't believe you, I think you have a desperate need to flatter yourself.

> I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.


There you go..

> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.


And a little moral relativity as a kicker..

> I am simply speculating that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral.


The decision may have originated in a genuine empathy towards animals, or it
may have originated in a desire to become a member of an exclusive club, you
don't know. What is clear is that it inevitably results in the vegan having
an inflated, flattering view of themselves in the scheme of things.

> Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.


In fact, in matters of morality it is always the actions, the end result
that matters, not good intentions.

I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
*intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so very
well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
self-aggrandizement.


  #433 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Deere" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> 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 is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's saying.

I may disagree with you, but at least I believe that you actually hold the
convictions you express.


  #434 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Deere" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> 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 is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's saying.

I may disagree with you, but at least I believe that you actually hold the
convictions you express.


  #435 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" > wrote

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>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?


Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say. Once he
starting examining veganism objectively those statements no longer rang
true, so he discarded them. When you speak from your own mind you say
different things than when you are acting as a mouthpiece.

> 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?


See above..




  #436 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" > wrote

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>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?


Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say. Once he
starting examining veganism objectively those statements no longer rang
true, so he discarded them. When you speak from your own mind you say
different things than when you are acting as a mouthpiece.

> 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?


See above..


  #437 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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,


It doesn't apply to hunters. Hunters in many cases are people who's impact
on the enrironment and animals in general is one of the lowest of any sector
of society.

> 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 agree, it takes a disturbed individual to become a vegan.


  #438 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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,


It doesn't apply to hunters. Hunters in many cases are people who's impact
on the enrironment and animals in general is one of the lowest of any sector
of society.

> 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 agree, it takes a disturbed individual to become a vegan.


  #439 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote

> There is a tendency to call many things irrational.


Most of what you write is irrational.

> I actually admire
> vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.


What don't they do?


  #440 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote

> There is a tendency to call many things irrational.


Most of what you write is irrational.

> I actually admire
> vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.


What don't they do?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The perfect G&T.... Aussie General Cooking 19 24-11-2010 07:23 AM
The perfect cup of tea aaaaa Tea 13 03-01-2007 08:27 PM
Perfect BBQ was had Duwop Barbecue 0 27-05-2005 10:47 PM
The perfect cup of tea Captain Infinity Tea 12 19-04-2005 08:20 PM
The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) Jay Santos Vegan 23 19-12-2004 01:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"