In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> >>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>humane slaughter which they object.
> >
> >
> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>
> You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> feebly attempting to defend them.

Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*

I find you evasive. Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
vegan is violating.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>
>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>
> Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*

Drama queen.

> I find you evasive.

Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
written extensively that I'm too blunt.

> Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> vegan is violating.

Easy: *their own*.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>
> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>
> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >
> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>
> Drama queen.

*bats eye lashes in flattered state*

> > I find you evasive.
>
> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> written extensively that I'm too blunt.

Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> > vegan is violating.
>
> Easy: *their own*.

I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
code?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>
>> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>
>> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>food
>> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >
>> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>> Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
>> > I find you evasive.
>>
>> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
>> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> > vegan is violating.
>>
>> Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?
===================
Thanks for continuing to display your ignorance on the subject. Well, any
subject actually. Vegans make a claim that *their* lifestyle causes
no/less/fewer animals to die. They claim that that is *their*
ethics/morality. They then violate that ethic by not even trying to
determine which foods they eat actually causes no/less/fewer deaths of
animals. Instead, they follow only a simple rule for their simple minds,
'eat no meat.' So, you can blather on all you want pretending to be a
junior philosophy cadet, but your ignorance is still readily apparent,
queer-boy.... As to what the 'name' of that code is, ask the vegan, you
stupid fool. It's *their* code.
Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you, pansy?

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>
>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>>Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*

It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.

>>>I find you evasive.
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.

>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>vegan is violating.
>>
>>Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify,

You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
parts.

> what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code.

It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
of hypocrisy and sanctimony.

> Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?

It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>
> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>
> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>
> >>Drama queen.
> >
> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>
> >>>I find you evasive.
> >>
> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >
> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>
> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>vegan is violating.
> >>
> >>Easy: *their own*.
> >
> > I'll clarify,
>
> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> parts.
>
> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> > code.
>
> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>
> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> > code?
>
> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
>> >>>>>>food
>> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
>> >>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>>>food
>> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for
>> >>>>so
>> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >>>
>> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>> >>
>> >>Drama queen.
>> >
>> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>> >>>I find you evasive.
>> >>
>> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>> >
>> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> >>>vegan is violating.
>> >>
>> >>Easy: *their own*.
>> >
>> > I'll clarify,
>>
>> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>> parts.
>>
>> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>> > code.
>>
>> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>> > code?
>>
>> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>
> You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
> wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
> me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.
=====================
If you ever went to school for this, I'd go demand my money back if I were
you. They failed you miserably, fool. Logic is really really hard for
you, isn't it?

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Twink Ron wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>>>
>>>>Drama queen.
>>>
>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>>
>>>>>I find you evasive.
>>>>
>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>>>
>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>>
>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>>>vegan is violating.
>>>>
>>>>Easy: *their own*.
>>>
>>>I'll clarify,
>>
>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>>parts.
>>
>>
>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>>>code.
>>
>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>>
>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>>>code?
>>
>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
that are caused to produced the food they eat.

I suspect you *could* know that if you wanted to, but
because you're a snarky little sophist interested
solely in the appearance of cleverness rather than the
substance of learning, you choose to keep your eyes
firmly shut. Nice.

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Twink Ron wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>>>
>>>>Drama queen.
>>>
>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>>
>>>>>I find you evasive.
>>>>
>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>>>
>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>>
>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>>>vegan is violating.
>>>>
>>>>Easy: *their own*.
>>>
>>>I'll clarify,
>>
>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>>parts.
>>
>>
>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>>>code.
>>
>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>>
>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>>>code?
>>
>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

Vegans are responsible for their own consumption and the manner in which
their own food is produced. They have a variety of options -- including
growing their own food or paying farmers to grow in a manner consistent
with "vegan ethics" -- but they choose instead to operate under the
delusion that their diet is cruelty-free merely because they don't eat
meat. Their consumption is as slothful as your abhorrent attempts to use
logic, Ron.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
>> >>>>>>food
>> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
>> >>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>>>food
>> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for
>> >>>>so
>> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >>>
>> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>> >>
>> >>Drama queen.
>> >
>> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>> >>>I find you evasive.
>> >>
>> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>> >
>> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> >>>vegan is violating.
>> >>
>> >>Easy: *their own*.
>> >
>> > I'll clarify,
>>
>> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>> parts.
>>
>> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>> > code.
>>
>> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>> > code?
>>
>> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>
> You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
> wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
> me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.
=====================
If you ever went to school for this, I'd go demand my money back if I were
you. They failed you miserably, fool. Logic is really really hard for
you, isn't it?

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Twink Ron wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>>>
>>>>Drama queen.
>>>
>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>>
>>>>>I find you evasive.
>>>>
>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>>>
>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>>
>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>>>vegan is violating.
>>>>
>>>>Easy: *their own*.
>>>
>>>I'll clarify,
>>
>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>>parts.
>>
>>
>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>>>code.
>>
>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>>
>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>>>code?
>>
>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
that are caused to produced the food they eat.

I suspect you *could* know that if you wanted to, but
because you're a snarky little sophist interested
solely in the appearance of cleverness rather than the
substance of learning, you choose to keep your eyes
firmly shut. Nice.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>
> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>
> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>
> >>Drama queen.
> >
> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>
> >>>I find you evasive.
> >>
> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >
> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>
> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>vegan is violating.
> >>
> >>Easy: *their own*.
> >
> > I'll clarify,
>
> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> parts.
>
> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> > code.
>
> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>
> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> > code?
>
> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>
>> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>
>> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>food
>> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >
>> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>> Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
>> > I find you evasive.
>>
>> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
>> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> > vegan is violating.
>>
>> Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?
===================
Thanks for continuing to display your ignorance on the subject. Well, any
subject actually. Vegans make a claim that *their* lifestyle causes
no/less/fewer animals to die. They claim that that is *their*
ethics/morality. They then violate that ethic by not even trying to
determine which foods they eat actually causes no/less/fewer deaths of
animals. Instead, they follow only a simple rule for their simple minds,
'eat no meat.' So, you can blather on all you want pretending to be a
junior philosophy cadet, but your ignorance is still readily apparent,
queer-boy.... As to what the 'name' of that code is, ask the vegan, you
stupid fool. It's *their* code.
Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you, pansy?

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>
>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>>Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*

It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.

>>>I find you evasive.
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.

>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>vegan is violating.
>>
>>Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify,

You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
parts.

> what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code.

It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
of hypocrisy and sanctimony.

> Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?

It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>
>> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>
>> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>food
>> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >
>> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>> Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
>> > I find you evasive.
>>
>> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
>> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> > vegan is violating.
>>
>> Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?
===================
Thanks for continuing to display your ignorance on the subject. Well, any
subject actually. Vegans make a claim that *their* lifestyle causes
no/less/fewer animals to die. They claim that that is *their*
ethics/morality. They then violate that ethic by not even trying to
determine which foods they eat actually causes no/less/fewer deaths of
animals. Instead, they follow only a simple rule for their simple minds,
'eat no meat.' So, you can blather on all you want pretending to be a
junior philosophy cadet, but your ignorance is still readily apparent,
queer-boy.... As to what the 'name' of that code is, ask the vegan, you
stupid fool. It's *their* code.
Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you, pansy?

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>
>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>>Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*

It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.

>>>I find you evasive.
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.

>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>vegan is violating.
>>
>>Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify,

You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
parts.

> what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code.

It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
of hypocrisy and sanctimony.

> Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?

It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>
> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>
> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >
> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>
> Drama queen.

*bats eye lashes in flattered state*

> > I find you evasive.
>
> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> written extensively that I'm too blunt.

Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> > vegan is violating.
>
> Easy: *their own*.

I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
code?

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>
>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>
> Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*

Drama queen.

> I find you evasive.

Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
written extensively that I'm too blunt.

> Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> vegan is violating.

Easy: *their own*.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>
>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>
> Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*

Drama queen.

> I find you evasive.

Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
written extensively that I'm too blunt.

> Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> vegan is violating.

Easy: *their own*.