Skanky Carpetmunchers believes it is wrong to kill
animals except in self defense:

Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST

She doesn't believe it's "a little bit" wrong, or that
it's wrong "some of the time". She believes that in
ALL cases except self defense, it is wrong to kill
animals. That is a statement of absolute belief.

Skanky Carpetmuncher acknowledges that animals are
killed in the course of producing the vegetable and
fruit crops she eats. As with so much she says or
acknowledges, the acknowledgment is implicit. However,
it is unmistakable.

Skanky Carpetmuncher tries frantically NOT to
acknowledge that she is morally complicit in the deaths
of the animals who are killed in the course of
producing the foods she eats, but it doesn't work. She
knows she WOULD be complicit in the deaths of animals
if she ate meat, even though she wouldn't kill them
herself. But the SAME mechanism that makes meat eaters
morally responsible for the deaths of the animals they
eat serves to make Skanky Carpetmuncher morally
responsible for the deaths of the animals she doesn't
eat - the ones left to rot in the fields and around the
grain elevators. The mechanism has two three parts:

- knowledge that the deaths occur
- voluntary participation in a chain of market transactions
with the killers
- no "necessity" for the animals to be killed (not self
defense)

The first two are key: Skanky Carpetmuncher knows that
animals are killed in the course of producing the foods
she eats, and she participates in the market process
leading to the deaths as a matter of free choice; there
is no coercion.

Skanky Carpetmuncher believes, absolutely, that the
deaths are wrong, yet she justifies "feeling good about
herself" based solely on not eating meat. She is an
accomplice in what she MUST view as animal murder, but
she still is "content" with merely not eating meat.

Tough spot to be in.

Jay, are you still upset at that crack I made
about your wife? ))

Lol


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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>> Skanky Carpetmunchers believes it is wrong to kill animals except in self defense:
>>
>> Killing animals is wrong.
>> S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
>>
>>She doesn't believe it's "a little bit" wrong, or that it's wrong
>>"some of the time". She believes that in ALL cases except self
>>defense, it is wrong to kill animals. That is a statement of
>>absolute belief.
>>
>>Skanky Carpetmuncher acknowledges that animals are killed in the
>>course of producing the vegetable and fruit crops she eats. As
>>with so much she says or acknowledges, the acknowledgment is implicit.
>>However, it is unmistakable.
>>
>>Skanky Carpetmuncher tries frantically NOT to acknowledge that she is
>>morally complicit in the deaths of the animals who are killed in the
>>course of producing the foods she eats, but it doesn't work. She knows
>>she WOULD be complicit in the deaths of animals if she ate meat, even
>>though she wouldn't kill them herself. But the SAME mechanism that
>>makes meat eaters morally responsible for the deaths of the animals
>>they eat serves to make Skanky Carpetmuncher morally responsible for
>>the deaths of the animals she doesn't eat - the ones left to rot in the
>>fields and around the grain elevators. The mechanism has two three parts:
>>
>> - knowledge that the deaths occur
>> - voluntary participation in a chain of market transactions
>> with the killers
>> - no "necessity" for the animals to be killed (not self defense)
>>
>>The first two are key: Skanky Carpetmuncher knows that animals are killed
>>in the course of producing the foods she eats, and she participates in the
>>market process leading to the deaths as a matter of free choice; there is
>>no coercion.
>>
>>Skanky Carpetmuncher believes, absolutely, that the deaths are wrong, yet
>>she justifies "feeling good about herself" based solely on not eating meat.
>>She is an accomplice in what she MUST view as animal murder, but she still
>>is "content" with merely not eating meat.
>>
>>Tough spot to be in.
>
>Jay, are you still upset at that crack I made
> about your wife?

Juvenile sarcasm and game playing.

Can't address the issues, can you? I didn't think so.
Lightweight.

Oh shut the f*** up and have a good New Year. )

Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
> Oh shut the f*** up and have a good New Year.

Foul temper to go with the juvenile sarcasm.

Why can't you address the issues?

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
> > Oh shut the f*** up and have a good New Year.
>
> Foul temper to go with the juvenile sarcasm.
>
> Why can't you address the issues?

Your serious silliness is clashing with the
happy new year mood around me.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
>>
>>> Oh shut the f*** up and have a good New Year.
>>
>>Foul temper to go with the juvenile sarcasm.
>>
>>Why can't you address the issues?
>
>
> Your serious

My serious critique has you tied up in knots.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oh shut the f*** up and have a good New Year.
> >>
> >>Foul temper to go with the juvenile sarcasm.
> >>
> >>Why can't you address the issues?
> >
> >
> > Your serious
>
> My serious critique has you tied up in knots.

Hint: Try getting serious about not name-calling.
You'll get a better response from me if you don't
change my name to something derogatory. That
includes both in quotes and subject field.


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

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>
>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh shut the f*** up and have a good New Year.
>>>
>>>Foul temper to go with the juvenile sarcasm.
>>>
>>>Why can't you address the issues?
>>
>>
>> Your serious
>
> My serious critique has you tied up in knots.




Are you serious about anything ~~jonnie~~? You are here for your own
amusement only. I don't wish you a happy new year, I hope you catch your
nackers in a rat trap. Same goes for the other trolls on the AR newsgroups.

IMO we have just come through one of the most dreadful times in the so
called Christian Calendar. A time when millions of innocent animals are
killed in the name of 'Christmas'.

If we are to believe in the "Three Wise Men", "No Room at The Inn" and the
rest of the associated crap, we are little better than the Muslims.They
treat the Koran as "The "De Facto" way of life. That is because they are
ignorant stupid conditioned *******s.

The "Bible", is a guide book, some of us follow it verbatim, others like
myself treat it as a guidebook.I refuse to kill or pay someone else to kill
animals for either my guts or pleasure.

Personally, I treat Dec 25th in the same way as I treat the remainder of the
year.

Anyone treating "Christmas" as something more than a commercial exercise is
sadly mistaken.

So far as I am concerned, "Christmas" is now an accepted way of commercial
exploit of the uneducated masses.

So ******** to the 50% discount on goods, ******** to the no payment until
no payment until 2006 and furthermore ******** to the Multi National
Companies who force their staff to work on religious holidays. In The UK B&Q
were the first, they are entitled to a special varient of the pox.

Personally I enjoy "Christmas", I stay indoors.

Jay Santos wrote:
> Skanky Carpetmunchers believes it is wrong to kill animals except in
> self defense:
>
> Killing animals is wrong.
> S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
>
> She doesn't believe it's "a little bit" wrong, or that it's wrong "some
> of the time". She believes that in ALL cases except self defense, it is
> wrong to kill animals. That is a statement of absolute belief.

That's at odds with her former claims that her diet is solely about her
personal health and not about animal rights.

> Skanky Carpetmuncher acknowledges that animals are killed in the course
> of producing the vegetable and fruit crops she eats. As with so much
> she says or acknowledges, the acknowledgment is implicit. However, it
> is unmistakable.
>
> Skanky Carpetmuncher tries frantically NOT to acknowledge that she is
> morally complicit in the deaths of the animals who are killed in the
> course of producing the foods she eats, but it doesn't work. She knows
> she WOULD be complicit in the deaths of animals if she ate meat, even
> though she wouldn't kill them herself. But the SAME mechanism that
> makes meat eaters morally responsible for the deaths of the animals they
> eat serves to make Skanky Carpetmuncher morally responsible for the
> deaths of the animals she doesn't eat - the ones left to rot in the
> fields and around the grain elevators. The mechanism has two three parts:
>
> - knowledge that the deaths occur
> - voluntary participation in a chain of market transactions
> with the killers
> - no "necessity" for the animals to be killed (not self defense)
>
> The first two are key: Skanky Carpetmuncher knows that animals are
> killed in the course of producing the foods she eats, and she
> participates in the market process leading to the deaths as a matter of
> free choice; there is no coercion.
>
> Skanky Carpetmuncher believes, absolutely, that the deaths are wrong,
> yet she justifies "feeling good about herself" based solely on not
> eating meat. She is an accomplice in what she MUST view as animal
> murder, but she still is "content" with merely not eating meat.
>
> Tough spot to be in.

> > She doesn't believe it's "a little bit" wrong, or that it's wrong
"some
> > of the time". She believes that in ALL cases except self defense,
it is
> > wrong to kill animals. That is a statement of absolute belief.
>
> That's at odds with her former claims that her diet is solely about
her
> personal health and not about animal rights.

I never made the absolutely wrong statement. I also
never changed my prime motivation which is health.
It's a nice bonus that my diet causes less deaths
than a meateating one.


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

> > She doesn't believe it's "a little bit" wrong, or that it's wrong
"some
> > of the time". She believes that in ALL cases except self defense,
it is
> > wrong to kill animals. That is a statement of absolute belief.
>
> That's at odds with her former claims that her diet is solely about
her
> personal health and not about animal rights.

I never made the absolutely wrong statement. I also
never changed my prime motivation which is health.
It's a nice bonus that my diet causes less deaths
than a meateating one.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>She doesn't believe it's "a little bit" wrong, or that it's wrong
>>>"some of the time". She believes that in ALL cases except self defense,
>>>it is wrong to kill animals. That is a statement of absolute belief.
>>
>>That's at odds with her former claims that her diet is solely about
>>her personal health and not about animal rights.
>
> I never made the absolutely wrong statement.

You don't have to qualify it with "absolutely," it stands on its own.

> I also never changed my prime motivation which is health.

You know *nothing* of health or nutrition, so the claims you make about
your diet on those grounds are very suspect. All you've done is accept
what activists -- NOT EXPERTS -- have to say on the matter. You've also
engaged in sloppy generalizations that "meat is bad and veg-n is good"
despite the fact that there are meats which are very healthful and
vegetarian fare which is patently unhealthy.

> It's a nice bonus

It's not a bonus.

> that my diet causes less deaths
> than a meateating one.

Only when you compare apples to oranges, dummy. You've been shown that
your diet causes many animal deaths, and you've been shown that you can
reduce your culpability for dead animals in a variety of ways -- one of
which could include eating certain kinds of meat.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> Jay, are you still upset at that crack I made
> about your wife? ))

I thought he *was* talking about his wife....