Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>And a family's winter meals are all provided
>>>by their 0 death garden.
>>
>>NO FAMILY lives on food from its own garden, not even
>>for a week, much less a winter.
>
>
> Some do to varying extents.

There you go with the ****iwtted, fabricated qualifier:
"varying extents".

NONE DO, to ANY extent: NO FAMILY'S winter meals are
"all" provided by their garden.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>And a family's winter meals are all provided
>>>by their 0 death garden.
>>
>>NO FAMILY lives on food from its own garden, not even
>>for a week, much less a winter.
>
>
> Some do to varying extents.

There you go with the ****iwtted, fabricated qualifier:
"varying extents".

NONE DO, to ANY extent: NO FAMILY'S winter meals are
"all" provided by their garden.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>And a family's winter meals are all provided
>>>by their 0 death garden.
>>
>>You haven't tended many gardens, that much is obvious.
>
>
> Are you counting insects or something?

No, stupid smelly ****: GARDENS, not insects. The
word "many" qualifies GARDENS. The word "insects"
doesn't even appear.

In article >,
Reynard > wrote:

> Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
> vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
> the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
> moral agency than the meatarian.

I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
this might be a strong argument.

It seems that it is humans (vegans) that are behaving 'unnaturally'.
Each species has its food sources that include other species. The
'natural' beahviour of species on this planet is that other species
become part of the food chain for that species.

In article >,
Reynard > wrote:

> Rather, they refuse to falsely take on any responsibility
> for the farmer's wrong-doing because doing so would
> make themselves apologists for and enablers of that
> wrong-doing.

Actions and wrongdoing are two separate issues. Wrongdoing is a judgment
attached to an action. I agree that farmer kill animals. Where I need
you to be clearer is on how you came to the conclusion that this action
is "wrong".

Animals kill animals as part of the process of life and death on this
planet. Humans are still animals despite what we like to think of
ourselves.

In article >,
Reynard > wrote:

> Rather, they refuse to falsely take on any responsibility
> for the farmer's wrong-doing because doing so would
> make themselves apologists for and enablers of that
> wrong-doing.

Actions and wrongdoing are two separate issues. Wrongdoing is a judgment
attached to an action. I agree that farmer kill animals. Where I need
you to be clearer is on how you came to the conclusion that this action
is "wrong".

Animals kill animals as part of the process of life and death on this
planet. Humans are still animals despite what we like to think of
ourselves.

Ron wrote:

> In article > ,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article t>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>>>they do NOT act as they say.
>>>
>>>
>>>The vegan does not kill.
>>
>>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
>
>
> Only if one confuses coincidence for cause and effect.

No. There is no confusion of cause and effect, except
apparently in your mind.

It is the PROCESS one must look at, and how one comes
to participate in it.

Ron wrote:

> In article > ,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article t>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>>>they do NOT act as they say.
>>>
>>>
>>>The vegan does not kill.
>>
>>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
>
>
> Only if one confuses coincidence for cause and effect.

No. There is no confusion of cause and effect, except
apparently in your mind.

It is the PROCESS one must look at, and how one comes
to participate in it.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article > ,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article et>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article t>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
> >>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
> >>>>
> >>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
> >>>>they do NOT act as they say.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The vegan does not kill.
> >>
> >>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
> >
> >
> > Only if one confuses coincidence for cause and effect.
>
> No. There is no confusion of cause and effect, except
> apparently in your mind.
>
> It is the PROCESS one must look at, and how one comes
> to participate in it.

The issue being discussed is cause versus coincidence.

I don't cause the farmer to kill anything. If the farmer feels better
justifying his actions by attributing them to me, so be it. If the
consumer enjoys feeling 'guilt' and assuming cause for the actions of
others, so be it.

The farmer causes that action through the exercising of his own free
will. The farmer causes that action independent of what my decisions are
at any given time. It is coincidental that I eat meat and purchase these
products and that the farmer happens to kill animals.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article > ,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article et>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article t>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
> >>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
> >>>>
> >>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
> >>>>they do NOT act as they say.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The vegan does not kill.
> >>
> >>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
> >
> >
> > Only if one confuses coincidence for cause and effect.
>
> No. There is no confusion of cause and effect, except
> apparently in your mind.
>
> It is the PROCESS one must look at, and how one comes
> to participate in it.

The issue being discussed is cause versus coincidence.

I don't cause the farmer to kill anything. If the farmer feels better
justifying his actions by attributing them to me, so be it. If the
consumer enjoys feeling 'guilt' and assuming cause for the actions of
others, so be it.

The farmer causes that action through the exercising of his own free
will. The farmer causes that action independent of what my decisions are
at any given time. It is coincidental that I eat meat and purchase these
products and that the farmer happens to kill animals.

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article > ,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article t>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>>>>>they do NOT act as they say.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The vegan does not kill.
>>>>
>>>>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if one confuses coincidence for cause and effect.
>>
>>No. There is no confusion of cause and effect, except
>>apparently in your mind.
>>
>>It is the PROCESS one must look at, and how one comes
>>to participate in it.
>
>
> The issue being discussed is cause versus coincidence.

No, that is NOT the issue being discussed at all,
smarmly little homo sophist. The issue being discussed
is shared responsibility, and how your

- fully aware
- fully voluntary
- persistent

participation in a PROCESS that causes animal deaths
serves to establish your shared responsibility for the
deaths.

>
> I don't cause the farmer to kill anything.

Irrelevant. He DOES kill things, you KNOW he does, you
DO have a choice not to buy from any farmers, and you
CONTINUE to buy from them all the time. By that
combination of factors, you acquire responsibility for
the animal deaths. All consumers do.

> The farmer causes that action

The farmer doesn't "cause" the action, you ****ing
moron. The farmer COMMITS the action. The farmer
DIRECTLY causes the outcome; you indirectly cause it,
because with no consumers there are no commercial
farmers. You and others like you cause farmers.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article > ,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article et>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article t>,
> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
> >>>>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
> >>>>>>they do NOT act as they say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The vegan does not kill.
> >>>>
> >>>>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Only if one confuses coincidence for cause and effect.
> >>
> >>No. There is no confusion of cause and effect, except
> >>apparently in your mind.
> >>
> >>It is the PROCESS one must look at, and how one comes
> >>to participate in it.
> >
> >
> > The issue being discussed is cause versus coincidence.
>
> No, that is NOT the issue being discussed at all,
> smarmly little homo sophist. The issue being discussed
> is shared responsibility, and how your

An argument that is constructed (and logically flawed) by not seeing the
coincidence of the situation.

If 10,000 farmers need to blame me because they have chosen slaughtering
animals, I'm okay with that. If you need to blame yourself for what
10,000 farmers do in the course of their day, I'm okay with you feeling
'guilty'.

> - fully aware
> - fully voluntary
> - persistent
>
> participation in a PROCESS that causes animal deaths
> serves to establish your shared responsibility for the
> deaths.
>
> >
> > I don't cause the farmer to kill anything.
>
> Irrelevant. He DOES kill things, you KNOW he does, you
> DO have a choice not to buy from any farmers, and you
> CONTINUE to buy from them all the time. By that
> combination of factors, you acquire responsibility for
> the animal deaths. All consumers do.
>
> > The farmer causes that action
>
> The farmer doesn't "cause" the action, you ****ing
> moron. The farmer COMMITS the action. The farmer
> DIRECTLY causes the outcome; you indirectly cause it,
> because with no consumers there are no commercial
> farmers. You and others like you cause farmers.

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>anal leakage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Only if one confuses coincidence for cause and effect.
>>>>
>>>>No. There is no confusion of cause and effect, except
>>>>apparently in your mind.
>>>>
>>>>It is the PROCESS one must look at, and how one comes
>>>>to participate in it.
>>>
>>>
>>>The issue being discussed is cause versus coincidence.
>>
>>No, that is NOT the issue being discussed at all,
>>smarmly little homo sophist. The issue being discussed
>>is shared responsibility, and how your
>
>
> An argument that is constructed (and logically flawed)

No. You keep asserting that it is "flawed", but
present no evidence or argument. You are wrong.

>
> If 10,000 farmers need to blame me

Not a question of farmers "blaming" you. It's a point
of establishing, objectively, your responsibility. It
is done; see below.

>
>
>> - fully aware
>> - fully voluntary
>> - persistent
>>
>>participation in a PROCESS that causes animal deaths
>>serves to establish your shared responsibility for the
>>deaths.
>>
>>
>>>I don't cause the farmer to kill anything.
>>
>>Irrelevant. He DOES kill things, you KNOW he does, you
>>DO have a choice not to buy from any farmers, and you
>>CONTINUE to buy from them all the time. By that
>>combination of factors, you acquire responsibility for
>>the animal deaths. All consumers do.
>>
>>
>>>The farmer causes that action
>>
>>The farmer doesn't "cause" the action, you ****ing
>>moron. The farmer COMMITS the action. The farmer
>>DIRECTLY causes the outcome; you indirectly cause it,
>>because with no consumers there are no commercial
>>farmers. You and others like you cause farmers.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:26:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>
>> Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
>> vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
>> the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
>> moral agency than the meatarian.
>
>I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
>this might be a strong argument.

From my point of view, as an animal rights advocate
and deontologist, I strongly believe that the killing of
an animal for personal gain is wrong; the end (food,
drugs and clothing) doesn't justify the means (the
slaughter, research and farming of rights-holding
animals) to that end.

>It seems that it is humans (vegans) that are behaving 'unnaturally'.
>Each species has its food sources that include other species. The
>'natural' beahviour of species on this planet is that other species
>become part of the food chain for that species.

I agree. Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, we are
privileged to the extent that we can act 'unnaturally.'
Whether this privilege carries a moral obligation to
exercise it by forswearing animal-based foods or not
is dependant upon the person's moral agency, in my
opinion.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:27:58 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>
>> Rather, they refuse to falsely take on any responsibility
>> for the farmer's wrong-doing because doing so would
>> make themselves apologists for and enablers of that
>> wrong-doing.
>
>Actions and wrongdoing are two separate issues. Wrongdoing is a judgment
>attached to an action. I agree that farmer kill animals. Where I need
>you to be clearer is on how you came to the conclusion that this action
>is "wrong".

As Hume once said, "Take any action allowed to be vicious:
Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see
if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which
you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only
certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no
other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes
you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find
it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find
a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards
this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
So that when you pronounce any action or character to
be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
from the contemplation of it.", so when I say that the action
is wrong, I'm not merely exhibiting the constitution of my
nature, I'm asserting that it's wrong because animals' rights
are being violated.

>Animals kill animals as part of the process of life and death on this
>planet. Humans are still animals despite what we like to think of
>ourselves.

But, unlike other animals we have the capacity to act
according to our held taboos and prescriptions, and
this unique ability is what makes us the paragon of all
animals while being equal to them at the same time.

Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:26:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>
>>In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
>>>vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
>>>the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
>>>moral agency than the meatarian.
>>
>>I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
>>this might be a strong argument.
>
>
> From my point of view, as an animal rights advocate

You're not.

> and deontologist,

You don't have a clue what the word means.

> I strongly believe that the killing of
> an animal for personal gain is wrong

Which is why you're a hypocrite: your "lifestyle" does
cause animals to die. You share in the responsibility
for the deaths that you consider wrong.

>
>
>>It seems that it is humans (vegans) that are behaving 'unnaturally'.
>>Each species has its food sources that include other species. The
>>'natural' beahviour of species on this planet is that other species
>>become part of the food chain for that species.

> > No, it's mostly wrong. For instance, I don't consider
> > it wrong for true carnivores to eat meat.
>
> No, we're only talking about humans, and you knew that
> or ought to have known. If you're pretending not to
> have known, that's cynical and dishonest; if you
> genuinely didn't know, then you are astonishingly stupid.
>
> You consider it ABSOLUTELY wrong for humans to kill
> non-human animals other than in self defense.

What about when there's no other food choice,
and the only alternative is to starve? I would
kill and eat an animal in that situation. Most
would.

> No, KILLING, you stupid **** - not eating, KILLING. I
> have ALWAYS been talking about the killing of animals,
> not the eating. It is the human KILLING of animals
> that you consider absolutely wrong.

And here I thought you avidly connect the eating
to the killing. Does that only happen when talking
about cds and not ids (intentional)

> You KNOW we're talking about the killing, and not the
> eating, because this is in the context of collateral
> deaths - the deaths of animals you leave to rot in the
> field. THAT is the killing that you MUST view as
> absolutely wrong, not "mostly" or "sorta" wrong.

Cds are high up on the 'wrong' scale. But, remember
there is usually a scale of variance.

> > Have you ever heard of the term grey area?
>
> Yes, and there is none here.

Your eyes see different colours than mine do.

> You view the human killing of non-human animals, other
> than in self defense, as absolutely wrong. You have to
> view it as absolutely wrong.

Why does it have to be absolute?


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

> > Since it's me who gets to decide my criteria
> > and how valid it is
>
> You HAVE NONE. You have NO criteria for determining
> when the collateral deaths are right and when they're
> wrong.

Whoa, way to switch topics. I thought we were
discussing need vs. want. As far as cds being
right or wrong, I believe they're mostly wrong.




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

"> NONE DO, to ANY extent: NO FAMILY'S winter meals are
> "all" provided by their garden.

Haven't you heard of homesteaders? There
were quite a few in the '70s and I suspect
that there are quite a few still doing it as
well as new homesteaders. They are not
all vegetarian, but they do grow enough
food to live on.


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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:34:55 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:26:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
>>>>vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
>>>>the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
>>>>moral agency than the meatarian.
>>>
>>>I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
>>>this might be a strong argument.
>>
>> From my point of view, as an animal rights advocate
>
>You're not.

'fraid so, Jon. Why did you use my name and email address
to forge a post to Karen in her chosen group?

>> and deontologist,
>
>You don't have a clue what the word means.

Google 'rights' and 'duties' if you're unsure of the term.

>> I strongly believe that the killing of
>> an animal for personal gain is wrong
>
>Which is why you're a hypocrite: your "lifestyle" does
>cause animals to die.

No, it does not. Farmers and their lifestyles are what
kills them.

>You share in the responsibility
>for the deaths that you consider wrong.

Ipse dixit and false. You won't make an obsequious
meat-pushing enabler out of me like you did with
'Dutch' and 'usual suspect', so it give up; I've too
much self-respect to become one of your minions.

Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:34:55 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:26:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
>>>>>vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
>>>>>the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
>>>>>moral agency than the meatarian.
>>>>
>>>>I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
>>>>this might be a strong argument.
>>>
>>>From my point of view, as an animal rights advocate
>>
>>You're not.
>>
>>>and deontologist,
>>
>>You don't have a clue what the word means.
>
>
> Google 'rights' and 'duties' if you're unsure of the term.

I know full well what the term means: I took
philosophy courses in university. You are trained as a
carpenter and automobile electrician. You don't have a
clue.

>
>
>>>I strongly believe that the killing of
>>>an animal for personal gain is wrong
>>
>>Which is why you're a hypocrite: your "lifestyle" does
>>cause animals to die.
>
>
> No, it does not.

Yes, it does, in a fully documented process.

>
>>You share in the responsibility
>>for the deaths that you consider wrong.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> >>>And a family's winter meals are all provided
> >>>by their 0 death garden.
> >>
> >>You haven't tended many gardens, that much is obvious.
> >
> >
> > Are you counting insects or something?
>
> No, stupid smelly ****: GARDENS, not insects. The
> word "many" qualifies GARDENS. The word "insects"
> doesn't even appear.

Settle down. In all the gardens I HAVE tended, I've
never needed to kill an animal. Excluding the
occassional earthworm halved by my shovel, but
they at least regrow the lost part. They are not
actually killed.

Some raccoons ate some rare bulbs I bought
once, but if I were to grow them again, I would
use an organic deterrent, like ashes or powder.
They don't like to get their paws messy.


--
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:

>>>No, it's mostly wrong. For instance, I don't consider
>>>it wrong for true carnivores to eat meat.
>>
>>No, we're only talking about humans, and you knew that
>>or ought to have known. If you're pretending not to
>>have known, that's cynical and dishonest; if you
>>genuinely didn't know, then you are astonishingly stupid.
>>
>>You consider it ABSOLUTELY wrong for humans to kill
>>non-human animals other than in self defense.
>
>
> What about when there's no other food choice,
> and the only alternative is to starve?

Then the choice is to starve

> I would kill and eat an animal in that situation.

Would you kill and eat your parents if the choice came
down to "kill and eat my parents" or "starve to death"?

>
>
>>No, KILLING, you stupid **** - not eating, KILLING. I
>>have ALWAYS been talking about the killing of animals,
>>not the eating. It is the human KILLING of animals
>>that you consider absolutely wrong.
>
>
> And here I thought you avidly connect the eating
> to the killing.

No, you stupid drug-addled ****. We are talking about
the KILLING, period. The EATING clearly cannot be
immoral or wrong; you just don't like it aesthetically.
It's the KILLING that you view as absolutely wrong.

>
>>You KNOW we're talking about the killing, and not the
>>eating, because this is in the context of collateral
>>deaths - the deaths of animals you leave to rot in the
>>field. THAT is the killing that you MUST view as
>>absolutely wrong, not "mostly" or "sorta" wrong.
>
>
> Cds are high up on the 'wrong' scale.

You are obliged to view them as absolutely wrong, or
you cannot sensibly view them as wrong at all: you
have no criteria to distinguish between when CDs are
wrong and when they are not wrong.

>
>
>>>Have you ever heard of the term grey area?
>>
>>Yes, and there is none here.
>
>
> Your eyes see different colours than mine do.

There is no gray area in this issue.

>
>
>>You view the human killing of non-human animals, other
>>than in self defense, as absolutely wrong. You have to
>>view it as absolutely wrong.
>
>
> Why does it have to be absolute?

Because you can't view it as wrong AT ALL if you don't
view it as absolutely wrong, for reasons I've
elaborated literally dozens of times with you already,
but which center on the fact you have NO criteria for
determining when chopping animals of the field to bits
is wrong and when it isn't wrong.

You just haven't thought this out. You're trying to
cling to a position that is untenable.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>No, it's mostly wrong. For instance, I don't consider
>>>it wrong for true carnivores to eat meat.
>>
>>No, we're only talking about humans, and you knew that
>>or ought to have known. If you're pretending not to
>>have known, that's cynical and dishonest; if you
>>genuinely didn't know, then you are astonishingly stupid.
>>
>>You consider it ABSOLUTELY wrong for humans to kill
>>non-human animals other than in self defense.
>
>
> What about when there's no other food choice,
> and the only alternative is to starve?

Then the choice is to starve

> I would kill and eat an animal in that situation.

Would you kill and eat your parents if the choice came
down to "kill and eat my parents" or "starve to death"?

>
>
>>No, KILLING, you stupid **** - not eating, KILLING. I
>>have ALWAYS been talking about the killing of animals,
>>not the eating. It is the human KILLING of animals
>>that you consider absolutely wrong.
>
>
> And here I thought you avidly connect the eating
> to the killing.

No, you stupid drug-addled ****. We are talking about
the KILLING, period. The EATING clearly cannot be
immoral or wrong; you just don't like it aesthetically.
It's the KILLING that you view as absolutely wrong.

>
>>You KNOW we're talking about the killing, and not the
>>eating, because this is in the context of collateral
>>deaths - the deaths of animals you leave to rot in the
>>field. THAT is the killing that you MUST view as
>>absolutely wrong, not "mostly" or "sorta" wrong.
>
>
> Cds are high up on the 'wrong' scale.

You are obliged to view them as absolutely wrong, or
you cannot sensibly view them as wrong at all: you
have no criteria to distinguish between when CDs are
wrong and when they are not wrong.

>
>
>>>Have you ever heard of the term grey area?
>>
>>Yes, and there is none here.
>
>
> Your eyes see different colours than mine do.

There is no gray area in this issue.

>
>
>>You view the human killing of non-human animals, other
>>than in self defense, as absolutely wrong. You have to
>>view it as absolutely wrong.
>
>
> Why does it have to be absolute?

Because you can't view it as wrong AT ALL if you don't
view it as absolutely wrong, for reasons I've
elaborated literally dozens of times with you already,
but which center on the fact you have NO criteria for
determining when chopping animals of the field to bits
is wrong and when it isn't wrong.

You just haven't thought this out. You're trying to
cling to a position that is untenable.

"Ron" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> Reynard > wrote:
>
> > Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
> > vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
> > the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
> > moral agency than the meatarian.
>
> I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
> this might be a strong argument.

Wrong, - without valid justification.

> It seems that it is humans (vegans) that are behaving 'unnaturally'.
> Each species has its food sources that include other species. The
> 'natural' beahviour of species on this planet is that other species
> become part of the food chain for that species.

Some species are naturally carnivorous, ..some are not.
Humans clearly fall into the latter category. See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm ,

and;

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

"Ron" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> Reynard > wrote:
>
> > Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
> > vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
> > the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
> > moral agency than the meatarian.
>
> I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
> this might be a strong argument.

Wrong, - without valid justification.

> It seems that it is humans (vegans) that are behaving 'unnaturally'.
> Each species has its food sources that include other species. The
> 'natural' beahviour of species on this planet is that other species
> become part of the food chain for that species.

Some species are naturally carnivorous, ..some are not.
Humans clearly fall into the latter category. See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm ,

and;

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Since it's me who gets to decide my criteria
>>>and how valid it is
>>
>>You HAVE NONE. You have NO criteria for determining
>>when the collateral deaths are right and when they're
>>wrong.
>
>
> Whoa, way to switch topics.

No switch of topics here. Of course, because you
sleazily snipped out the earlier material, the reader
can't see that for several iterations, we have been
discussing your complete lack of criteria for
determining when chopping animals of the field to bits
is right, and when it's wrong.

> I thought we were
> discussing need vs. want.

Elsewhere.

> As far as cds being
> right or wrong, I believe they're mostly wrong.

No, you don't. You can't. You believe - you HAVE to
believe - that it's absolutely wrong. You have no way
of distinguishing when CDs are right and when they're
wrong, so if they're to be wrong at all, they must be
ABSOLUTLEY wrong.

This is not something that has an intensity scale, like
your (dis)like of some food, say, broccoli. You can
like broccoli a lot, just a little, be indifferent to
it, dislike it a little, or loathe the stuff; and
innumerable points in between. You simply CANNOT say
that killing animals (except in self defense) is
"somewhat" wrong, or "a little bit" wrong, or "mostly"
wrong; it MUST be either wrong, or not wrong.

By the way: I am no longer going to write "except in
self defense". It is understood; in other words,
implied. If you EVER come back and pretend that your
belief that killing animals is "mostly" wrong is
predicated on a self defense exception, I will kick
your pimply fat ass. Don't do it.

Your belief that killing animals is wrong is an
absolute belief.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>> NONE DO, to ANY extent: NO FAMILY'S winter meals are
>>"all" provided by their garden.
>
>
> Haven't you heard of homesteaders?

NO FAMILY'S entire winter meals are provided by their
own garden.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>> NONE DO, to ANY extent: NO FAMILY'S winter meals are
>>"all" provided by their garden.
>
>
> Haven't you heard of homesteaders?

NO FAMILY'S entire winter meals are provided by their
own garden.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>And a family's winter meals are all provided
>>>>>by their 0 death garden.
>>>>
>>>>You haven't tended many gardens, that much is obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you counting insects or something?
>>
>>No, stupid smelly ****: GARDENS, not insects. The
>>word "many" qualifies GARDENS. The word "insects"
>>doesn't even appear.
>
>
> Settle down.

Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>And a family's winter meals are all provided
>>>>>by their 0 death garden.
>>>>
>>>>You haven't tended many gardens, that much is obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you counting insects or something?
>>
>>No, stupid smelly ****: GARDENS, not insects. The
>>word "many" qualifies GARDENS. The word "insects"
>>doesn't even appear.
>
>
> Settle down.

Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.

> > What about when there's no other food choice,
> > and the only alternative is to starve?
>
> Then the choice is to starve
>
> > I would kill and eat an animal in that situation.
>
> Would you kill and eat your parents if the choice came
> down to "kill and eat my parents" or "starve to death"?

I would rather starve than be a cannibal. Some might
choose cannibalism over death, but I'm not sure I
could stomach it (pun intended). As for killing animals
however, I could stomach that better. So if I were
starving I could eat meat. Being that I'm lucky enough
to live in a big city with lots of food variety, and I'm
lucky enough that I can afford those foods, I am not
in a position where I'm forced to eat meat. Can you
see from what I've typed here that killing animals is
mostly wrong in my personal belief?

> > And here I thought you avidly connect the eating
> > to the killing.
>
> No, you stupid drug-addled ****. We are talking about
> the KILLING, period. The EATING clearly cannot be
> immoral or wrong; you just don't like it aesthetically.
> It's the KILLING that you view as absolutely wrong.

Then, can I assume that you no longer connect the
eating of vegan foods to the cds left rotting in the
fields?

> You are obliged to view them as absolutely wrong, or
> you cannot sensibly view them as wrong at all: you
> have no criteria to distinguish between when CDs are
> wrong and when they are not wrong.

It's the kind of thing you have to view on a one by one
basis and judge accordingly. It's mostly wrong, though.

> > Your eyes see different colours than mine do.
>
> There is no gray area in this issue.

I'm dying to make a joke now about grey matter,
but I'll hold off. ))

> Because you can't view it as wrong AT ALL if you don't
> view it as absolutely wrong, for reasons I've
> elaborated literally dozens of times with you already,
> but which center on the fact you have NO criteria for
> determining when chopping animals of the field to bits
> is wrong and when it isn't wrong.
>
> You just haven't thought this out. You're trying to
> cling to a position that is untenable.

Sorry Whatchername, I still believe that killing animals
is mostly wrong. I know this somehow upsets you, but
that's your burden.


--
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
> > > And a family's winter meals are all provided
> > > by their 0 death garden.
> >
> > You haven't tended many gardens, that much is obvious.
>
> Are you counting insects or something?

Vegans count bees and silkworms, if it's immoral to harm animals for your
benefit then where do you draw the line? Most gardens entail the killing of
slugs and sometimes moles and other small mammals.

> > > Sometimes lucky
> > > friends of such gardners are given some as
> > > gifts. I like when that happens.
> >
> > It doesn't happen very often does it?
>
> Often enough to get some good meals
> out of it.

It's an extraordinarily rare occurence.

> > > Anyways,
> > > in the above we are each presenting a
> > > best case scenario for each side.
> >
> > That's because you refuse to compare all foods on an equal footing.
> Most
> > vegans do refuse to do this, since it skewers vegan claims of
> categorical
> > superiority.
>
> The only one that skewers the claim is if the
> worst of vegan possibilities is compared to
> the very best of meateating.

That's false, ANY *typical* vegan diet that relies on commercial product
could be improved by substituting some carefully selected meat.

> That's the only
> comparison you're willing to make.

No, I am comparing ALL food on a single linear scale, because that is the
reality, life is simply a series of choices, the designations "vegan" and
"non-vegan" are assigned arbitrarily by us.

> If we
> compare ALL combinations, vegans win
> with less cds.

Vegans don't win anything, the valid comparison is amongst foods, not
people.

> > > We
> > > don't know however, what cds were
> > > caused by the fishes side dishes, eg
> > > rice, potatoes, salads soups.
> >
> > That's correct, but it's a pretty fair assumption in this instance
> that the
> > side dishes account for more cds per calorie than the meat. So my
> point is
> > made.
>
> But what if the meat is commercial meat, then
> the results are opposite.

Right, fancy that! Depending on the source of the food, sometimes plant
foods are better, sometimes not. That's all I have been saying all along.
The narrow vegan agenda of simply removing animal products and claiming some
kind of moral victory is hollow.

> > I have a novel idea, let's agree to talk about the same thing, then
> maybe we
> > can get somewhere instead of going around and around in circles like
> this.
> > There's no reason for us to talk about "the animal industry" at this
> point
> > because I am not attempting to refute your position on it.
>
> But you are trying to separate yourself off from the
> average meateater by claiming to eat handcaught
> fish and wild game.

No I'm not. I am pointing out that those foods are clearly exceptions to the
vegan idea that plant foods are better.

> Although those are better, cd-
> wise than most other meats,

They're also better than most plant foods, which are mostly mass produced.

> they are a limited resource.

There is enough of them that anyone who wants them now could obtain them.

> All meateaters can't choose to go that
> route because demand would exceed supply.

Everyone doesn't need to do anything, it only needs to be shown that a diet
that includes meat can improve upon a typical vegan diet in order to
establish the flaw in the narrow, dogmatic vegan idea of 'no consumption of
animal products'.

> > you are probably in
> > > better health then if you ate a factory farmed
> > > fish, and also compared to the other meats.
> > >
> > > If one has to eat a meat, fish are usually
> > > the healthiest (excepting lake fish)
> >
> > I am not making health claims either. Is there a reason why you
> address
> > arguments that I'm not making rather than speaking to what I am
> actually
> > saying?
>
> Then what are you trying to say. Spit it out.

I've been saying it all along. Veganism is fundamentally flawed in it's idea
that one's diet/lifestyle is made more moral and ethical by the progressive
removal of animal products from it. If one accepts the notion that there is
a direct link between a person's morality and the amount of harm to animals
one causes with their lifestyle then the rule of veganism is too narrow, too
non-inclusive. Your typical urban vegan, and I've been one, is beat hands
down by a small self-sufficient farmer, I've been one of them too. The vegan
idea works for lazy urban people who only want to do *relatively* better
than the typical urban fast food junkie. It's moral relativism at it's
worst. That's fine as far as it goes, but vegans insist on assigning far
more significance to it than is actually warranted.

> No switch of topics here. Of course, because you
> sleazily snipped out the earlier material, the reader
> can't see that for several iterations, we have been
> discussing your complete lack of criteria for
> determining when chopping animals of the field to bits
> is right, and when it's wrong.

I thought my statement was killing animals is mostly
wrong. Cds are high up on the wrong scale. I'm
glad that my actions reduce them but I acknowledge
that there's nothing more I can do about it.

> This is not something that has an intensity scale, like
> your (dis)like of some food, say, broccoli. You can
> like broccoli a lot, just a little, be indifferent to
> it, dislike it a little, or loathe the stuff; and
> innumerable points in between. You simply CANNOT say
> that killing animals (except in self defense) is
> "somewhat" wrong, or "a little bit" wrong, or "mostly"
> wrong; it MUST be either wrong, or not wrong.
>
> By the way: I am no longer going to write "except in
> self defense". It is understood; in other words,
> implied. If you EVER come back and pretend that your
> belief that killing animals is "mostly" wrong is
> predicated on a self defense exception, I will kick
> your pimply fat ass. Don't do it.
>
> Your belief that killing animals is wrong is an
> absolute belief.

Um, hate to tell you again and again, but I believe
that killing animals is mostly wrong.

My acceptance of cds as being necessary would
depend on what alternatives there are. I believe
that there are alternatives in most cases. At the
very least a lessening could be sought after by
farmers. So on the wrong scale, cds are pretty
high up there. I'd need more data on how
preventable they are before narrowing my
opinion down any further.


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

> >>No, stupid smelly ****: GARDENS, not insects. The
> >>word "many" qualifies GARDENS. The word "insects"
> >>doesn't even appear.
> >
> >
> > Settle down.
>
> Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.

If my **** is so smelly, then get your face out
of it.


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

> Vegans count bees and silkworms, if it's immoral to harm animals for
your
> benefit then where do you draw the line? Most gardens entail the
killing of
> slugs and sometimes moles and other small mammals.

There's a type of euphorbia plant that one can grow
to repel moles. As for bugs, I agree that gardens
need to repel some bugs. I make my own bug
sprays when I have had the chance to garden a
bit. I'm not sure if it repelled or killed, but it worked
and the gardens were productive.

> > > > Sometimes lucky
> > > > friends of such gardners are given some as
> > > > gifts. I like when that happens.
> > >
> > > It doesn't happen very often does it?
> >
> > Often enough to get some good meals
> > out of it.
>
> It's an extraordinarily rare occurence.

Only if you don't know a handful of backyard
gardeners.

> > The only one that skewers the claim is if the
> > worst of vegan possibilities is compared to
> > the very best of meateating.
>
> That's false, ANY *typical* vegan diet that relies on commercial
product
> could be improved by substituting some carefully selected meat.

See? There you go, wanting to compare the worst of
the vegans to the best of the meats. Come back when
you want to compare other combos too.

> > If we
> > compare ALL combinations, vegans win
> > with less cds.
>
> Vegans don't win anything, the valid comparison is amongst foods, not
> people.

Aren't we playing the cds numbers game? If so,
the vegan team wins. Go team!

> Right, fancy that! Depending on the source of the food, sometimes
plant
> foods are better, sometimes not. That's all I have been saying all
along.
> The narrow vegan agenda of simply removing animal products and
claiming some
> kind of moral victory is hollow.

That SIMPLE act actually does something.
It lowers cds. That is a good enough reason
for a person to feel morally good about themselves.

> > they are a limited resource.
>
> There is enough of them that anyone who wants them now could obtain
them.
>
> > All meateaters can't choose to go that
> > route because demand would exceed supply.
>
> Everyone doesn't need to do anything, it only needs to be shown that a
diet
> that includes meat can improve upon a typical vegan diet in order to
> establish the flaw in the narrow, dogmatic vegan idea of 'no
consumption of
> animal products'.

If you feel that not consuming animal products
is a 'flaw' of veganism, boy, do you ever have
your work cut out for you!!

> I've been saying it all along. Veganism is fundamentally flawed in
it's idea
> that one's diet/lifestyle is made more moral and ethical by the
progressive
> removal of animal products from it. If one accepts the notion that
there is
> a direct link between a person's morality and the amount of harm to
animals
> one causes with their lifestyle then the rule of veganism is too
narrow, too

Yeah, you think vegans should starve themselves
in protest against commercial produce.

> non-inclusive. Your typical urban vegan, and I've been one, is beat
hands
> down by a small self-sufficient farmer, I've been one of them too. The
vegan

Gee, just a moment ago, I was reading you claim
that no one can feed themselves for a winter on
what they grow.



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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:04:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:34:55 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:26:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>>>In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
>>>>>>vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
>>>>>>the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
>>>>>>moral agency than the meatarian.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
>>>>>this might be a strong argument.
>>>>
>>>>From my point of view, as an animal rights advocate
>>>
>>>You're not.
>>>
>>>>and deontologist,
>>>
>>>You don't have a clue what the word means.
>>
>> Google 'rights' and 'duties' if you're unsure of the term.
>
>I know full well what the term means: I took
>philosophy courses in university.

And you're forgetting that I have an almost photographic
memory. Remember what I once wrote back in 2001?

"I've got everything I came here with and more. Thanks to your crapola about
EV's accepting the burden of blame for what the farmer does, I now have a
new interest in philosophy!"
firstoftwins 2001-08-18 http://tinyurl.com/5afl6

I've not been idle since then.

>You are trained as a carpenter and automobile electrician.

No. I'm not that good a carpenter as it goes.

>You don't have a clue.

I get by on what I do have.

>>>>I strongly believe that the killing of
>>>>an animal for personal gain is wrong
>>>
>>>Which is why you're a hypocrite: your "lifestyle" does
>>>cause animals to die.
>>
>> No, it does not.
>
>Yes, it does

No, it doesn't.

>>>You share in the responsibility
>>>for the deaths that you consider wrong.

No, I don't.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I now associate that flavour with
>>
>>Meat. You're not fooling anyone with your awful sophistry.
>
> These are flavours I used to associate with some meats.

Why do you continue with these lies?

> Now I associate them with soy, etc.

Bullshit. "Soy, etc." doesn't taste like meat. They have to be made to
taste like "dead body parts," which you enjoy eating.

> Unfortunately, I
> cannot stand Boca burgers.

Why is it unfortunate that you can't enjoy them?

> They've somehow
> captured the 'barnyard' smell,

What barnyard smell?!

> that only SOME real meat
> has. I notice that with both real beef and poultry there's
> a bit of a barnyard poo smell sometimes.

You have a perverse sense of smell.

> Yves fake
> meats never have that little extra yuck. It was only
> after becoming veg that I was able to notice that bad
> part of the meat smell.

Your sense of smell is ****ed up. I've never noticed any such smell.

> For those who really want
> something that taste like hamburgers, get Boca.
> Yickk. Once in a grocery line up, I thought that the
> woman behind me had farted until I noticed the
> precooked chicken she was buying and realized
> that the smell was chicken.

Maybe she farted AND was buying chicken. It wouldn't be out of the realm
of possibilities.

>>>As a kid and young teen, I enjoyed meat
>>
>>You still do. Your aversion is based on irrational afterthoughts.
>
> My aversion is

irrational.

>>>That's fine by me. It just increases the variety of foods and
>>>flavours availlable to me.
>>
>>The flavor of "dead body parts," as you call meat.
>
> Yves lunch 'meats' taste just like processed real
> meats

So you have no aversion toward the taste of real meat.

>>>Not stuff, *plants*
>>
>>Not plants. Those products are not whole foods. They're very highly
>>processed and refined.
>
> Yes,

HIGHLY PROCESSED AND REFINED. Just leave it at that. You like processed
foods that imitate the flavor of what you call "dead body parts." You
object to eating the real, unprocessed thing. You're a phony.

>>>...the tastes reasociated with a good
>>>thing rather than an unwanted thing.
>>
>>Unwanted or not, it was something for which you never lost your taste.
>>Your aversion is irrational.
>
> My aversion is completely

irrational

>>>Only in my case I'm not talking about meat, just
>>>a vegan
>>
>>vegetarian.
>
> Does Yves have an animal product in it?

Some of their US products contain egg whites.

>>No, good comparison. You're both ninnies with irrational aversions
>>predicated upon a fraudulent religion (or belief system since you take
>>offense to things being called what they are).
>
> Fraudulant?

Yes.

> Religion?

Yes.

>>>>Liar. I saw the pics on your website. Your cankles are among the
>>>>widest I've ever seen. You should get out and walk more, chubby.
>>>
>>>I'm kind of proud of my legs.
>>
>>The same way you're proud of yourself for thinking you're making a
>>dent with respect to dead animals, lol.
>
> Yeah, I have pretty good self esteem.

It's as phony as the "meat" you like to eat.

> I'm lucky that way.

Some of us don't think self-delusions are a sign of luck.

> By the way, where's the picture of my
> legs?.

Your website, with pics of the cat.

>>>They're fairly decent ones.
>>
>>No, you have hideously large cankles.
>
> Where's the picture of my legs?

Your website, with pics of the cat. :-)

> I suppose
> it's better that you have scary fantasies about
> me than good ones.

You like to flatter yourself, too. Why would you want me to fantasize
about you at all? Better yet, why would I want to fantasize about you at
all?

>>Not at all. You live with someone named Karen who draws pictures of
>>naked women all freaking day. I can see the writing on the wall,
>>Skunky.
>
> Are you sure about all that? Do any of her
> pictures have 'cankles'? Is she cheating on me???

That's for you old lovebuzzards to battle between yourselves.

>>>I figure now that you have
>>>a dislike of *******s and that's why you use that as an
>>>insult.
>>
>>Homosexuality, like veganism, is a form of self-marginalization. It's
>>an unhealthy lifestyle.
>
> It's only unhealthy if you don't use protection.

There's no protection for the mental health health aspects which I was
addressing.

> Just like heterosex.

No, it's nothing like heterosexuality.

> Why do you think it's more unhealthy to be
> ***?

I have no idea what it's like to be *** (learn to write clear sentences,
Skunky). I do know the rates of mental illnesses associated with
homosexuality. Homosexuals are far more likely to be clinically
depressed or to have another mental illness or form of emotional
immaturity. Nevermind the fact that homosexuality itself was listed as a
paraphilia (unnatural sexual expression, along with pedophilia and
bestiality and various fetishes) in earlier versions of the DSM; that
said, many homosexuals have fetishes that *are* paraphilias (S&M, etc.).

Prancing Ron wrote:
>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>
>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>they do NOT act as they say.
>
> The vegan does not kill.

Under that logic, they could eat meat, wear leather, and consume
medications tested on animals because others do the killing and
research. Face it, Twink, vegans have a peculiar set of ethics which are
not based on or measured by *actual results* but upon doing things that
make them feel better about themselves.

Claire's fat Uncle Retard wrote:
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>>>they do NOT act as they say.
>>>
>>>The vegan does not kill.
>>
>>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.
>
> Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
> vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
> the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
> moral agency than the meatarian.

No, the vegan is a shitty buck-passer who engages in the self-delusion
of establishing a "problem" (dead animals) and proposing a "solution"
(not consuming meat) and thereby thinking he's accomplished something
despite the actual results of the change in his consumption (dead animals).

>>>The vegan's moral code is not binding on me
>>
>>Their shabby moral code OUGHT to be binding on them,
>>but they ignore it.
>
> Rather, they refuse to

do anything but pass the buck.