In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >>I don't need to know your whereabouts, pathetic homo
> >> >> >>felcher.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then what is the Royal York reference about?
> >> >>
> >> >> The Royal York hotel in Toronto, where you live. What
> >> >> the **** else did you think it was, homo?
> >> >
> >> > That you even felt it necessary to determine my general vicinity is an
> >> > obsessional act. I can't remember the last time I had a stalker.
> >>
> >> It's just a coincidence that you happen to be a doorman at the Royal
> >> York,
> >> he didn't know it.
> >
> > roflmao. Not even close, Dutch. But do continue with the obsessional
> > behaviour. At least you're thinking of me.
>
> You mean you work at the *back* door? How apropos...

There have been comments made previously that cause me to think that I
am being confused with someone else. However, holding a belief that I
work where you believe that I work, when I don't and without evidence
would be commensurate with what I think about theists who hold beliefs
without evidence and where there is evidence to contradict the belief.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> >> Princess Ron wrote:
> >> >>>>>Oddly, orthorexia isn't mentioned in the DSM.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Not odd at all. Neither were other conditions, like ADD/ADHD, before
> >> >>>>there was a body of knowledge about them and sufficient reason to
> >> >>>>treat
> >> >>>>them as distinct conditions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Ah, yes. Our cultural preoccupation with medicalizing just about
> >> >>
> >> >>People often *die* of eating disorders. What's your point, twink?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>everything. Of course, there is no benefit to the medical or
> >> >>>pharmaceutical industry to define these behaviours as conditions and
> >> >>>then reap the benefits of treatment.
> >> >>
> >> >>Morticians would reap the benefits if they didn't. What's your point,
> >> >>twink?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>Now the individual who is easily bored and restless can be medicated
> >> >>>into compliance with some predetermined social standard of acceptable
> >> >>>behaviour.
> >> >>
> >> >>You mean like eating instead of starving oneself to death?
> >> >>
> >> >>>Of course, medicalizing such states of being
> >> >>
> >> >>You mean like Karen Carpenter's state of being? You demented little
> >> >>pervert.
> >> >
> >> > She wanted to die.
> >>
> >> Is that why she sought counselling and medical attention two years prior
> >> to her death?
> >
> > Of course. Passive-aggressives LOVE attention. The more the merrier.
> > Poor, pitiful me. Feel sorry for me. I'm wasting away. She just took a
> > slower method of suicide that is more hurtful to those around her.
> >
> >> > She got what she wanted.
> >>
> >> According to whom?
> >
> > People who want to live demonstrate this through their behaviour.
>
> You're just rationalizing your uncaring attitude.

You're right. I don't care.

There are people who are actually ill and dying who want help. I have no
time, patience or compassion for those who act passive aggressively for
attention and waste resources that could be better utilized by
individuals and the community.

Why should I care when they don't care enough about themselves to eat?

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>It's hard to find times that I feel it's ok, but there
>>>are lots of times that I feel it's mostly wrong.
>>
>>You feel it's okay when animals are killed for every
>
>
> No I don't
>
>
>>meal you eat.

Yes, you DO. That's why you keep doing it. You feel
it's okay because you "need" to eat every meal that you
do eat.

>>Apparently, you only feel it's wrong
>>when OTHER people cause the death of animals. Whenever
>>you do it, you feel it's okay.
>
>
> Nonsense.

Concession of defeat, again. That's what it means
every time you do that, you know.

>
>
>>You ****ing idiot: in any GIVEN instance you feel it's
>>wrong, you necessarily feel it's ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>
>
> You're still hung up on things being absolute?
> I believe that killing animals is mostly wrong.

In any given instance of it, you feel it's absolutely
wrong. You already CONCEDED a while back that when you
write "mostly wrong", you mean most of the time; that
is, say, 77% of the time they're absolutely wrong, 8%
of the time they're absolutely not wrong, and 15% of
the time you're too ****ing stoned to be able to think
about wrong/not wrong at all.

In any one intance where it's wrong, it is ABSOLUTELY
wrong.

>
> As for cds connected to the food I eat, I have
> no responsibility there.

Yes, you certainly do have. You are an integral part
of a chain of causation.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > Refusing to eat is a form of suicide.
>
> Give evidence. I think it is an aversion disorder. Vegans develop an
> aversion to meat, anorexics develop an aversion to all food.

Everything is a disorder, syndrome or something or other for you Dutch.

I believe that food is a necessary component to sustain my life. So, I
eat. I believe that should I ever make a choice to deny myself food and
especially for prolonged periods then I am also making a choice to die.

Where one believes X is necessary to life or to a thriving life and one
makes a choice in the opposite direction they are choosing to actualize
their death.

I agree with you that support is important. When one demonstrate to me
that they want to die, I say give them the support that they need so
they can die. Therefore, anorexics demonstrate that they want to die, so
let them.

> Yes, you DO. That's why you keep doing it. You feel
> it's okay because you "need" to eat every meal that you
> do eat.

In order to maintain a healthy life, the food I
eat IS a need. That doesn't mean that I feel
ok about cds. They're an unfortunate part
of most modern farming.

> >>Apparently, you only feel it's wrong
> >>when OTHER people cause the death of animals. Whenever
> >>you do it, you feel it's okay.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Concession of defeat, again. That's what it means
> every time you do that, you know.

I see no defeat. But I'm used to you seeing
things that aren't really there. All I see
above is me disagreeing with you.

> >>You ****ing idiot: in any GIVEN instance you feel it's
> >>wrong, you necessarily feel it's ABSOLUTELY wrong.
> >
> >
> > You're still hung up on things being absolute?
> > I believe that killing animals is mostly wrong.
>
> In any given instance of it, you feel it's absolutely
> wrong. You already CONCEDED a while back that when you
> write "mostly wrong", you mean most of the time; that
> is, say, 77% of the time they're absolutely wrong, 8%
> of the time they're absolutely not wrong, and 15% of
> the time you're too ****ing stoned to be able to think
> about wrong/not wrong at all.

You even made up statistics for me, I'm impressed!
You made a mistake though. You used the word
absolutely which does not represent my feelings
at all.

> In any one intance where it's wrong, it is ABSOLUTELY
> wrong.

No. In this world, there are things even more
heinous than killing animals, so killing animals
is lower down on the scale than something
worse. Let me give an example. Some serial
killer grabs someone and tortures them to death.
Meanwhile, a gopher meets a tractor and gets
instantly, almost painlessly squashed to death.
The serial killer is higher up on the wrongness
scale than the farmer, because the serial
killer caused more suffering and because it
was intentional. There are probably things
even worse than the hypothetical serial
killer, so while he's high up on the scale of
wrongness, it's not an absolute. Absolute
would have to be the wrong that's worse
than any other wrong. I'm not sure what
that wrong would be. It seems to be
beyond my imagination.




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

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > Resources spent to "help" anorexics are resources wasted. those are
> > resources that are better utilized by people who want to live.
>
> Most anorexics want to live and are able to do so once they overcome the
> condition.

Or some anorexics are able to live when they want to live. Some
anorexics die when they want to die. "Heterosexual' anorexics are doomed
until the can address their sexuality.

The female anorexic becomes a "man" physically through her inability to
manage her identity. She becomes a man through the loss of breast
tissue, the ability to menstruate, and the inability to reproduce. Males
are less often anorexic because they have a choice to be obese to avoid
their sexuality and make themselves unattractive to other males.

> As I said, you're just an unsympathetic person who feels the need to
> rationalize it.

I care for those who can and do care for themselves.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > Yes, let's coddle the passive-aggressive anorexic. Eat, die or go away.
> > any more time than that spent indulging the anorexic is time and
> > resources wasted. There are people who are interested in living and who
> > can benefit from those resources and that good will.
>
> I get it, you have no sympathy for self-inflicted suffering. I guess you
> feel the same about AIDs huh?

Self-inflicted! (We have a winner.)

HIV, anorexia are the same thing in my view (outcomes of symptoms to
manage an issue). The inability to manage one's sexuality causes people
to seek out all sorts of means of slowly inflicted suffering and death.
Welcome to Western culture.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>Yes, you DO. That's why you keep doing it. You feel
>>it's okay because you "need" to eat every meal that you
>>do eat.
>
>
> In order to maintain a healthy life, the food I
> eat IS a need. That doesn't mean that I feel
> ok about cds.

Of course it does, dummy! You feel the ones you cause
to support your "need" <scoff> are absolutely not wrong.

>>>Apparently, you only feel it's wrong
>>>>when OTHER people cause the death of animals. Whenever
>>>>you do it, you feel it's okay.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>>
>>Concession of defeat, again. That's what it means
>>every time you do that, you know.
>
>
> I see no defeat.

Everyone else does.

>
>>>>You ****ing idiot: in any GIVEN instance you feel it's
>>>>wrong, you necessarily feel it's ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're still hung up on things being absolute?
>>>I believe that killing animals is mostly wrong.
>>
>>In any given instance of it, you feel it's absolutely
>>wrong. You already CONCEDED a while back that when you
>>write "mostly wrong", you mean most of the time; that
>>is, say, 77% of the time they're absolutely wrong, 8%
>>of the time they're absolutely not wrong, and 15% of
>>the time you're too ****ing stoned to be able to think
>>about wrong/not wrong at all.
>
>
> You even made up statistics for me, I'm impressed!
> You made a mistake though. You used the word
> absolutely which does not represent my feelings
> at all.

It's there all the same. Your feelings - I notice you
didn't say thoughts - are irrational and incoherent.
They're the product of a juvenile intellect.

>
>
>>In any one intance where it's wrong, it is ABSOLUTELY
>>wrong.

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

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article . net>,
> >> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article . net>,
> >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > . net>,
> >> >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> snippage...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Ah, that reliance on what other people think. Are you really
> >> >> >> >> > interested
> >> >> >> >> > in some reading material on the prominence of sexuality with
> >> >> >> >> > respect
> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> > any mental illness and psychotherapeutic interventions. The
> >> >> >> >> > information
> >> >> >> >> > is out there for anyone who wants it.
> >> >> >> >> =================
> >> >> >> >> Yeah, I'm sure you've looked up anything in an effort to excuse
> >> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> >> menatl
> >> >> >> >> illness, eh queer-boy?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Dutch and rudy have rattled your cage yet.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So, are you disputing my comments, agreeing with them, or
> >> >> >> > offering
> >> >> >> > another explanation?
> >> >> >> =================
> >> >> >> Read into it whatever you want, queer-boy. You don't listen or
> >> >> >> comprehend
> >> >> >> anyway. Must be your mental illness, eh pansy?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There is "no reading into". It is a question of looking at the
> >> >> > evidence
> >> >> > and drawing a conclusion. *winks*
> >> >> ================
> >> >> No, it's a question of you looking only at sources you agree with and
> >> >> reading into them that you are somehow not mentally ill. We both
> >> >> know
> >> >> that
> >> >> you are, queer-boy.
> >> >
> >> > Sources? What sources have I been referring to here. The concept of
> >> > projection is resounding here, rick.
> >> =======================
> >> Your HIV is advancing quickly, isn't it queer-boy? Just above you made
> >> reference to "...The information is out there for anyone who wants it..."
> >> If you didn't have some in mind, or havn't read it, how do you know it
> >> exists, fool? Do try to remember what you write just a couple posts ago,
> >> pansy..
> >
> > The question remains projector, what sources have I named?
> ===============
> The fact remained fool that YOU referenced them as being available.
> Another false claim? Are you now claiming you were lying, again? Do try to
> keep up with what you write, queer-boy.

What _sources_ did I reference? Poor, rick.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:01:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:58:46 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>Why should we pay such special attention to the fact that raising
>>>livestock
>>>supports animal lives when raising beans does the same?
>
>> We should and do think about both.
>
>Your position has always been essentially that using animals as food has an
>advantage over using plants as food because it means animals "get to
>experience life". This argument shows that this advantage is imaginary. In
>fact with the low cd meat you are always advocating, crops actually support
>*more* animals "experiencing life" than meat.

You don't know whether they do or don't, and in fact it would be
another of those cases which you have absolutely no comprehension
of, where sometimes they would and sometimes they would not
depending on specific conditions.

>> You believe it's better for wildlife
>> to live in bean fields than for domestic and wild animals to live in
>> grazing
>> areas. I don't. Actually I would under some conditions, but such details
>> are far beyond you now, and probably always will be. Since you can't
>> understand how any farm animal could have ever benefitted from farming,
>> there's no way you could understand why some would benefit more
>> than wildlife in a bean field, and some would not.
>
>That's false, the life of an animal in a field is probably a lot tougher,

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. Do you really want me to believe
you're too stupid to understand something as obvious as that?

>and it's death is probably more painful, but it is wild and free, take your
>pick, but all that is immaterial. The point is as I said above, this not
>"supporting life" argument against vegans is a bogus one, because animals
>are supported by all forms of agriculture, including vegans'.

Having insisted on that, it's again time for you to explain why we
should always favor wildlife in crop fields, over wildlife and livestock
in grazing areas.

>>>>>so living in grain fields for
>>>>>an animal is definitely closer to natural, therefore better.
>>>>
>>>> Living closer to natural is not necessarily better, as you retardedly
>>>> "think" it is. But I am glad to have it on record that you believe
>>>> raising
>>>> crops is ethically superior to raising animals for food. And I even have
>>>> a bit more proof that you're a liar:
>>>
>>>That's not what I said, lying ****, I said animals in crop fields are
>>>better
>>>off than animals in barns.
>>
>> I'm not going to talk about animals in barns until you explain
>> why we should promote wildlife in crop fields instead of wildlife
>> and livestock in grazing areas.
>
>We don't say we "support life" in either, it's a ridiculous phrase. We raise
>animals for products, and we raise crops for products. Animal life is simply
>a by-product in both cases,

You are too purely selfish to consider the animals. That doesn't mean
everyone else should try to be as selfish as you are, but I guess you
have to think it does. I could not be Dutch.

>and the difference between the two in "animals
>experiencing life" you have tried to promote all this time has been a flimsy
>hoax, as I have just demonstrated.

You have just "demonstrated" that there is difference between the
two, but not why we should ALWAYS choose crop production.

> > In order to maintain a healthy life, the food I
> > eat IS a need. That doesn't mean that I feel
> > ok about cds.
>
> Of course it does, dummy! You feel the ones you cause
> to support your "need" <scoff> are absolutely not wrong.

Stop assuming what I feel. I'm the only one
who can tell you how I feel. I feel that it's
mostly wrong to kill animals. It's not an
absolute wrong.

> >>>Apparently, you only feel it's wrong
> >>>>when OTHER people cause the death of animals. Whenever
> >>>>you do it, you feel it's okay.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nonsense.
> >>
> >>Concession of defeat, again. That's what it means
> >>every time you do that, you know.
> >
> >
> > I see no defeat.
>
> Everyone else does.

I doubt that. Most people in the newsgroups
are able to read and can see for themselves
that there was no defeat, just a disagreement.




--
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 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:32:12 GMT, the Gonad lied:

wrote:
>> On 25 Jan 2005 18:39:16 -0800, the Gonad lied:

>>>I want farm animals to exist, ****wit, but not because I think they
>>>"benefit" from coming into existence. This is where you've lost,
>>>****wit: almost NO ONE wants farm animals to exist out of a belief
>>>that the animals "benefit" from coming into existence. People want
>>>farm animals to exist because the PEOPLE benefit from the products.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't in any way address whether or not it's cruel to raise
>> animals for food.
>
>Of course it does,

LOL! It does not, you stupid ass.

>you ****ing moron: *I* want animals
>to be raised for food, and I don't consider it cruel.

Whether or not an inconsiderate stupid ass like you considers it
cruel has absolutely nothing to do with whether it really is cruel or
not, but you're too stupid to even understand that Gonad. You
suck at this.

>So it DOES address it,

LOL!!!! You are so stupid Gonad, but your stupidity is hilarious.

>you ****ing shitwipe, and once
>again, you lied.

You lied and said that you eat meat. Then you lied and said that
simply because you like to eat meat, raising and killing animals for
food is not cruel to the animals. But we know that's a double lie,
because you believe it is cruel to raise and kill animals for food:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:19:18 GMT

the "getting to experience
life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given
none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Dieter >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n,alt.philosophy
Subject: Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit"
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:33:12 GMT

ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any
moral consideration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Dieter >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n,alt.philosophy
Subject: JethroFW in full melt-down
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:48:21 GMT

humans deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
thing to do.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: t>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:58:14 GMT

We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Message-ID: >
From: Jonathan Ball >
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Karen Winter's abandonment of her son, and why it matters
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:15:39 GMT

killing the animals needlessly and merely for human convenience
is the worst violation of their rights.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:53:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> >I have tried to explain many times to the gonad
>> >that I believe killing animals is mostly wrong. He
>> >refuses to accept that and insists I must consider
>> >it an absolute right or wrong. I can't do that
>> >without lying.
>>
>> You could give some examples of when you do and
>> don't care about it. I would guess that you always feel
>> it's wrong to raise an animal and kill it. But maybe you
>> feel it's okay to run over them with tractors and other
>> farm equipment if they happen to be in a crop field.
>> Stuff like that.
>
>It's hard to find times that I feel it's ok, but there
>are lots of times that I feel it's mostly wrong. I
>say mostly because on my scale of wrongness
>there are even worse things than killing animals.

I'd go along with that.

>Also there are a few times it's completely ok,
>for euthanasia and self defense, for example.

Agreed. Or to eat them. Or to keep them from eating
our food. Or if we want their food, or homes. Or if they're
trying to live in our homes, or destroy our property, or
suck our blood, or live in our bodies.

>Cds make me sad, but I realize at the same
>time that I cannot change that, so I don't give
>myself the false responsibility for them.

That's like just saying you don't care. To say that
you're not really "responsible" for them is true, since
they would occur even if you were dead or had
never been born. The same is true for eating meat.
We can really say that you didn't "contribute" to
them either since they had already occurred before
you made your contribution, but you did contribute
to the process which caused them and will no doubt
cause more in the future. The same is true for eating
meat. We make a contribution to a process, and are
therefore responsible for the process taking place
again.
Eating meat has the added consideration that it
deliberately provides life and death for billions of
animals. Some of us have decided that's okay, and
if we wanted to we could also say it makes us
exempt of associated cds, since the cds were due
to feeding livestock not to feeding us directly. But
if we are to accept our contribution to the lifestock
cds, then we can consider whether the livestock cds
are more or less than crop cds. If crops are involved
--like feeding grain to pigs, chickens, cattle, etc--the
same cds apply as to eating breads, soy beans, corn,
etc. But if crops are not involved, like in the case of
grass raised beef, then there are much fewer cds, and
many more servings of food per animal death. Plus it
provides decent lives for cattle.

> >It's hard to find times that I feel it's ok, but there
> >are lots of times that I feel it's mostly wrong. I
> >say mostly because on my scale of wrongness
> >there are even worse things than killing animals.
>
> I'd go along with that.
>
> >Also there are a few times it's completely ok,
> >for euthanasia and self defense, for example.
>
> Agreed. Or to eat them. Or to keep them from eating
> our food. Or if we want their food, or homes. Or if they're
> trying to live in our homes, or destroy our property, or
> suck our blood, or live in our bodies.

I disagree on the eating of them, but at the
same time I can acknowledge that those
who feel eating meat is necessary would
feel otherwise.

> >Cds make me sad, but I realize at the same
> >time that I cannot change that, so I don't give
> >myself the false responsibility for them.
>
> That's like just saying you don't care. To say that
> you're not really "responsible" for them is true, since
> they would occur even if you were dead or had
> never been born. The same is true for eating meat.
> We can really say that you didn't "contribute" to
> them either since they had already occurred before
> you made your contribution, but you did contribute
> to the process which caused them and will no doubt
> cause more in the future. The same is true for eating
> meat. We make a contribution to a process, and are
> therefore responsible for the process taking place
> again.

No, I actually do care. I just realize that there's
nothing I can do about it short of starving myself.
So, not having the choice to fix it, I'm not
responsible for it.

> Eating meat has the added consideration that it
> deliberately provides life and death for billions of
> animals. Some of us have decided that's okay, and
> if we wanted to we could also say it makes us
> exempt of associated cds, since the cds were due
> to feeding livestock not to feeding us directly. But
> if we are to accept our contribution to the lifestock
> cds, then we can consider whether the livestock cds
> are more or less than crop cds. If crops are involved
> --like feeding grain to pigs, chickens, cattle, etc--the
> same cds apply as to eating breads, soy beans, corn,
> etc. But if crops are not involved, like in the case of
> grass raised beef, then there are much fewer cds, and
> many more servings of food per animal death. Plus it
> provides decent lives for cattle.

That's one way of looking at it, but my
health beliefs lead me to not eat meat.
So, it's not even an option when it's
cd count is low. Some farmers give
their animals decent lives, but not
all unfortunately.


--
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 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 GMT, wrote:

> To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
> is true, since they would occur even if you were
> dead or had never been born.

What you've conceded there is something along the lines
of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym
"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of
being responsible for the collateral death caused in
telecommunications.

"The most reliable way of ruling out the existence
of a causal connection between any two events, namely
your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths
it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in
the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of
your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have
occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one
of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To
be causal, your action as a participant here must be
necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged
collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your
participation here. It's a "but for condition."

I use it in response to the CD argument generally as the
most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal
connection between the farmer causing harms and his
consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral
deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have
occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables.
If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I
cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore
not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a
mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and
it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying
from him. I understand it as the "but-for condition." But
for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen,
so he is causal and fully responsible for his autonomous
actions.
ipse dixit 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5udmv

[..]

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 GMT, wrote:
>
> > To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
> > is true, since they would occur even if you were
> > dead or had never been born.
>
> What you've conceded there is something along the lines
> of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym
> "ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of
> being responsible for the collateral death caused in
> telecommunications.
>
> "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence
> of a causal connection between any two events, namely
> your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths
> it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in
> the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of
> your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have
> occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one
> of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To
> be causal, your action as a participant here must be
> necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged
> collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your
> participation here. It's a "but for condition."
>
> I use it in response to the CD argument generally as the
> most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal
> connection between the farmer causing harms and his
> consumers who pay him

Your pseudo-scholar hero Gaverick Matheny explicitly rejects your
attempt at showing a lack of connection and responsibility. He did so
in an effort to show that omnivores are responsible for the deaths of
the animals they eat, but his analysis is 100% applicable to "vegans"
and the dead animals of the field they DON'T eat.

If omnivores are responsible for the deaths of the animals they eat,
then by EXACTLY the same analysis "vegans" are responsible for the
deaths of the shredded animals of the field they DON'T eat.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > "rick etter" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article . net>,
>> >> > "rick etter" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > . net>,
>> >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> > . net>,
>> >> >> >> > "rick etter" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> snippage...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Ah, that reliance on what other people think. Are you
>> >> >> >> >> > really
>> >> >> >> >> > interested
>> >> >> >> >> > in some reading material on the prominence of sexuality
>> >> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> >> > respect
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > any mental illness and psychotherapeutic interventions. The
>> >> >> >> >> > information
>> >> >> >> >> > is out there for anyone who wants it.
>> >> >> >> >> =================
>> >> >> >> >> Yeah, I'm sure you've looked up anything in an effort to
>> >> >> >> >> excuse
>> >> >> >> >> your
>> >> >> >> >> menatl
>> >> >> >> >> illness, eh queer-boy?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Dutch and rudy have rattled your cage yet.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So, are you disputing my comments, agreeing with them, or
>> >> >> >> > offering
>> >> >> >> > another explanation?
>> >> >> >> =================
>> >> >> >> Read into it whatever you want, queer-boy. You don't listen or
>> >> >> >> comprehend
>> >> >> >> anyway. Must be your mental illness, eh pansy?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There is "no reading into". It is a question of looking at the
>> >> >> > evidence
>> >> >> > and drawing a conclusion. *winks*
>> >> >> ================
>> >> >> No, it's a question of you looking only at sources you agree with
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> reading into them that you are somehow not mentally ill. We both
>> >> >> know
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> you are, queer-boy.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sources? What sources have I been referring to here. The concept of
>> >> > projection is resounding here, rick.
>> >> =======================
>> >> Your HIV is advancing quickly, isn't it queer-boy? Just above you
>> >> made
>> >> reference to "...The information is out there for anyone who wants
>> >> it..."
>> >> If you didn't have some in mind, or havn't read it, how do you know it
>> >> exists, fool? Do try to remember what you write just a couple posts
>> >> ago,
>> >> pansy..
>> >
>> > The question remains projector, what sources have I named?
>> ===============
>> The fact remained fool that YOU referenced them as being available.
>> Another false claim? Are you now claiming you were lying, again? Do try
>> to
>> keep up with what you write, queer-boy.
>
> What _sources_ did I reference? Poor, rick.
=================
I see you still have to devert the attention of what you say, eh queer-boy?
Obviously you have refences in mind, no where did I say you provided them,
only the of course *you* would seek out such sources to justify your mental
illness. Try reading for comprehension, pansy. The HIV has really gotten
bad today, hasn't it fool? But then, why should anyone feel anything for a
queer with a self-inflicted desease?

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:41:19 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 GMT, wrote:
>
>> To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
>> is true, since they would occur even if you were
>> dead or had never been born.
>
>What you've conceded there is something along the lines
>of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym
>"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of
>being responsible for the collateral death caused in
>telecommunications.
>
> "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence
> of a causal connection between any two events, namely
> your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths
> it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in
> the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of
> your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have
> occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one
> of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To
> be causal, your action as a participant here must be
> necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged
> collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your
> participation here. It's a "but for condition."
>
> I use it in response to the CD

It works for that and also eating meat. It's why Dutch's
claim that just eating hunted meat makes a person
partly responsible for the animal's death is garbage.

> argument generally as the
> most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal
> connection between the farmer causing harms and his
> consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral
> deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have
> occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables.
> If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I
> cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore
> not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a
> mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and
> it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying
> from him.

That works for us as individuals, including meat eaters,
but for us as a group it's not true. So, if we deliberately
become part of a group of people who as a group are the
cause of cds, then we are in that respect responsible for
them. And. Even if we are not personally responsible for
them we are still contributors. Possibly to some which have
already taken place, and no doubt to some which will take
place in the future.

> I understand it as the "but-for condition." But
> for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen,
> so he is causal and fully responsible for his autonomous
> actions.

> ipse dixit 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5udmv

No. We can't slink and slime away from it like that. You
should be ashamed. Without customers, the farmers wouldn't
be causing all the cds. Whether you accept it or not, customers
as a group are causal, and we join the groups.

On 27 Jan 2005 10:56:24 -0800, Jonathan Ball wrote:

>If omnivores are responsible for the deaths of the animals they eat,
>then by EXACTLY the same analysis "vegans" are responsible for the
>deaths of the shredded animals of the field they DON'T eat.

He's right. He didn't lie. We better save this one.

Skunky emoted:
> > > In order to maintain a healthy life, the food I
> > > eat IS a need. That doesn't mean that I feel
> > > ok about cds.
> >
> > Of course it does, dummy! You feel the ones you cause
> > to support your "need" <scoff> are absolutely not wrong.
>
> Stop assuming what I feel.

I'm not assuming anything.

> I'm the only one
> who can tell you how I feel.

And you do.

> I feel that it's
> mostly wrong to kill animals.

You can't. Not in any given killing. A particular killing either is
wrong, or it's not wrong. There is no middle ground, and there's no
degree.

> It's not an absolute wrong.

It most certainly is.

>
> > >>>Apparently, you only feel it's wrong
> > >>>>when OTHER people cause the death of animals. Whenever
> > >>>>you do it, you feel it's okay.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Nonsense.
> > >>
> > >>Concession of defeat, again. That's what it means
> > >>every time you do that, you know.
> > >
> > >
> > > I see no defeat.
> >
> > Everyone else does.
>
> I doubt that.

You are incorrect. Everyone else sees it.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:32:25 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> >It's hard to find times that I feel it's ok, but there
>> >are lots of times that I feel it's mostly wrong. I
>> >say mostly because on my scale of wrongness
>> >there are even worse things than killing animals.
>>
>> I'd go along with that.
>>
>> >Also there are a few times it's completely ok,
>> >for euthanasia and self defense, for example.
>>
>> Agreed. Or to eat them. Or to keep them from eating
>> our food. Or if we want their food, or homes. Or if they're
>> trying to live in our homes, or destroy our property, or
>> suck our blood, or live in our bodies.
>
>I disagree on the eating of them, but at the
>same time I can acknowledge that those
>who feel eating meat is necessary would
>feel otherwise.
>
>> >Cds make me sad, but I realize at the same
>> >time that I cannot change that, so I don't give
>> >myself the false responsibility for them.
>>
>> That's like just saying you don't care. To say that
>> you're not really "responsible" for them is true, since
>> they would occur even if you were dead or had
>> never been born. The same is true for eating meat.
>> We can really say that you didn't "contribute" to
>> them either since they had already occurred before
>> you made your contribution, but you did contribute
>> to the process which caused them and will no doubt
>> cause more in the future. The same is true for eating
>> meat. We make a contribution to a process, and are
>> therefore responsible for the process taking place
>> again.
>
>No, I actually do care. I just realize that there's
>nothing I can do about it short of starving myself.
>So, not having the choice to fix it, I'm not
>responsible for it.

Well, really the point I make is for people who care
about all of it, and are considering whether or not to
become veg*n. I feel very strongly that people in that
position should keep in mind veg*nism does nothing
to help any farm animals, and that some types of meat
contribute to fewer animal deaths than some types
of veggies, as well as to decent lives for farm animals,
and better wildlife habitat. I'm always hoping someone
will come along who cares about things like that, but
no one ever has. Quite a few have who care about
veg*nism, but never anyone who cares about human
influence on animals.

>> Eating meat has the added consideration that it
>> deliberately provides life and death for billions of
>> animals. Some of us have decided that's okay, and
>> if we wanted to we could also say it makes us
>> exempt of associated cds, since the cds were due
>> to feeding livestock not to feeding us directly. But
>> if we are to accept our contribution to the lifestock
>> cds, then we can consider whether the livestock cds
>> are more or less than crop cds. If crops are involved
>> --like feeding grain to pigs, chickens, cattle, etc--the
>> same cds apply as to eating breads, soy beans, corn,
>> etc. But if crops are not involved, like in the case of
>> grass raised beef, then there are much fewer cds, and
>> many more servings of food per animal death. Plus it
>> provides decent lives for cattle.
>
>That's one way of looking at it,

Those are very significant aspects to consider,
regardless of what choice a person decides to make.

>but my
>health beliefs lead me to not eat meat.
>So, it's not even an option when it's
>cd count is low.

Good enough, but that's a different thing.

>Some farmers give
>their animals decent lives, but not
>all unfortunately.

Right. I would rather see people have an interest in
how the animals are raised and contribute to decent
lives for them, than try not to contribute to any.

****wit David Harrison wrote:
>
> Right. I would rather see people have an interest in
> how the animals are raised and contribute to decent
> lives for them, than try not to contribute to any.

And you can't explain that preference. I can, though: you think
animals "getting to experience life" is some kind of good thing per se,
so you think people *ought* to eat meat and other animal products just
so that more animals will live.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article et>,
>> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >>I don't need to know your whereabouts, pathetic homo
>> >> >> >>felcher.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Then what is the Royal York reference about?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Royal York hotel in Toronto, where you live. What
>> >> >> the **** else did you think it was, homo?
>> >> >
>> >> > That you even felt it necessary to determine my general vicinity is
>> >> > an
>> >> > obsessional act. I can't remember the last time I had a stalker.
>> >>
>> >> It's just a coincidence that you happen to be a doorman at the Royal
>> >> York,
>> >> he didn't know it.
>> >
>> > roflmao. Not even close, Dutch. But do continue with the obsessional
>> > behaviour. At least you're thinking of me.
>>
>> You mean you work at the *back* door? How apropos...
>
> There have been comments made previously that cause me to think that I
> am being confused with someone else. However, holding a belief that I
> work where you believe that I work, when I don't and without evidence
> would be commensurate with what I think about theists who hold beliefs
> without evidence and where there is evidence to contradict the belief.

I was just yanking your chain..

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > usual suspect > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Princess Ron wrote:
>> >> >>>>>Oddly, orthorexia isn't mentioned in the DSM.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Not odd at all. Neither were other conditions, like ADD/ADHD,
>> >> >>>>before
>> >> >>>>there was a body of knowledge about them and sufficient reason to
>> >> >>>>treat
>> >> >>>>them as distinct conditions.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Ah, yes. Our cultural preoccupation with medicalizing just about
>> >> >>
>> >> >>People often *die* of eating disorders. What's your point, twink?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>everything. Of course, there is no benefit to the medical or
>> >> >>>pharmaceutical industry to define these behaviours as conditions
>> >> >>>and
>> >> >>>then reap the benefits of treatment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Morticians would reap the benefits if they didn't. What's your
>> >> >>point,
>> >> >>twink?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Now the individual who is easily bored and restless can be
>> >> >>>medicated
>> >> >>>into compliance with some predetermined social standard of
>> >> >>>acceptable
>> >> >>>behaviour.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You mean like eating instead of starving oneself to death?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Of course, medicalizing such states of being
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You mean like Karen Carpenter's state of being? You demented little
>> >> >>pervert.
>> >> >
>> >> > She wanted to die.
>> >>
>> >> Is that why she sought counselling and medical attention two years
>> >> prior
>> >> to her death?
>> >
>> > Of course. Passive-aggressives LOVE attention. The more the merrier.
>> > Poor, pitiful me. Feel sorry for me. I'm wasting away. She just took a
>> > slower method of suicide that is more hurtful to those around her.
>> >
>> >> > She got what she wanted.
>> >>
>> >> According to whom?
>> >
>> > People who want to live demonstrate this through their behaviour.
>>
>> You're just rationalizing your uncaring attitude.
>
> You're right. I don't care.
>
> There are people who are actually ill and dying who want help. I have no
> time, patience or compassion for those who act passive aggressively for
> attention and waste resources that could be better utilized by
> individuals and the community.

Saving lives is usually considered money well spent.

> Why should I care

Maybe you're a sympathetic person, or a friend or loved one.

> when they don't care enough about themselves to eat?

They usually want to eat, or want to want to eat, but are in the grips of a
compulsive disorder. Like any human endeavor, from child raising to playing
a musical instrument, there are right, effective ways to accomplish any
task, helping people pull themselves out of downward spirals is no
different.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ****wit David Harrison wrote:
>>
>> Right. I would rather see people have an interest in
>> how the animals are raised and contribute to decent
>> lives for them, than try not to contribute to any.
>
> And you can't explain that preference. I can, though: you think
> animals "getting to experience life" is some kind of good thing per se,
> so you think people *ought* to eat meat and other animal products just
> so that more animals will live.

To be more precise, I don't believe he actually cares one bit about more
animals existing so they can experience life, what he believes is that the
idea of more animals experiencing life amounts to a valid argument aganst
veganism. One ironic fact that queers his idea which I pointed out recently
is that vegan crop fields probably support far more animal lives than the
low-cd beef he is always promoting.

Dutch wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > ****wit David Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >> Right. I would rather see people have an interest in
> >> how the animals are raised and contribute to decent
> >> lives for them, than try not to contribute to any.
> >
> > And you can't explain that preference. I can, though: you think
> > animals "getting to experience life" is some kind of good thing per
se,
> > so you think people *ought* to eat meat and other animal products
just
> > so that more animals will live.
>
> To be more precise, I don't believe he actually cares one bit about
more
> animals existing so they can experience life, what he believes is
that the
> idea of more animals experiencing life amounts to a valid argument
aganst
> veganism.

The distinction may be a bit too subtle for me. If he doesn't care
about more animals experiencing life, how could he expect it to be an
argument against "veganism"; i.e., how could he expect "vegans" to care
about it if he doesn't himself?

Of course, either way, it comes back to ****wit being unhappy or angry
with "vegans" for their refusal to want the animals to be born and
experience life, AND his utter inability to give them (or anyone else)
a compelling reason why they SHOULD care. To him, it's just "obvious"
that it is a good thing if animals do "get to experience life", and so
necessarily it's a bad thing if anyone doesn't want that to happen.
But of course, it isn't obvious AT ALL that it's a morally good thing
if farm animals exist, and given the beliefs "vegans" have about the
quality of life of farm animals, coupled with their view that NO MATTER
the quality of life, killing the animals always negates the good
welfare, then it IS obvious that "vegans" will always reject ****wit's
view of what's "obvious".

> One ironic fact that queers his idea which I pointed out recently
> is that vegan crop fields probably support far more animal lives than
the
> low-cd beef he is always promoting.

I saw that the other day, and almost commented on it. It's a good
angle. It figures that ****wit just whiffed on it disgracefully. Not
only "vegan" crops, but ****wit actually ought to be arguing AGAINST
grass-fed beef. With grain-finished beef, not only do you get the same
number of beef cattle raised as you would if they feed only on grass,
but you also get probably billions of additional little varmints who
are born and exist ONLY because of the grain being grown. In ****wit's
warped vision about animal souls getting their place in eternity
<GUFFAW>, the tradeoff of lower beef cattle welfare and lots of furry
critters chopped to bits in grain harvests certainly has to be more
than offset by the fact that billions more little furry varmints will
now get their place in eternity.
What a lowlife prickcheese that guy is!

****wit wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2005 10:56:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >If omnivores are responsible for the deaths of the animals they eat,
> >then by EXACTLY the same analysis "vegans" are responsible for the
> >deaths of the shredded animals of the field they DON'T eat.
>
> He's right. He didn't lie. We better save this one.
I've said exactly the same thing several dozen times.

I don't lie.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Princess Ron wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>Oddly, orthorexia isn't mentioned in the DSM.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Not odd at all. Neither were other conditions, like ADD/ADHD,
> >> >> >>>>before
> >> >> >>>>there was a body of knowledge about them and sufficient reason to
> >> >> >>>>treat
> >> >> >>>>them as distinct conditions.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Ah, yes. Our cultural preoccupation with medicalizing just about
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>People often *die* of eating disorders. What's your point, twink?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>everything. Of course, there is no benefit to the medical or
> >> >> >>>pharmaceutical industry to define these behaviours as conditions
> >> >> >>>and
> >> >> >>>then reap the benefits of treatment.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Morticians would reap the benefits if they didn't. What's your
> >> >> >>point,
> >> >> >>twink?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Now the individual who is easily bored and restless can be
> >> >> >>>medicated
> >> >> >>>into compliance with some predetermined social standard of
> >> >> >>>acceptable
> >> >> >>>behaviour.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You mean like eating instead of starving oneself to death?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Of course, medicalizing such states of being
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You mean like Karen Carpenter's state of being? You demented little
> >> >> >>pervert.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > She wanted to die.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that why she sought counselling and medical attention two years
> >> >> prior
> >> >> to her death?
> >> >
> >> > Of course. Passive-aggressives LOVE attention. The more the merrier.
> >> > Poor, pitiful me. Feel sorry for me. I'm wasting away. She just took a
> >> > slower method of suicide that is more hurtful to those around her.
> >> >
> >> >> > She got what she wanted.
> >> >>
> >> >> According to whom?
> >> >
> >> > People who want to live demonstrate this through their behaviour.
> >>
> >> You're just rationalizing your uncaring attitude.
> >
> > You're right. I don't care.
> >
> > There are people who are actually ill and dying who want help. I have no
> > time, patience or compassion for those who act passive aggressively for
> > attention and waste resources that could be better utilized by
> > individuals and the community.
>
> Saving lives is usually considered money well spent.

Not for people who want to die. It is money that is wasted.

> > Why should I care
>
> Maybe you're a sympathetic person, or a friend or loved one.

Or a fool, sucker, or any number of terms to adequately described those
who are duped by these "disorders".

> > when they don't care enough about themselves to eat?
>
> They usually want to eat, or want to want to eat, but are in the grips of a
> compulsive disorder. Like any human endeavor, from child raising to playing
> a musical instrument, there are right, effective ways to accomplish any
> task, helping people pull themselves out of downward spirals is no
> different.

I'm glad you have time and patience for those childish antics.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:

>> > There are people who are actually ill and dying who want help. I have
>> > no
>> > time, patience or compassion for those who act passive aggressively for
>> > attention and waste resources that could be better utilized by
>> > individuals and the community.
>>
>> Saving lives is usually considered money well spent.
>
> Not for people who want to die. It is money that is wasted.

On what do you base your view that they want to die? They don't SAY they
want to die.

>> > Why should I care
>>
>> Maybe you're a sympathetic person, or a friend or loved one.
>
> Or a fool, sucker, or any number of terms to adequately described those
> who are duped by these "disorders".

On what do you base your conclusion that these disorders are not genuine?

>> > when they don't care enough about themselves to eat?
>>
>> They usually want to eat, or want to want to eat, but are in the grips of
>> a
>> compulsive disorder. Like any human endeavor, from child raising to
>> playing
>> a musical instrument, there are right, effective ways to accomplish any
>> task, helping people pull themselves out of downward spirals is no
>> different.
>
> I'm glad you have time and patience for those childish antics.

I think you have leaped to a diagnosis that fits your apathy.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> > There are people who are actually ill and dying who want help. I have
> >> > no
> >> > time, patience or compassion for those who act passive aggressively for
> >> > attention and waste resources that could be better utilized by
> >> > individuals and the community.
> >>
> >> Saving lives is usually considered money well spent.
> >
> > Not for people who want to die. It is money that is wasted.
>
> On what do you base your view that they want to die? They don't SAY they
> want to die.

People can and do lie -- sometimes to others and sometimes to themselves.

I look at whether or not the evidence is consistent with the statement.

> >> > Why should I care
> >>
> >> Maybe you're a sympathetic person, or a friend or loved one.
> >
> > Or a fool, sucker, or any number of terms to adequately described those
> > who are duped by these "disorders".
>
> On what do you base your conclusion that these disorders are not genuine?

It is merely a label applied to behaviours that are completely within
the control of the invidividual. Lifting a fork to my mouth is a choice
and a behaviour. Refusing to do so is also a choice. When a 3 year old
is being spiteful and refuses to eat as a means of protest we don't
label this as a disorder. We recognize it for what it is. A means to
exert control. That we label this for an adult is just pitiful and
pathetic. it is the ultimate in pouting.

As I've have stated, the labeling of this action is merely a means for
the individual to avoid any responsibility for the choice to starve
one's self slowly to death.

> >> > when they don't care enough about themselves to eat?
> >>
> >> They usually want to eat, or want to want to eat, but are in the grips of
> >> a
> >> compulsive disorder. Like any human endeavor, from child raising to
> >> playing
> >> a musical instrument, there are right, effective ways to accomplish any
> >> task, helping people pull themselves out of downward spirals is no
> >> different.
> >
> > I'm glad you have time and patience for those childish antics.
>
> I think you have leaped to a diagnosis that fits your apathy.

It is the anorexic who is apathetic with life. Those who care about
life, or their life enjoy it and find reasons to live. The anorexic
wants to die and I let them do what they want.

Most members of most species and over time have required an energy
source to carry on the day to day business of living. When one chooses
to deny themselves the basic requirements for metabolic functions --
regardless of what reason they give, or what disorder you care to name
-- they are choosing death.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > There are people who are actually ill and dying who want help. I
>> >> > have
>> >> > no
>> >> > time, patience or compassion for those who act passive aggressively
>> >> > for
>> >> > attention and waste resources that could be better utilized by
>> >> > individuals and the community.
>> >>
>> >> Saving lives is usually considered money well spent.
>> >
>> > Not for people who want to die. It is money that is wasted.
>>
>> On what do you base your view that they want to die? They don't SAY they
>> want to die.
>
> People can and do lie -- sometimes to others and sometimes to themselves.
>
> I look at whether or not the evidence is consistent with the statement.

They say they are unable to eat, which is consistent with the evidence. That
means your conclusion is based on a personal bias.

>> >> > Why should I care
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you're a sympathetic person, or a friend or loved one.
>> >
>> > Or a fool, sucker, or any number of terms to adequately described those
>> > who are duped by these "disorders".
>>
>> On what do you base your conclusion that these disorders are not genuine?
>
> It is merely a label applied to behaviours that are completely within
> the control of the invidividual.

People with obsessive disorders do NOT have control over their own
behaviour, that is the very nature of those disorders.

> Lifting a fork to my mouth is a choice
> and a behaviour.

What if it had shit mixed with vomit and snot on it, could you eat it? Could
you eat enough of it three or four times a day to nourish you? People with
eating disorders to not have normal perceptions. Their brains are not
working properly.

> Refusing to do so is also a choice.

Choice and obsessive compulsions do not mix.

> When a 3 year old
> is being spiteful and refuses to eat as a means of protest we don't
> label this as a disorder. We recognize it for what it is. A means to
> exert control. That we label this for an adult is just pitiful and
> pathetic. it is the ultimate in pouting.

How does it make you feel to make this comparison? Superior?

> As I've have stated, the labeling of this action is merely a means for
> the individual to avoid any responsibility for the choice to starve
> one's self slowly to death.

The individual doesn't label it, others do.

>> >> > when they don't care enough about themselves to eat?
>> >>
>> >> They usually want to eat, or want to want to eat, but are in the grips
>> >> of
>> >> a
>> >> compulsive disorder. Like any human endeavor, from child raising to
>> >> playing
>> >> a musical instrument, there are right, effective ways to accomplish
>> >> any
>> >> task, helping people pull themselves out of downward spirals is no
>> >> different.
>> >
>> > I'm glad you have time and patience for those childish antics.
>>
>> I think you have leaped to a diagnosis that fits your apathy.
>
> It is the anorexic who is apathetic with life. Those who care about
> life, or their life enjoy it and find reasons to live. The anorexic
> wants to die

You conclude they want to die, but you have no conclusive evidence of it.
You conclude it because you are kind of an "I'm-allright-Jack" kind of
person who likes simple solutions that make him feel good about himself..

Most drug addicts don't want to die, they just want to feel good all the
time. The fact they are kiling themselves is just an unfortunate
side-effect.

> and I let them do what they want.

Why should anyone care about your lack of sympathy?

> Most members of most species and over time have required an energy
> source to carry on the day to day business of living. When one chooses
> to deny themselves the basic requirements for metabolic functions --
> regardless of what reason they give, or what disorder you care to name
> -- they are choosing death.

They don't do it to die, they do it to be thin, to measure up the standard
of beauty potrayed by advertisers. The fact that end up losing all control
and get themselves into life-threatening disorders is an unfortunate
side-effect.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > There are people who are actually ill and dying who want help. I
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > no
> >> >> > time, patience or compassion for those who act passive aggressively
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > attention and waste resources that could be better utilized by
> >> >> > individuals and the community.
> >> >>
> >> >> Saving lives is usually considered money well spent.
> >> >
> >> > Not for people who want to die. It is money that is wasted.
> >>
> >> On what do you base your view that they want to die? They don't SAY they
> >> want to die.
> >
> > People can and do lie -- sometimes to others and sometimes to themselves.
> >
> > I look at whether or not the evidence is consistent with the statement.
>
> They say they are unable to eat, which is consistent with the evidence. That
> means your conclusion is based on a personal bias.

I'll agree to disagree on this point.

> >> >> > Why should I care
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe you're a sympathetic person, or a friend or loved one.
> >> >
> >> > Or a fool, sucker, or any number of terms to adequately described those
> >> > who are duped by these "disorders".
> >>
> >> On what do you base your conclusion that these disorders are not genuine?
> >
> > It is merely a label applied to behaviours that are completely within
> > the control of the invidividual.
>
> People with obsessive disorders do NOT have control over their own
> behaviour, that is the very nature of those disorders.

Who does?

When I lift a fork, or when I get up a leave a table, when I decide not
to go to the fridge, I am exercising control over my action. When
someone is washing their hand for 22 time, who is controlling their
action?

> > Lifting a fork to my mouth is a choice
> > and a behaviour.
>
> What if it had shit mixed with vomit and snot on it, could you eat it? Could
> you eat enough of it three or four times a day to nourish you? People with
> eating disorders to not have normal perceptions. Their brains are not
> working properly.

Then they ought to be institutionalized. Anyone who cannot control their
own actions and has perceptual difficulties of this nature is a danger
to the community and need their rights revoked.

> > Refusing to do so is also a choice.
>
> Choice and obsessive compulsions do not mix.

Of course. We live in a culture where so many people are allowed to
remove themselves form the equation. Some else did it. Some one else is
responsible.

> > When a 3 year old
> > is being spiteful and refuses to eat as a means of protest we don't
> > label this as a disorder. We recognize it for what it is. A means to
> > exert control. That we label this for an adult is just pitiful and
> > pathetic. it is the ultimate in pouting.
>
> How does it make you feel to make this comparison? Superior?

Disgust mostly. I find that adults who act as children to be largely
repulsive. I find that when adults encourage adults to behave as
children, such as coddling an anorexic to be equally repulsive.

> > As I've have stated, the labeling of this action is merely a means for
> > the individual to avoid any responsibility for the choice to starve
> > one's self slowly to death.
>
> The individual doesn't label it, others do.
>
> >> >> > when they don't care enough about themselves to eat?
> >> >>
> >> >> They usually want to eat, or want to want to eat, but are in the grips
> >> >> of
> >> >> a
> >> >> compulsive disorder. Like any human endeavor, from child raising to
> >> >> playing
> >> >> a musical instrument, there are right, effective ways to accomplish
> >> >> any
> >> >> task, helping people pull themselves out of downward spirals is no
> >> >> different.
> >> >
> >> > I'm glad you have time and patience for those childish antics.
> >>
> >> I think you have leaped to a diagnosis that fits your apathy.
> >
> > It is the anorexic who is apathetic with life. Those who care about
> > life, or their life enjoy it and find reasons to live. The anorexic
> > wants to die
>
> You conclude they want to die, but you have no conclusive evidence of it.
> You conclude it because you are kind of an "I'm-allright-Jack" kind of
> person who likes simple solutions that make him feel good about himself..

I conclude that they want to die based on the evidence.

> Most drug addicts don't want to die, they just want to feel good all the
> time. The fact they are kiling themselves is just an unfortunate
> side-effect.

Self-aware drug addicts will clearly articulate that they are choosing
drugs as a means to die to slowly. They will clearly state that they
lack the courage to do so in one final act. They will clearly state that
they do it to hurt themselves and others.

> > and I let them do what they want.
>
> Why should anyone care about your lack of sympathy?

The anorexic should. If they want to accept this nonsencs then, I'm
going to advocate that they all be locked up as a threat to the
community.

> > Most members of most species and over time have required an energy
> > source to carry on the day to day business of living. When one chooses
> > to deny themselves the basic requirements for metabolic functions --
> > regardless of what reason they give, or what disorder you care to name
> > -- they are choosing death.
>
> They don't do it to die, they do it to be thin, to measure up the standard
> of beauty potrayed by advertisers. The fact that end up losing all control
> and get themselves into life-threatening disorders is an unfortunate
> side-effect.

What a crock. Let's blame society for their actions now. If the media
only didn't do X then they wouldn't starve themselves to death. Oddly, a
tomato sandwich didn't always look like shit and snot. That is a choice
that they make to believe.

When do they start believing that a salad is not shit and snot, but a
chocolate bar is? Yes, Dutch, they certainly have you hooked into
believing this garbage.

But then that is what passive aggressive behaviour is, lies,
manipulation, etc. A passive aggressive will never admit their behaviour
even when confronted with substantial evidence.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:44:03 GMT, wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:41:19 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>> To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
>>> is true, since they would occur even if you were
>>> dead or had never been born.
>>
>>What you've conceded there is something along the lines
>>of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym
>>"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of
>>being responsible for the collateral death caused in
>>telecommunications.
>>
>> "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence
>> of a causal connection between any two events, namely
>> your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths
>> it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in
>> the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of
>> your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have
>> occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one
>> of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To
>> be causal, your action as a participant here must be
>> necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged
>> collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your
>> participation here. It's a "but for condition."
>>
>> I use it in response to the CD
>
> It works for that and also eating meat.

No, it doesn't. As explained in another thread to this,
vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat,
and meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat.
There's no confusion over whether either are to
blame for the deaths they cause. When vegetarians
are accused of causing the deaths of animals, the
link between the two actions isn't apparent, and
that's where the "but for" condition comes into play.
It doesn't work for meatarians because the link
between them and the deaths they cause is already
apparent.
[..]

On 27 Jan 2005 18:24:54 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
[..]
>> One ironic fact that queers his idea which I pointed out
>> recently is that vegan crop fields probably support far
>> more animal lives than the low-cd beef he is always
>> promoting.
>
>I saw that the other day, and almost commented on it. It's a good
>angle.

Then why didn't you comment on my response to
Harrison when he concluded that vegans do not
contribute in any way to the lives of animals?

[start - Harrison to me]
>And deaths of animals whose lives vegans had
>no part in bringing about, stupid.

False, because if killing farmed animals contributes
to farmed animals by providing new lives, as you
stupidly keep insisting, then killing wildlife, as you
insist vegans do by the billion, must also contribute
to wildlife by providing it with new lives.

>How?

By killing them. According to your bullshit, more
farmed animals get to experience life because the
meatarians provide an environment for them and
kill them. The same bullshit then must apply to
vegans wrt wild animals, because they too are
providing an environment for wild animals by way
of crop fields and then kill them. Vegans DO
contribute to the lives of more animals by killing
them, according to your bullshit, Harrison.
[end]
ipse dixit 22 Mar 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3jt4e

As is usual with Dutch, he hasn't an original thought
in his head, so he copies ideas from others and then
pretends to be the originator.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> > >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > There are people who are actually ill and dying who want help. I
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > no
>> >> >> > time, patience or compassion for those who act passive
>> >> >> > aggressively
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > attention and waste resources that could be better utilized by
>> >> >> > individuals and the community.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Saving lives is usually considered money well spent.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not for people who want to die. It is money that is wasted.
>> >>
>> >> On what do you base your view that they want to die? They don't SAY
>> >> they
>> >> want to die.
>> >
>> > People can and do lie -- sometimes to others and sometimes to
>> > themselves.
>> >
>> > I look at whether or not the evidence is consistent with the statement.
>>
>> They say they are unable to eat, which is consistent with the evidence.
>> That
>> means your conclusion is based on a personal bias.
>
> I'll agree to disagree on this point.

My response refuted your rationale.

>> >> >> > Why should I care
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Maybe you're a sympathetic person, or a friend or loved one.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or a fool, sucker, or any number of terms to adequately described
>> >> > those
>> >> > who are duped by these "disorders".
>> >>
>> >> On what do you base your conclusion that these disorders are not
>> >> genuine?
>> >
>> > It is merely a label applied to behaviours that are completely within
>> > the control of the invidividual.
>>
>> People with obsessive disorders do NOT have control over their own
>> behaviour, that is the very nature of those disorders.
>
> Who does?

The obsession.

> When I lift a fork, or when I get up a leave a table, when I decide not
> to go to the fridge, I am exercising control over my action. When
> someone is washing their hand for 22 time, who is controlling their
> action?

The obsession.

>> > Lifting a fork to my mouth is a choice
>> > and a behaviour.
>>
>> What if it had shit mixed with vomit and snot on it, could you eat it?
>> Could
>> you eat enough of it three or four times a day to nourish you? People
>> with
>> eating disorders to not have normal perceptions. Their brains are not
>> working properly.
>
> Then they ought to be institutionalized.

I agree, they would benefit from 24/7 care that addresses their problem. I
feel the same about drug addicts.

> Anyone who cannot control their
> own actions and has perceptual difficulties of this nature is a danger
> to the community and need their rights revoked.

Quite so.

>> > Refusing to do so is also a choice.
>>
>> Choice and obsessive compulsions do not mix.
>
> Of course. We live in a culture where so many people are allowed to
> remove themselves form the equation. Some else did it. Some one else is
> responsible.

The person who gives up control of their own actions in this way is
responsible for doing so, but I don't wish to therefore turn my back on
them. Should a person who contracts HIV by irresponsible sex be left to die?

>> > When a 3 year old
>> > is being spiteful and refuses to eat as a means of protest we don't
>> > label this as a disorder. We recognize it for what it is. A means to
>> > exert control. That we label this for an adult is just pitiful and
>> > pathetic. it is the ultimate in pouting.
>>
>> How does it make you feel to make this comparison? Superior?
>
> Disgust mostly. I find that adults who act as children to be largely
> repulsive. I find that when adults encourage adults to behave as
> children, such as coddling an anorexic to be equally repulsive.

It sounds like you see your reflection in that type of behaviour.

>> > As I've have stated, the labeling of this action is merely a means for
>> > the individual to avoid any responsibility for the choice to starve
>> > one's self slowly to death.
>>
>> The individual doesn't label it, others do.
>>
>> >> >> > when they don't care enough about themselves to eat?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They usually want to eat, or want to want to eat, but are in the
>> >> >> grips
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> compulsive disorder. Like any human endeavor, from child raising to
>> >> >> playing
>> >> >> a musical instrument, there are right, effective ways to accomplish
>> >> >> any
>> >> >> task, helping people pull themselves out of downward spirals is no
>> >> >> different.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm glad you have time and patience for those childish antics.
>> >>
>> >> I think you have leaped to a diagnosis that fits your apathy.
>> >
>> > It is the anorexic who is apathetic with life. Those who care about
>> > life, or their life enjoy it and find reasons to live. The anorexic
>> > wants to die
>>
>> You conclude they want to die, but you have no conclusive evidence of it.
>> You conclude it because you are kind of an "I'm-all right-Jack" kind of
>> person who likes simple solutions that make him feel good about himself..
>
> I conclude that they want to die based on the evidence.

People are killed mountaineering around here all the time. Do they do it so
they can die?

>> Most drug addicts don't want to die, they just want to feel good all the
>> time. The fact they are killing themselves is just an unfortunate
>> side-effect.
>
> Self-aware drug addicts will clearly articulate that they are choosing
> drugs as a means to die to slowly. They will clearly state that they
> lack the courage to do so in one final act. They will clearly state that
> they do it to hurt themselves and others.

I have known and dealt with thousands of drug addicts and have never heard
that. The most common attitude when confronted with consequences is denial.

>> > and I let them do what they want.
>>
>> Why should anyone care about your lack of sympathy?
>
> The anorexic should. If they want to accept this nonsencs then, I'm
> going to advocate that they all be locked up as a threat to the
> community.

How does someone wasting away threaten you?

>> > Most members of most species and over time have required an energy
>> > source to carry on the day to day business of living. When one chooses
>> > to deny themselves the basic requirements for metabolic functions --
>> > regardless of what reason they give, or what disorder you care to name
>> > -- they are choosing death.
>>
>> They don't do it to die, they do it to be thin, to measure up the
>> standard
>> of beauty portrayed by advertisers. The fact that end up losing all
>> control
>> and get themselves into life-threatening disorders is an unfortunate
>> side-effect.
>
> What a crock. Let's blame society for their actions now. If the media
> only didn't do X then they wouldn't starve themselves to death.

It's a fact that before the emaciated look was the ideal body form the
incidence of eating disorders was far smaller.

> Oddly, a
> tomato sandwich didn't always look like shit and snot. That is a choice
> that they make to believe.

They begin with a more normal aversion to food, such as a person battling
obesity should develop a healthy aversion to pigging out at McD's. The
problem is that aversions tend to take on a life of their own in some people
and become progressively more extreme.

> When do they start believing that a salad is not shit and snot, but a
> chocolate bar is?
> Yes, Dutch, they certainly have you hooked into
> believing this garbage.
>
> But then that is what passive aggressive behaviour is, lies,
> manipulation, etc. A passive aggressive will never admit their behaviour
> even when confronted with substantial evidence.

You have no evidence, only your reflexive response. The evidence shows that
they have lost control of their behaviour to obsessive impulses. The
evidence shows that with proper treatment they can regain control and go on
to live normal lives. Your recommendation that they be treated with disdain
and revulsion and locked up is just more evidence of your inability to think
rationally or scratch beneath the surface of issues.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>

snips...

>> Of course. We live in a culture where so many people are allowed to
>> remove themselves form the equation. Some else did it. Some one else is
>> responsible.
>
> The person who gives up control of their own actions in this way is
> responsible for doing so, but I don't wish to therefore turn my back on
> them. Should a person who contracts HIV by irresponsible sex be left to
> die?
====================
It's his obsession that makes him do it, Dutch. He just loves to play that
fudge-packing for HIV game. It's all the rage in his 'circle' of 'buddies'.
He has no control since his mental illness is in control and telling him he
wants to die... He's been reaching out all this time, looking for help.
Afterall, he has been saying that those that commit these self-inflicted
acts that lead to death are meantally ill.




snips...

"Derek" > wrote
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>>Dutch wrote:
> [..]
>>> One ironic fact that queers his idea which I pointed out
>>> recently is that vegan crop fields probably support far
>>> more animal lives than the low-cd beef he is always
>>> promoting.
>>
>>I saw that the other day, and almost commented on it. It's a good
>>angle.
>
> Then why didn't you comment on my response to
> Harrison when he concluded that vegans do not
> contribute in any way to the lives of animals?

Why would he have, he didn't comment when I said it.

> [start - Harrison to me]
> >And deaths of animals whose lives vegans had
> >no part in bringing about, stupid.
>
> False, because if killing farmed animals contributes
> to farmed animals by providing new lives, as you
> stupidly keep insisting, then killing wildlife, as you
> insist vegans do by the billion, must also contribute
> to wildlife by providing it with new lives.
>
> >How?
>
> By killing them. According to your bullshit, more
> farmed animals get to experience life because the
> meatarians provide an environment for them and
> kill them. The same bullshit then must apply to
> vegans wrt wild animals, because they too are
> providing an environment for wild animals by way
> of crop fields and then kill them. Vegans DO
> contribute to the lives of more animals by killing
> them, according to your bullshit, Harrison.
> [end]
> ipse dixit 22 Mar 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3jt4e
>
> As is usual with Dutch, he hasn't an original thought
> in his head, so he copies ideas from others and then
> pretends to be the originator.

I do not as a rule read exchanges between you and he, so I likely would not
have seen that post.

It's not the first time I have proposed this idea to David, so chances are
you plagarized it from me.

However it *is* true, and he has no answer for it.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:19:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>Dutch wrote:
>> [..]
>>>> One ironic fact that queers his idea which I pointed out
>>>> recently is that vegan crop fields probably support far
>>>> more animal lives than the low-cd beef he is always
>>>> promoting.
>>>
>>>I saw that the other day, and almost commented on it. It's a good
>>>angle.
>>
>> Then why didn't you comment on my response to
>> Harrison when he concluded that vegans do not
>> contribute in any way to the lives of animals?
>
>Why would he have, he didn't comment when I said it.

Probably because I mentioned the flaw in his
idea before you did, that's why.

>> [start - Harrison to me]
>> >And deaths of animals whose lives vegans had
>> >no part in bringing about, stupid.
>>
>> False, because if killing farmed animals contributes
>> to farmed animals by providing new lives, as you
>> stupidly keep insisting, then killing wildlife, as you
>> insist vegans do by the billion, must also contribute
>> to wildlife by providing it with new lives.
>>
>> >How?
>>
>> By killing them. According to your bullshit, more
>> farmed animals get to experience life because the
>> meatarians provide an environment for them and
>> kill them. The same bullshit then must apply to
>> vegans wrt wild animals, because they too are
>> providing an environment for wild animals by way
>> of crop fields and then kill them. Vegans DO
>> contribute to the lives of more animals by killing
>> them, according to your bullshit, Harrison.
>> [end]
>> ipse dixit 22 Mar 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3jt4e
>>
>> As is usual with Dutch, he hasn't an original thought
>> in his head, so he copies ideas from others and then
>> pretends to be the originator.
>
>I do not as a rule read exchanges between you and he, so I likely would not
>have seen that post.
>
>It's not the first time I have proposed this idea to David, so chances are
>you plagarized it from me.

Go to the top of this post where you write the word " recently."

>However it *is* true, and he has no answer for it.

Agreed.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > Refusing to eat is a form of suicide.
>>
>> Give evidence. I think it is an aversion disorder. Vegans develop an
>> aversion to meat, anorexics develop an aversion to all food.
>
> Everything is a disorder, syndrome or something or other for you Dutch.

I claim "X" is a disorder, therefore I must believe *everything* is a
disorder.

That's pretty fundamental fallacious reasoning Ron.

> I believe that food is a necessary component to sustain my life. So, I
> eat. I believe that should I ever make a choice to deny myself food and
> especially for prolonged periods then I am also making a choice to die.

No, you may be making a conscious choice to lose weight and therefore become
more healthy. Or you may be fasting to cleanse your body of accumulated
toxins, some adherents of yoga do this.

> Where one believes X is necessary to life or to a thriving life and one
> makes a choice in the opposite direction they are choosing to actualize
> their death.

You are assuming that an obsessional person is employing a rational train of
thought, that is an invalid assumption under the circumstances.

> I agree with you that support is important. When one demonstrate to me
> that they want to die, I say give them the support that they need so
> they can die. Therefore, anorexics demonstrate that they want to die, so
> let them.

Do you always invent elaborate rationalizations for your apathy?

Dutch wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>
>>>>Refusing to eat is a form of suicide.
>>>
>>>Give evidence. I think it is an aversion disorder. Vegans develop an
>>>aversion to meat, anorexics develop an aversion to all food.
>>
>>Everything is a disorder, syndrome or something or other for you Dutch.
>
>
> I claim "X" is a disorder, therefore I must believe *everything* is a
> disorder.
>
> That's pretty fundamental fallacious reasoning Ron.

"False dilemma! False dilemma!"

Homo felcher Ron makes lots of errors.