Skanky wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
guest are dysfunctional.

Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.

He is clearly intelligent

Thanks for noticing, Bob.


and has incredibly energy to insult people.

Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.

What?!?! You're not driving a
car?

I have cars, too. They don't provide me with exercise.

You still haven't been able to show
me why having a car makes one
a better person than not having one.

Strawman.

I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.

Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml

Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
not prone to violence like you are.

You prove repeatedly that you
wish people psychological harm.

Liar. I want people to get better. That's why I've encouraged you to
grow or purchase foods consistent with your own beliefs instead of being
a hypocritical animal killer. I've also encouraged you to get help for
your drug addiction and agoraphobia -- two things detrimental to your
immediate and long-term well-being.

Calling me drug addict is good

I know. It's true.

Rick has admitted drinking beer recreationally,
but I don't see you calling him an alcoholic.

Non sequitur. Rick's drinking hasn't caused him to become an agoraphobic
shut-in like your smoking pot has made you.

Nor do I see you picking
on his overabundant typos

I accept his explanation that he has bad keys on his keyboard.

You want them to feel bad about
themselves.

You feel bad about yourself because you're a low-grade pothead slacker.

Smoking pot recreationally

Most people engage in other recreational pursuits -- skiing, skating,
running, lifting weights, shopping, etc. You just get ****ed up. And it
shows.

Have you ever even tried to be polite?

Yes, ma'am. I'm always polite.

You would have more real life friends too.

I make friends quite easily.

Even in the very
sentences above where you
claim not to wish harm, you call
him a 'candy-assed loser'.

He is one.

Tell me the proof of your insult

It isn't an insult. Look up the quote in which he threatened to kick my
ass, and then the thread in which he backed off and said *someone else*
should do it.

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
.. .
"usual suspect"
wrote in
message ...
Skanky wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical
Springer
guest are dysfunctional.

Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the
most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't
aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at
yourself
long and hard in the mirror.

He is clearly intelligent

Thanks for noticing, Bob.

and has incredibly energy to insult people.

Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than
you ever
could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that
Mercedes Benz.

What?!?! You're not driving a
car?

I have cars, too. They don't provide me with exercise.

You still haven't been able to show
me why having a car makes one
a better person than not having one.

I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is
potentially
dangerous.

Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent
threats:
You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml

Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm
upon
another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one
because I'm
not prone to violence like you are.

You prove repeatedly that you
wish people psychological harm.

Liar. I want people to get better. That's why I've encouraged
you to
grow or purchase foods consistent with your own beliefs
instead of being
a hypocritical animal killer. I've also encouraged you to get
help for
your drug addiction and agoraphobia -- two things detrimental
to your
immediate and long-term well-being.

Calling me drug addict is a good
example of your only being here
to insult. You always forget how
transparent you are. Rick has
admitted drinking beer recreationally,
==========================
ROTFLMAO What is 'recreational' beer drinking? You've never
seen me admit that. What I have said is that on canoe trips into
the bush, the only thing available at times is beer. A cold
"anything" after a week or so in the bush is what tastes great!
If there is something else cold, I will choose that instead.
That's a far different set of circumstances than your
mind-numbing rituals of pot smoking, fool.



but I don't see you calling him an
alcoholic. Nor do I see you picking
on his overabundant typos, although
you do if the person's vegan.

You want them to feel bad about
themselves.

You feel bad about yourself because you're a low-grade pothead
slacker.

Smoking pot recreationally does not
make one into your insults. Have
you ever even tried to be polite? You
would have more real life friends too.

Even in the very
sentences above where you
claim not to wish harm, you call
him a 'candy-assed loser'.

He is one.

Tell me the proof of your insult, or
admit to wanting to harm people
psychologically.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...

insults, snips, and lies.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

usual suspect wrote:



Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.

false.

Ipse dixit.

No more so than your ipse dixit. For one thing, you cannot
speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any
reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show
they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute.

Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting
animal research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire
emergencies), or fur being fashionable.

Why should they? Those are not all aspects of ethics. The one
you mention -- using animals for food in cases of dire
emergencies -- is indeed one example. Even you see that your
absolute claim on absolutes cannot be supported. I suggest
rereading Regan, Francione, Sapontzis, or Linsey. You will find
many other examples.


Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
genuine mercy killing.



There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the
research, but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all*
animal research even when it bears fruit:

They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
subjects in research.

They make anthropomorphic projections and/or engage in sophistry about
moral patients.

As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider using animals
in research without their consent as unethical are the same
reasons they consider the use of humans without their consent as
unethical. You agree with the principle.



What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?

I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected
by my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.

But animal rights supporters have.

I suspect that extremists turn to animal rights from a lack of
the more worthwhile causes of the past, like nuclear
disarmament.
-- Stephen Hawking

Why do you assume animal rights supporters never support or work
for nuclear disarmament?


I posted links to pics of typical farms. You snipped them and dodged
invitations to respond to what you see. Did you even look?

No. I knew you would post links to situations which are not
typical of modern animal production.

or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
animals would face in the wild

Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
human treatment of animals only.

Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in nature?

Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
obligations not to abuse it.



The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering
or death.

Yes, it is.

No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.

But they often have objections to the *suffering* of animals
in the process.

They put their objections aside when it comes to a good sale price.

Often true, and a shameful comment on humanity in general.
I cannot believe you make such attacks on humanity in general,
yet seem to see nothing wrong in such behavior. Surely such
people should be ashamed of themselves, and you ashamed of
them.



You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend
to be more aware..."


They do.

No. Ipse dixit.

Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.

No. Non sequitur.

If they made a conscious decision to avoid
products they were raised to use, they changed their behavior
for some reason. That means they were aware of alternatives,
considered them, and chose them for a reason. That means they
were more aware than others who simply continued what their
families had always done.


Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal
harm.

That is one goal. It is not *the* vegan standard.

The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even
address the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends
consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead
animals) than existed when one still ate meat.

Can, but does not have to.

It generally DOES cause more deaths.

Ipse dixit.

You've not explained why anything is wrong, just that it is.

You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
completely closed.


Then it was good that those producers were eliminated, and
no others encouraged to set up production.

They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the
amendment when it went into effect. Happy?

No. That created two wrongs instead of one. It was not the
fault of the law, but the fact that such producers see
animals only as economic units. That was what the law was
intended to address. It should also have addressed what
the producers had to do to place their animals in other homes
if they were unwilling to adopt ethical standards. Farm
Sanctuary or other similar groups would probably have been
glad to take the pigs, or the producers could have been
required to support them in humane conditions. That would
generally fall under standard animal welfare provisions
in most areas. I suspect appropriate laws were in effect
if they were applied. I do watch "Animal Cops Miami", which
has shown examples of legal actions against inhumane farmers
in Florida.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:46:30 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:

Joe wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
are dysfunctional.

Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,


I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.

I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
have double the brain

Wrong, I'm better in *all* topics.
yuh, ok. So anyways.....

You mentioned once that Rosa
Parks is one of your heroes.

I think you're very confused. I've found only two instances in which
*my* posts have even mentioned her. Both were posts of articles that
mentioned her. In neither post did I state an opinion about her, but I
admit I find her heroic.

BTW, why do you do the very thing you castigate me for doing?

Honestly US, I find your extensive posts that are informative -and
sometimes apparently correct :P- very impressive [ Rick, too even
though he copies/pastes 'fool/killer' excessively in his posts] but
you tarnish the whole thing with excessive smashings of character. I'm
not sure if my castigating your moments of written cruxifications can
be put in the same light as 'the very thing' you do occasionally.
Turn off the negativity and I'm sure people here may actually even ask
your advice/views on some things.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Glorfindel" wrote
usual suspect wrote:



Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.

false.

Ipse dixit.

No more so than your ipse dixit. For one thing, you cannot
speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any
reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show
they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute.

Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting animal
research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire emergencies),
or fur being fashionable.

Why should they? Those are not all aspects of ethics. The one
you mention -- using animals for food in cases of dire
emergencies -- is indeed one example.

Why should it be? I quote your statement from below,

"As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider
using animals in research without their consent as unethical
are the same reasons they consider the use of humans
without their consent as unethical. You agree with the principle."

If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not in
ALL cases? I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,
or demand his liver if I need a transplant. I am morally obliged to get help
without harming another person, or die. The fact is, you DON'T hold humans
and animals in the same regard at all, that is pure rhetoric.

Even you see that your
absolute claim on absolutes cannot be supported. I suggest
rereading Regan, Francione, Sapontzis, or Linsey. You will find
many other examples.

AR writers are great at cooking sophistry, perfect food for a gullible mind.
The "exceptions" that ARAs "grant" themselves are almost always made out of
crass convenience, "there's no non-leather shoes in my area" etc etc ad
nauseum.


Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
genuine mercy killing.



There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the
research, but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal
research even when it bears fruit:

They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
subjects in research.

They make anthropomorphic projections and/or engage in sophistry about
moral patients.

As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider using animals
in research without their consent as unethical are the same
reasons they consider the use of humans without their consent as
unethical. You agree with the principle.

That principle is a complete absurdity. You don't believe it, you only think
you do. It is almost as absurd as believing in rights of plants. They can't
give consent either.



What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?

I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected
by my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.

But animal rights supporters have.

Yes they have, yet every tofu-burger carries a death toll of "sentient"
creatures harmed in the course of producing it. If you want to toss insects
in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle explaining your support for
commercial farming. I was willing to limit the discussion to animals larger
than your thumb. (sizeism anyone?)

I suspect that extremists turn to animal rights from a lack of
the more worthwhile causes of the past, like nuclear
disarmament.
-- Stephen Hawking

Why do you assume animal rights supporters never support or work
for nuclear disarmament?

Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..


I posted links to pics of typical farms. You snipped them and dodged
invitations to respond to what you see. Did you even look?

No. I knew you would post links to situations which are not
typical of modern animal production.

How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?

or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
animals would face in the wild

Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
human treatment of animals only.

Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in
nature?

Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
obligations not to abuse it.

The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every species
since the big bang has had it.



The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death.

Yes, it is.

No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.

But they often have objections to the *suffering* of animals
in the process.

They put their objections aside when it comes to a good sale price.

Often true, and a shameful comment on humanity in general.
I cannot believe you make such attacks on humanity in general,
yet seem to see nothing wrong in such behavior. Surely such
people should be ashamed of themselves, and you ashamed of
them.

Nobody is perfect, but vegans are very sanctimonious in the way they preach
and shed crocodile tears over animals to lay guilt at other people's feet,
while their own cosy lifestyles are built on a legacy of animal death,
whether they avoid animal products or not.



You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend to
be more aware..."


They do.

They are very unaware of the lethal nature of agriculture.

No. Ipse dixit.

Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.

"the issues"?

No. Non sequitur.

If they made a conscious decision to avoid
products they were raised to use, they changed their behavior
for some reason. That means they were aware of alternatives,
considered them, and chose them for a reason. That means they
were more aware than others who simply continued what their
families had always done.

People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded than
children of omnivores. That's not being aware", it's being brainwashed by
gory videos and shrill rhetoric.



Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal harm.

That is one goal. It is not *the* vegan standard.

It certainly isn't, I'll agree with you there, even though the definition
says so.

The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even
address the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends
consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead animals)
than existed when one still ate meat.

Can, but does not have to.

It generally DOES cause more deaths.

Ipse dixit.

You've not explained why anything is wrong, just that it is.

You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
completely closed.

That's incorrect, his mind is OPEN, yours is closed. He already knows all
the explantions that you are likely to come up with. He is a strict
vegetarian by the way, he's just not hypocrite about it.


Then it was good that those producers were eliminated, and
no others encouraged to set up production.

They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the
amendment when it went into effect. Happy?

No. That created two wrongs instead of one. It was not the
fault of the law, but the fact that such producers see
animals only as economic units. That was what the law was
intended to address. It should also have addressed what
the producers had to do to place their animals in other homes
if they were unwilling to adopt ethical standards. Farm
Sanctuary or other similar groups would probably have been
glad to take the pigs, or the producers could have been
required to support them in humane conditions. That would
generally fall under standard animal welfare provisions
in most areas. I suspect appropriate laws were in effect
if they were applied. I do watch "Animal Cops Miami", which
has shown examples of legal actions against inhumane farmers
in Florida.


Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy for,
but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue, they co-opt it,
usually for fund-raising from people who do not support their radical
agendas like elimination of working animals, pets, and food animals.

"Glorfindel" parroted what he read somewhe

usual suspect wrote:



Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.

false.

Ipse dixit.

No more so than your ipse dixit. For one thing, you cannot
speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any
reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show
they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute.

They must however be based on a coherent principle and be consistent.
Veganism and AR are neither. The most common exceptions given are not
principled exceptions they are convenience-based.

You concede below that the list of examples I provided all constitute
"exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for keeping pets.

Yes.


Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or
cruel or non-cruel treatement.

Some may not, but most do.

Name one vegan who doesn't.

Me.

You don't distinguish? Why not?



They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,

False.

Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue.

No, they agree that ethics in the real world cannot always
be absolute.

They are not principled ethics if they are based on self-serving criteria
like, "the organic food store is too far away, I'll miss class"

Nor is death always the worst option for an
animal.

How is that for you to say if you believe in self-determination for animals?
It's certainly not consistent with self-determination to base it on *your
state of starvation*.

Case in point, the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon
themselves to kill cats and dogs intended for adoption programs. Ingrid
Newkirk has also admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.

Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
genuine mercy killing. The question is whether death is
more just for the animal than not, and if it is done strictly
for the benefit of the animal, not for human convenience or
profit.

What if it happens that the animals will destroy your crops if you don't
kill them? That would be very inconvenient and unprofitable for me. It would
also cause vegans everywhere to starve.



For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.

Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the most
egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?

The above quote makes no mention of bestiality.

They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock production,
and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and want an end to
humans having pets.

All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
food or in research or in production of fur and leather?

There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the research,
but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal research
even when it bears fruit:

They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
subjects in research. A human cannot ethically be used in
research without his consent, even if the research will benefit
other humans. You know this.

You're deluding yourself but you're not fooling anyone here, would you deny
yourself or your family medical help in an emergency because the medical
system is based on medical research? It's lip service, you want your cake
and you want the cheap satisfaction of pointing your grubby finger at people
too.


What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?

I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected by
my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.

But animal rights supporters have.

Oh yes, ARAs have plenty of time to ponder how the nasty habits of others
are unjust and harmful to innocent critters. It is a very theraputic mantra
to indulge in. They have no time to think about their own dirty little
secrets though, they are too busy for that. Right? Irrelevant SNIP right?



Not all keeping
of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
question that these things *are* exploitation,

I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.

So I notice.

Exploitation, like discrimination are words that have gotten bad raps. It is
not necessarily a bad thing.


Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
following "factory" farms,

Shall I post links to some of the examples of serious abuse of
animals in factory farms? They are all over the web and in
many books. Just look.

It's a popular topic for the media, blood and guts sells.

or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
animals would face in the wild

Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
human treatment of animals only.

One of the problems with AR is that it artificially and irrationally removes
man from his place in nature. This approach will never, ever work.


The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death.

Yes, it is.

No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.

But they often have objections to the *suffering* of animals
in the process.

Sure they do, so what? Vegans don't give a moment's thought to the suffering
of animals behind the products they consume, they are too obsessed with the
pointing of fingers at what others do.


If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat.

Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather demand
their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other business,
livestock producers employ various techniques to keep consumer prices
down while still maximizing profits.

Absolutely true. Unfortunately.

The same is true of all agricultural products. I would love to remove every
little frog and beetle and mouse from my 640 acres before I spray or
harvest, but it's impossible.

You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
they use.

Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
don't have objections to dead animals.

But many of them object to suffering animals.

See above.



The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't care
if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one costs more
than the other.

Absolutely true. Unfortunately. You make my point for me.

Vegans are more blind than most people, since they mostly assume that their
products are "death-free", and don't bother telling me they don't think this
because I know they do.

and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.

Which all vegans do not do.

You sure as hell do.

I do not.

Do you know that some regular meat-eaters cause less animal death and
suffering than you?

You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend to
be more aware..."

They do. Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.

You don't get to define what "the issues" are.

Sometimes you get Rick.

Rick is a good example of what I was talking about.



It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
against.

I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard.

You do not speak for all vegans, nor can you define "the *vegan*
standard".

Veganism is very simple, the only variation is in how much slack each vegan
allows himself due to his own desire for convenience.

I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.

This is irrelevant.

No, of course not.

I agree, but violations of basic principles can't be based on personal
convenience.


The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even address
the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends consumption of that
which can cause more of the problem (dead animals) than existed when one
still ate meat.

Can, but does not have to. Veganism addresses the reality of the
specific problem it is intended to address. It is not a complete
philosophy of life.

I does pretend to be a complete "lifestyle solution", but it contains
irreparable flaws, as I have already alluded to.

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course
of their consumption and/or work.

That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
for an action does not justify the action.

It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to do
that.

According to you. Others may have a different opinion. No
argument any vegan put forth would convince you.

That's a fallacy of poisoning the well. You're using it to avoid making a
coherent case.



The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.

Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
legislators by a very small group of people.

True of many issues. All reform measures begin in this way.

AR as a basis for reform measures is an unmitigated disaster.

Emotive appeal is also to blame for what I originally thought was a
decent measure in Florida a few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine
gestation pens in that state). There weren't many pork producers in
Florida in the first place (ranked 30th in pork production in the US),
and, perhaps most importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time
the initiative passed who actually used those crates.

Then it was good that those producers were eliminated, and
no others encouraged to set up production.

Animal Welfare is a reasonable, rational, and laudable motive for change.
Animal Rights is absurd in the context you are using it.

usual suspect wrote:

pro-bestiality Karen Winter wrote:



It's easy to attack something when you make it up out of whole cloth.


Then why do you continue doing that?



Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.


false.


Ipse dixit. You concede below that the list of examples I provided all
constitute "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for
keeping pets. Note you avoided the subject of bestiality, which you
glowingly approve:

Is it God's moral law, or a misunderstanding
by an ancient culture? Is there any *reason* behind the
prohibition? Is the behavior harmful? Why should it be seen as
wrong? Morality, especially God's morality, is not arbitrary.

...Bestiality is an iffy one for me: I think it is wrong if the
animal is injured, but I think the original prohibition was
based on the same definition of "unnatural" as homosexuality --
a confusion of roles.
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis," 11 May 2005

Why do we assume children and animals can express willingness or
unwillingness to engage in most other activities, but not decide
what gives them physical pleasure if, and only if, it is
connected with the sex organs of one or the other of the
partners? Why can a seventeen-year-old decide which college he
wants to attend, but not whether he wants a blow job or not?
Why can a dog decide whether he wants to fetch a ball or not,
but not whether or not he enjoys licking a human's penis?
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 20 June 1999

Since there are no social considerations for the non-humans
involved, it's even easier to offer a rational defense for
responsible zoophilia than for intergenerational sexual
activity, which has a major social stigma attached to it.
Animals don't care if the neighbors talk.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 30 April 2003

The animal, like the child, can only tell you whether he/she
enjoys the immediate physical [sexual] activity. You have to be
responsible for the rest.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 12 July 1999


Perhaps if you read some accounts by zoophiles, you might see
why some people feel some acts with some animals are not
harmful. You could then decide if you agree or not based on
knowledge. I would then be willing to give your opinion
consideration. One interesting thing is the strong condemnation
some zoophiles have for other zoophiles they think are not being
responsible. Zoophiles do indeed have ethics, and differ among
themselves on them. If you were to read some of those
discussions, you might understand more clearly what the issues
are for those who are actually dealing with them.
Karen Winter as "Rat": http://tinyurl.com/82w8j

Etc.

Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths,
or cruel or non-cruel treatement.


Some may not, but most do.


Name one vegan who doesn't. I know that YOU do, Karen, because you
concede as much below.

They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,


False.


Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue. Case in point,
the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon themselves to kill
cats and dogs intended for adoption programs. Ingrid Newkirk has also
admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.

http://www.austinreview.com/archives...a_kills_1.html
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...155298&tref=po

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
Etc.

and that just about everything in a human:animal context is
exploitation of the latter by the former.


For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.


Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?

They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and
want an end to humans having pets.


All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
food or in research or in production of fur and leather?


There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the research,
but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal research
even when it bears fruit:

Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be
against it.
Ingrid Newkirk, _Vogue_; September 1989.

As for food and leather, I have no objections to what others eat. Nor to
what other species eat. In your deluded fantasy world, a predator can
eat prey but a human can't. I want to know why it's exploitation when a
human eats beef or venison, but not exploitation when a cougar eats it.

What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?


I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected by
my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.

The issue of companion animals is more complex.


Why do you and the bitter old hag Sylvia keep pets if it's a complex issue?

Not all keeping
of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
question that these things *are* exploitation,


I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.

even if you
believe humans are justified in this exploitation.


I believe humans are justified in eating, wearing attire, and working to
cure or prevent disease. You've failed to convince me that any of it is
exploitation.

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
conditions for animals.


Not for the animals involved in factory-farm production of meat
and animal products.


Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
following "factory" farms, or how the conditions are inferior or more
inhospitable to what those animals would face in the wild (where they
would fight for territory and mating opportunities and face predators
like wolves and cougars):
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and grains, like
tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to meat do
nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's diet
and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from
petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair
of leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no
safer for animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from
grain crops with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards
they're worse since crops like cotton are heavily treated with
pesticides and defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for
non-target species. See Rick's links.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death.


Yes, it is.


No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.
They already accept that animals die in the course of food production.
It's the silly vegan vendetta against nature that suggests killing
animals is wrong, yet silly vegans do little to eliminate or reduce
animal suffering from their own diets. It's the vegans whose principles
are being violated (and by themselves), not meat eaters.

If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat.


Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep consumer
prices down while still maximizing profits.

You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
they use.


Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
don't have objections to dead animals.

If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face there.


Tell me what's abominable about the following:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.


For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't care
if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one costs more
than the other.

It's on those who oppose people consuming meat


Usually because of those very abominable conditions.


Tell me what's abominable about the following:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.


Which all vegans do not do.


You sure as hell do, Karen. You wrote in another post this morning,
"Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware..." You're the kind of
snobby elitist prig I was think about when I wrote that.

When faced with the facts, they ultimately make the same argument
you did and claim a virtue relative to the actions of others.
They're not more ethical because others are ethically "worse" than
they are (at least according to their capricious standard); they
fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by their
own standard.


It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
against.


I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard. I briefly
explained the norms in agriculture and synthetic textile manufacturing.
I then demonstrated that vegans fall far short of their own standard.

I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.


This is irrelevant, Karen. The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in
any meaningful way with reality. It doesn't. In its general terms,
veganism doesn't even address the problem it wishes to solve because it
recommends consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead
animals) than existed when one still ate meat.

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths
of living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course
of their consumption and/or work.


That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
for an action does not justify the action.


It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
do that.

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing
should be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and
images have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet
to see credible evidence that research, livestock production,
farming, etc., is a widespread abuse of animals.


Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
blind to the obvious evidence.


Evidence like this?
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3
And I suppose those look to you like traditional, healthy family farms.
Animals on concrete. Believe me, they only take their own self-serving
pictures in the best possible light.

As evidenced by my posting of your factory farmed turkeys versus what a
real turkey looks like. There is no comparison.



The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.


Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
legislators by a very small group of people. Emotive appeal is also to
blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first place
(ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
passed who actually used those crates. It was an irrational attempt to
amend the Florida constitution and its passage has caused Florida's
legislature to toughen the process of amending their constitution by
initiative.


It was passed because some people do care about how animals are treated
and wanted to make that statement.

Scented Nectar wrote:

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...

Beach Blunder wrote:

The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
guest are dysfunctional.

Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.

He is clearly intelligent

Thanks for noticing, Bob.


and has incredibly energy to insult people.

Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever

I hope you do exercise. At least we agree on that.
could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.

I didn't run out in front of a Mercedes Benze. I was in a residential
neighborhood. Who knows what they were doing. They were given 2
tickets, one for exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 mph and
another for reckless driving. After hitting me, they went through 2
fences a shed, then hit the brakes (over 100 feet away) and finally
crashed into a tree. And you're trying to blame the onus on me? Get a
grip.



What?!?! You're not driving a
car?


I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.

Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml


I said deserve. Not threatened. Your constant abuse of people is sick.

Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
not prone to violence like you are.


Verbal harm. Obscenities. Recent calling of females ****s and whores.

You prove repeatedly that you
wish people psychological harm.
You want them to feel bad about
themselves. Even in the very
sentences above where you
claim not to wish harm, you call
him a 'candy-assed loser'. You're
transparent.

usual suspect wrote:

Joe wrote:

The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
guest are dysfunctional.


Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,



I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.


I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
have double the brain


Wrong, I'm better in *all* topics.

My god, what a megalomaniac.

Beach Blunder wrote:
...
Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
blind to the obvious evidence.

Evidence like this?
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

And I suppose those look to you like traditional, healthy family farms.

I didn't address what they look like, dummy. But since you're keen to
know, I think they look like modern farms. I have no objection to modern
farming. I think even "traditional, healthy family farms" today look
more like this than whatever idyllic notion lingering in your brain cell
from a field trip to a farm in 1945.

Animals on concrete.

It has benefits.

1. Easier to clean and disinfect.
2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
environmentally-friendly.

Believe me,

No. **** no.

they only take their own self-serving
pictures in the best possible light.

One of those pics was taken on vacation (Israeli farm:
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb). A couple other were from ag departments,
iirc, and one from a feed company. Those pics show the norm. Why don't
you take a trip to a turkey farm, Bob, and see for yourself?

As evidenced by my posting

Your posts are evidence of nothing but your senility, you old geezer.

of your factory farmed turkeys versus what a
real turkey looks like. There is no comparison.

Domestic turkeys are *real* turkeys. Wild turkeys are somewhat
different, but consumers want more breast meat than wild turkeys have.

The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.

Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
legislators by a very small group of people. Emotive appeal is also to
blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first
place (ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
passed who actually used those crates. It was an irrational attempt to
amend the Florida constitution and its passage has caused Florida's
legislature to toughen the process of amending their constitution by
initiative.

It was passed because some people do care about how animals are treated

No. It passed because enough voters were duped by emotive appeals about
gestation crates rather than the facts -- like how only two Florida
farms even used them. The amendment had NOTHING to do with caring about
animals but EVERYTHING to do with the authoritarian zeal of animal
rights activists.

and wanted to make that statement.

A completely *meaningless* statement -- the measure isn't substantive in
addressing how animals are treated in Florida. It addressed conditions
that were found at just two farms. Even though the amendment won't go
into effect until 2008 (iirc), those two farmers slaughtered all their
sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?

Beach Blunder wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
guest are dysfunctional.

Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,

I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.

I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
have double the brain

Wrong, I'm better in *all* topics.

My god,

Yes? :-)

usual suspect wrote:
Beach Blunder wrote:



Animals on concrete.

It has benefits.

Only to the producer.

1. Easier to clean and disinfect.

Which would not be necessary if the animals were not overcrowded.

2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
environmentally-friendly.

Which would not be an issue if the vast numbers of animals
kept in an area did not create waste far beyond the amount
which can be disposed of in ecologically appropriate ways.
Traditional farms used animal waste as fertilizer for their
crops. It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
farms create massive environmental pollution.

Believe me,

No. **** no.

they only take their own self-serving pictures in the best possible
light.

One of those pics was taken on vacation (Israeli farm:
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb). A couple other were from ag departments,
iirc, and one from a feed company. Those pics show the norm. Why don't
you take a trip to a turkey farm, Bob, and see for yourself?

Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information on modern
turkey "farms" and the health problems created by producers.

As evidenced by my posting

Your posts are evidence of nothing but your senility, you old geezer.

of your factory farmed turkeys versus what a real turkey looks like.
There is no comparison.

Yes. I saw wild turkeys in the area of California where I used
to live. I have seen domestic turkeys at a local center which
teaches alternative methods of small-scale animal care. Even
with the best care possible, modern domestic turkeys are deformed
and crippled by their breeding.

Domestic turkeys are *real* turkeys.

They are real, and they really suffer. The modern strains
sometimes break leg bones if they are allowed to grow to
adulthood because their bodies are too big for their
skeletons to support. They cannot even breed by themselves,
because their breasts are too big. Any animal which must be
routinely inseminated artificially is not a "real" animal,
and would die out in one generation if they were not kept
going by human intervention.


Wild turkeys are somewhat
different, but consumers want more breast meat than wild turkeys have.

That does not justify what producers have done to them.


those two farmers slaughtered all their
sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?

"Look what you made me do." No one over two years old should
find that a convincing argument.

usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:


There are few
examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue of collateral deaths.

There are equally few non-vegans who know about or
acknowledge them. You are not applying an equal standard
to them.


and irrelevant in any case.

It's relevant, Karen. In fact, "don't harm animals" is the foundation of
veganism. We know vegans continue to harm animals through either
ignorant consumption or ambivelant consumption.

So do non-vegans -- and they add an additional list of harms
by using animal products. It is easier for a vegan to reduce
harm by choosing less harmful vegetable products than for a
non-vegan to reduce harm by continuing to use animal products.

Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
animal products.

Veganism doesn't even address that issue. Vegans suggests they're not
harming animals by not eating them, not wearing their hides, not using
products tested on animals, and so on.

Insofar as that is true, they are not.

That's all rhetorical -- in
practice, their consumption continues to harm animals by giving up a
fraction of an animal at a meal and instead causing many more animals to
die from crop production (pesticides, flooding, farm machinery,
predation, field-clearing fires, etc.) and by recommending
petrochemical-based synthetics in place of leather or fur.

All those things can be changed as vegans become aware of them.
They begin from a better foundation, and a better basic
philosophy, and have to change fewer things if/when they come
to know more about other aspects of their consumption.

How can anyone move toward more humane consumption based on
your philosophy of "it doesn't matter how much harm
consumers cause to animals if humans find the results more
tasty or convenient for them"?

Glorfindel wrote:
usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:



There are few examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue of
collateral deaths.


There are equally few non-vegans who know about or
acknowledge them. You are not applying an equal standard
to them.

Why would non-"vegans" need to acknowledge them? There
is no implication of CDs that is relevant to normal
human omnivores' philosophy. There *is* an implication
of CDs that is crucial to "vegans'" philosophy, though:
CDs queer the whole idea.