 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Would you like to be eaten?
Dave wrote:
> > Very good but on a more serious note what if Veg*ns do genuinely want > to further their AR objectives without hurting the feelings of their > fellow > human beings too much? > > I am almost but not quite a vegan. I am opposed to all the activities > you describe not just because they are bad PR but because they > assume a greater authority to make moral judgements about issues > than society at large. Anarchist ideas about direct action are highly > pernicious and would tear society apart if they became more widespread. > > > I do not consider that I have any > more authority to make ethical judgements than you or anyone else > but naturally wouldn't be near-vegan if I did not consider it an > ethically superior position to take. I have no authority to demand > that you or anyone else follow me along this path but see nothing > wrong with presenting arguments or information that you may not > be aware of in order to allow you to make an informed decision. > Since this attitude appears to bother you I would ask that you > imagine that instead of vegansim I am advocating an alternative > cause that you passionately believe in and then please tell me > how to improve my attitude. > Perhaps you should consider forming a sub-group who make a point of not lecturing, hectoring or making out that they are morally superior. But that instantly bangs up against the reality that if you didn't think you were making the right decision you wouldn't have made it, and you wouldn't have made it if you didn't think it was a more moral stance. If it was me I'd try to use self-effacing humour more. How about making jokes? What is the collective noun for vegetarians? A smugness of vegetarians. What is the collective noun for vegans? A superiority of vegans. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Martin Willett wrote:
> Dave wrote: > >> >> Very good but on a more serious note what if Veg*ns do genuinely want >> to further their AR objectives without hurting the feelings of their >> fellow >> human beings too much? >> >> I am almost but not quite a vegan. I am opposed to all the activities >> you describe not just because they are bad PR but because they >> assume a greater authority to make moral judgements about issues >> than society at large. Anarchist ideas about direct action are highly >> pernicious and would tear society apart if they became more widespread. >> >> >> I do not consider that I have any >> more authority to make ethical judgements than you or anyone else >> but naturally wouldn't be near-vegan if I did not consider it an >> ethically superior position to take. I have no authority to demand >> that you or anyone else follow me along this path but see nothing >> wrong with presenting arguments or information that you may not >> be aware of in order to allow you to make an informed decision. >> Since this attitude appears to bother you I would ask that you >> imagine that instead of vegansim I am advocating an alternative >> cause that you passionately believe in and then please tell me >> how to improve my attitude. >> > > Perhaps you should consider forming a sub-group who make a point of not > lecturing, hectoring or making out that they are morally superior. But > that instantly bangs up against the reality that if you didn't think you > were making the right decision you wouldn't have made it, and you > wouldn't have made it if you didn't think it was a more moral stance. > > If it was me I'd try to use self-effacing humour more. How about making > jokes? > > What is the collective noun for vegetarians? A smugness of vegetarians. > > What is the collective noun for vegans? A superiority of vegans. > How about a Willett of cowards? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
ant and dec wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote: > >> ant and dec wrote: >> >>> Martin Willett wrote: >>> >>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>> >>>> a post unworthy of a response. >>> >>> >>> >>> Just like the other threads you can't, or won't answer. - Perhaps it >>> may expose your weaknesses, or perhaps you follow Oscar Wilde's tenet >>> "Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often >>> convincing." >>> >>> You're a lightweight. (Not physically obviously). >>> >> >> I didn't see much in the way of arguments, but I did see a lot of >> rather second rate one line put-downs that scarcely attained the wit >> and sagacity of the immortal "the one that smelt it dealt it". >> >> Replying to a post like that would be time-consuming and would be >> unlikely to achieve anything. >> >> Have you got any points that really need addressing that haven't been >> covered elsewhere in this thread? If so put them now, in a way that >> looks like it deserves a reply. >> > > I don't know if you're sensitive, arrogant, lazy or a permutation of > these characteristics, but here they a > > Some will loose some of the meaning that was intrinsic to the original > context; in these cases you will have to look for this. > > I may have missed some of my points and some of your responses, but > that's the price you pay. In the main I've limited the points to where I > had outstanding questions, and I've assumed that other statements of > mine remain unchallenged; for example the juxtaposition of a meat > centerpiece with a herbivorous diet being "crap". If you want to > challenge these points, then you will have to do the work. > > ================================================== ==================== > > > MW: > > "I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better > than the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has > the same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as a > hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute > to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly > capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me explicit > permission." > > > 1) What prompted this rethink? I make a point of becoming smarter every day. > > 2) What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on your > want to kill and eat a species? I don't eat people, but I don't think being human is the only thing that matters, I am trying to widen the circle a bit. > > 3) Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right and wrong? > No, but I don't *know* very much, if anything. I have working hypotheses. If I come across reasons to change my view I change it. What do you do? Do you *know* that mushrooms are cool about being eaten? > MW: > > "Vegetarians and vegans do not realistically expect the world to turn > vegetarian but they keep promoting vegetarianism because it allows them > *to be seen* as vegetarians. If nobody ate meat they wouldn't have > anybody to feel superior to so they'd have to give up something else or > actually do something worthy in and of itself." > > 4) What utter crap. This is ALL in your mind, please provide SOME > evidence for these conclusions. You don't get it do you, it's YOUR mis > perception of vegetarians. No. My conclusions do not need to be demonstrated to you. If you do not want to accept them then don't. If I thought persuading you was worth the effort I might have a go. I don't. > > PS. If you followed someone in a canteen queue that ordered dishes that > contained no meat, can you say that person IS a vegetarian and had these > traits. You can't; but I'd be sure that you would think less of them in > some degree if you suspected they were. As Anais Nin wrote "We don't see > things as they are, we see them as we are". No doubt the me that you see has very little in common with me as I am. > > MW: > > "My best advice to you would be carry on. Your propaganda isn't working" > > 5)What propaganda of mine? Second person plural, not singular. It is a design fault of the language we are stuck with. The propaganda what yous lot put out. Savvy? > > MW: > > "Really? "I'm eating a salad but I'd like to point out to you that I'm > not a limp-wristed carrot-muncher I also eat meat"" > > 6) I think you've got a problem with vegetarians! The common pattern of > events includes *others* pointing out my dietary choices, then the rest > of the table stating what they couldn't do without or can't understand > my choices, etc. > > PS. Do you recognise this pattern of events? Strangely enough no, because I've never been you. > > MW: > > "I have already explained why I can't prove it. But neither can anybody > prove that there is or isn't a god. Just because something can't be > proved it doesn't follow that it isn't so. I can't *prove* Elvis isn't > running a whelk stall on Venus either." > > 7) No, it was implicit in your response that the observation could be > made. Surely if you observe these vegetarians being smug, you can give > any examples; can't you? I gave my opinion. The expression of the opinion is evidence for the opinion. If I asked you about your opinion on the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, the scruples of traffic wardens, guinea pig farming in Bolivia and female circumcision in Sudan I have no doubt you would be pleased to offer an opinion or two but would feel rather harassed if you were then pushed to give examples from your own experience to back up your holding of any of those opinions. An expression of an opinion does not require the production of examples or evidence. A failure to produce evidence on demand does not mean a lack of an opinion or a lack of a legitimate reason to have an opinion. You asked for evidence to back up my opinion and I declined to provide any. OK. Can we agree on those facts and move on? > > MW: > > "From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise > animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I > have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know > that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel. It can become cruel > if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to reduce the standards > of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket > buyers that are determining how cruel farming is. > > I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just because > some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I think drink driving is > a terrible thing but I don't see how going teetotal myself and whingeing > on about it to anybody who will listen (while making out that I'm not > trying to portray myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent > it. > > If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is an issue > with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should be addressed > directly and I will have no problem in paying more for food as a > consequence." > > 8) Do you buy your food from the supermarket? Do you know or > particularly care where it comes from? Of course I care, but I haven't the time, energy, money or enthusiasm to fight and win every consumer battle. Life in general and shopping in particular is tough enough without every ingredient on every packet being a major issue. If you are totally happy with all the moral and ethical connotations of every purchase decision you make I'm very happy for you. I never have and never will judge myself by what I buy, eat or wear. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
ant and dec wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote: > How about a Willett of cowards? What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Martin Willett wrote: > ant and dec wrote: > > Martin Willett wrote: > > > How about a Willett of cowards? > > What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour lecture you just gave us:-) > -- > Martin Willett > > > http://mwillett.org |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"ant and dec" > wrote in message ... > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" > wrote >>> Dutch wrote: >> >> [..] >> >>>>>>> 2) What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on >>>>>>> your want to kill and eat a species? >> >>>>>> Since we all directly or indirectly kill animal life more or less >>>>>> constantly, moral agency is a reasonable criterion to draw a firm >>>>>> prohibition. >>>>> A fallacious argument based on "Common Practice". >>>> Show how it is fallacious. Are we not to draw a line somewhere? I don't >>>> understand your point. >>> I think you are feigning ignorance. >>> >>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-practice.html >>> >>> "Since we all directly or indirectly kill animal life more or less >>> constantly, moral agency is a reasonable criterion to draw a firm >>> prohibition." is a perfect example. >> >> I think it's a very poor example of that fallacy, and the reason I say so >> is that I did not attempt to use the commoness of killing animals to >> excuse doing it, I used it to place the "drawing of a line" in context. I >> will re-state. The killing and harming of animals directly and indirectly >> is a normal part of life, particularly if one includes *all* forms of >> animal life, such as the ones in our hair and on our skin, insects, >> rodents etc.. and all forms of activities and processes. It's the nature >> of the biosphere in which we live, animal life is ubiquitous. So in that >> context, as ethical beings, it is expected, natural, normal to "draw a >> line" in the sand, and say we will NOT kill certain animals based on some >> criteria. He suggested intelligence and moral capabilities as ones he >> considers, which seem pretty common and reasonable ones to me. > > You've now explained the context of your response and given it more > detail, but I don't feel I've got any nearer understanding why you've > drawn the line there, except it's "common and reasonable", which don't > seem good reasons to me. What more can we aspire to more than to be reasonable? >>>>>> It is certainly more rational than the place vegans draw it, >>>>> Another fallacious argument. >>>> Please show how. >>> Again, I think you know why. Because you think you are "better" doesn't >>> make you right. >> >> That's not the reason I gave. The reason is that the vegan "line" makes >> no sense to me is that it essentially bases the line on the disposition >> of the corpse, i.e. as you said yourself, to "kill and eat" an animal is >> immoral, as in hunting or animal agriculture, but to kill in agriculture >> in general is ignored, as in poisoning of pests to protect crops. > > The two 'lines' are entirely different, one aim is to kill, and can > normally be avoided. The other; crop deaths may be necessary as the are > conflicting interests where there may be no viable alternative. That's not accurate, the aim in the first case is not to kill, the aim is to obtain satisfying, nutritious food, killing is also "necessary as the are conflicting interests where there may be no viable alternative". The difference between them is not as great as you have imagined it to be. > Using a travel analogy; we all have an interest in travel (personal or > food transport, etc), but this does conflict with an interest in personal > and others safety (people are hurt and killed). Sometime these deaths are > caused by reckless driving, intentional racing and other inappropriately > behaviors. > > In the same way some farmers may act inappropriately and needlessly kill, > but with policies such as those promulgated by the Soil Association these > can be minimised. > > We have a need to travel, we have a need to eat; both needs can be met by > a policy of minimising the risk of and lessening the impact of any > conflict of interest. These kinds of goals can be accomplished in various ways without totally eliminating meat production from the human landscape. [..] >> I think I am addressing the core issue. You posed the question "What >> difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on your want to >> *kill and eat* a species?" My question to you is, what criterion would >> you suggest? As I said, the usual vegan criterion seems nonsensical. > > What usual vegan criterion? According to the Vegan Society, simply abstinence from the use of animal products, a binary rule that adherents pretend solves a complex "problem" that most people do not even consider a problem. > To put my criterion in it's simplest form; I would suggest looking at the > impact on the interests of all the stakeholders of the action being taken > to satisfy any need, in light of the alternatives. The stakeholders would > obviously have different interests, but all have an interest in being > alive and being free from pain. Which may involve using animal products in some circumstances. [..] >> The notion that it's wrong to "kill and eat" per se is central the the >> idea of veganism. It's an exaggeration of the usual idea that it's wrong >> to eat humans, pets, apes or symbolic animals. > > I think this is the nearest we'll get an agreement. I'm not a vegan partly > because I think it is only part of a solution, and strict adherence to > it's rules may not give the best solution to all stakeholders, in all > circumstances. Absolutely right, just as I said above. That is all I have been saying. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"Dave" > wrote >> The discomfort of others translates into comfort for the vegan. > > I think this is an unfair characterisation of veg*n psychology. > A sweeping generalization at the very least. Was that what you > were like during your time as a vegetarian? More or less. I was always aware on some level of the belief that my diet was compassionate compared with the diets of people who ate meat, and didn't always hesitate to make subtle comments. Even without comments from me, I would notice how people who learned I was a vegetarian would frequently say nervously, almost apologetically that "they didn't eat red meat" as if they were afraid to offend me. This was a source of odd satisfaction for me and it was based on a fundamental fallacy, because I never considered the collateral impact of agriculture in general and my own lifestyle, I only focused on the meat I *didn't* demand. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"Dave" > wrote > I do not consider that I have any > more authority to make ethical judgements than you or anyone else > but naturally wouldn't be near-vegan if I did not consider it an > ethically superior position to take. I have no authority to demand > that you or anyone else follow me along this path but see nothing > wrong with presenting arguments or information that you may not > be aware of in order to allow you to make an informed decision. > Since this attitude appears to bother you I would ask that you > imagine that instead of vegansim I am advocating an alternative > cause that you passionately believe in and then please tell me > how to improve my attitude. Just be aware that abstinence from animal products does not make your diet or your lifestyle death-free or even necessarily superior even by the standards you have presumably set up, the minimizing of impact on animals. This knowledge sets you apart from the kind of self-righteous vegans we talk about. I would say dispense with using the term vegan completely, and just be an "intelligent vegetarian" who does not agonize or proselytize excessively about food. I have been a self-sufficent farmer AND an urban vegan in various times of my life and I'm telling you that my personal impact was unquestionably much less in the former case, even though I raised and used livestock. I have said, not completely in jest, that every vegetarian should inoculate himself against self-righteousness from time to time by sitting down to a nice free-range organic steak. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"ant and dec" > wrote > Martin Willett wrote: [..] >> If it was me I'd try to use self-effacing humour more. How about making >> jokes? >> >> What is the collective noun for vegetarians? A smugness of vegetarians. >> >> What is the collective noun for vegans? A superiority of vegans. >> > > How about a Willett of cowards? How about an anal-retentive-asshole of ant & decs? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"Dave" > wrote > > Martin Willett wrote: >> ant and dec wrote: >> > Martin Willett wrote: >> >> > How about a Willett of cowards? >> >> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? > > He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour > lecture you just gave us:-) Irony noted, no humor detected. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
pearl wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote in message ... > >>pearl wrote: > >>I've been looking for more evidence of brain development and came across >>this article "Evolution of the brainstem orofacial motor system in >>primates: a comparative study of trigeminal, facial, and hypoglossal >>nuclei" from the Journal of Human Evolution. >> >>It's currently free on the following link. >> >>It looks at brain stem development in terms of volume and grey level >>index etc, and comparing these to the function of oral-facial muscles. >> >>As a lay person it would seem to support the theory that brain >>development in hominids is related to visual development, in this case >>visual communication. >> >>http://tinyurl.com/ckxq9 > > > Yes. Very interesting. Thank you. > Have you ever been interested in anything that could not be used to bolster the conclusions you made before looking at any evidence? -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Dave wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote: >> ant and dec wrote: >>> Martin Willett wrote: >>> How about a Willett of cowards? >> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? > > He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour > lecture you just gave us:-) Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. :-) > >> -- >> Martin Willett >> >> >> http://mwillett.org > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote >> Martin Willett wrote: > > [..] > >>> If it was me I'd try to use self-effacing humour more. How about making >>> jokes? >>> >>> What is the collective noun for vegetarians? A smugness of vegetarians. >>> >>> What is the collective noun for vegans? A superiority of vegans. >>> >> How about a Willett of cowards? > > How about an anal-retentive-asshole of ant & decs? The derogatory collective noun joke is quite old now; so you can go back to your crayons. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Martin Willett wrote:
> ant and dec wrote: >> Martin Willett wrote: >> >>> ant and dec wrote: >>> >>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>> >>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>> >>>>> a post unworthy of a response. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just like the other threads you can't, or won't answer. - Perhaps it >>>> may expose your weaknesses, or perhaps you follow Oscar Wilde's >>>> tenet "Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often >>>> convincing." >>>> >>>> You're a lightweight. (Not physically obviously). >>>> >>> >>> I didn't see much in the way of arguments, but I did see a lot of >>> rather second rate one line put-downs that scarcely attained the wit >>> and sagacity of the immortal "the one that smelt it dealt it". >>> >>> Replying to a post like that would be time-consuming and would be >>> unlikely to achieve anything. >>> >>> Have you got any points that really need addressing that haven't been >>> covered elsewhere in this thread? If so put them now, in a way that >>> looks like it deserves a reply. >>> >> >> I don't know if you're sensitive, arrogant, lazy or a permutation of >> these characteristics, but here they a >> >> Some will loose some of the meaning that was intrinsic to the original >> context; in these cases you will have to look for this. >> >> I may have missed some of my points and some of your responses, but >> that's the price you pay. In the main I've limited the points to where >> I had outstanding questions, and I've assumed that other statements of >> mine remain unchallenged; for example the juxtaposition of a meat >> centerpiece with a herbivorous diet being "crap". If you want to >> challenge these points, then you will have to do the work. >> >> ================================================== ==================== >> >> >> MW: >> >> "I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better >> than the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has >> the same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as >> a hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or >> contribute to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that >> animal is clearly capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have >> given me explicit permission." >> >> >> 1) What prompted this rethink? > > > I make a point of becoming smarter every day. I think there's a more accurate description of the prompt for the rethink, but perhaps you lack something that allows you to state it. > >> >> 2) What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on >> your want to kill and eat a species? > > I don't eat people, but I don't think being human is the only thing that > matters, I am trying to widen the circle a bit. > >> >> 3) Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right and >> wrong? >> > > No, but I don't *know* very much, if anything. I have working > hypotheses. If I come across reasons to change my view I change it. What > do you do? Do you *know* that mushrooms are cool about being eaten? There is no viable biological infrastructure that would provide a mechanism to facilitate such a decision in a mushroom; like a brain, nervous system, etc. A pig has all these. > >> MW: >> >> "Vegetarians and vegans do not realistically expect the world to turn >> vegetarian but they keep promoting vegetarianism because it allows >> them *to be seen* as vegetarians. If nobody ate meat they wouldn't >> have anybody to feel superior to so they'd have to give up something >> else or actually do something worthy in and of itself." >> >> 4) What utter crap. This is ALL in your mind, please provide SOME >> evidence for these conclusions. You don't get it do you, it's YOUR mis >> perception of vegetarians. > > No. My conclusions do not need to be demonstrated to you. If you do not > want to accept them then don't. If I thought persuading you was worth > the effort I might have a go. I don't. As I thought. > >> >> PS. If you followed someone in a canteen queue that ordered dishes >> that contained no meat, can you say that person IS a vegetarian and >> had these traits. You can't; but I'd be sure that you would think less >> of them in some degree if you suspected they were. As Anais Nin wrote >> "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are". > > No doubt the me that you see has very little in common with me as I am. I note you haven't disputed anything I have written, so I guess that part is in common. > >> >> MW: >> >> "My best advice to you would be carry on. Your propaganda isn't working" >> >> 5)What propaganda of mine? > > Second person plural, not singular. It is a design fault of the language > we are stuck with. The propaganda what yous lot put out. Savvy? The propaganda put out by vegetarians pails to the insignificant, certainly when compared to non vegetarian propaganda. > >> >> MW: >> >> "Really? "I'm eating a salad but I'd like to point out to you that I'm >> not a limp-wristed carrot-muncher I also eat meat"" >> >> 6) I think you've got a problem with vegetarians! The common pattern >> of events includes *others* pointing out my dietary choices, then the >> rest of the table stating what they couldn't do without or can't >> understand my choices, etc. >> >> PS. Do you recognise this pattern of events? > > > Strangely enough no, because I've never been you. You're purposely avoiding the question. You do not have to be me to answer it, as you well know. > >> >> MW: >> >> "I have already explained why I can't prove it. But neither can >> anybody prove that there is or isn't a god. Just because something >> can't be proved it doesn't follow that it isn't so. I can't *prove* >> Elvis isn't running a whelk stall on Venus either." >> >> 7) No, it was implicit in your response that the observation could be >> made. Surely if you observe these vegetarians being smug, you can give >> any examples; can't you? > > I gave my opinion. The expression of the opinion is evidence for the > opinion. > > If I asked you about your opinion on the existence of the Loch Ness > Monster, UFOs, the scruples of traffic wardens, guinea pig farming in > Bolivia and female circumcision in Sudan I have no doubt you would be > pleased to offer an opinion or two but would feel rather harassed if you > were then pushed to give examples from your own experience to back up > your holding of any of those opinions. > > An expression of an opinion does not require the production of examples > or evidence. > > A failure to produce evidence on demand does not mean a lack of an > opinion or a lack of a legitimate reason to have an opinion. > > You asked for evidence to back up my opinion and I declined to provide > any. OK. Can we agree on those facts and move on? Agreed; it's your opinion, not fact. > >> >> MW: >> >> "From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise >> animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, >> I have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I >> know that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel. It can >> become cruel if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to >> reduce the standards of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the >> banks and supermarket buyers that are determining how cruel farming is. >> >> I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just because >> some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I think drink driving >> is a terrible thing but I don't see how going teetotal myself and >> whingeing on about it to anybody who will listen (while making out >> that I'm not trying to portray myself as morally superior) is the best >> way to prevent it. >> >> If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is an >> issue with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should be >> addressed directly and I will have no problem in paying more for food >> as a consequence." >> >> 8) Do you buy your food from the supermarket? Do you know or >> particularly care where it comes from? > > Of course I care, but I haven't the time, energy, money or enthusiasm to > fight and win every consumer battle. There's no battle in reading a label and making minor changes to your lifestyle. >Life in general and shopping in > particular is tough enough without every ingredient on every packet > being a major issue. It must be really tough reading those labels, I guess not as tough as some of the lives you affect. > > If you are totally happy with all the moral and ethical connotations of > every purchase decision you make I'm very happy for you. I never have > and never will judge myself by what I buy, eat or wear. No I'm not happy with all the moral and ethical connotations of every purchase decision I make, but I do care enough to read labels and make changes. I don't expect you to respond to this, particularly in light of the revelation that your life is so tough. Perhaps the self confessed hypocrisy of eating sentient animals is an additional burden. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... > > > >>pearl wrote: > >> > >>>"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>S. Maizlich wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an > >>>>>indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and > >>>>>indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of > >>>>>protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an > >>>>>organizing principle of human activity. > >>>> > >>>>The organizational role is absolutely critical. There is no reason for a > >>>>vegetarian species to develop sophisticated communication because they > >>>>don't have anything sophisticated to communicate. Fruits and tubers > >>>>don't require teamwork or sophisticated tools to subdue, but our > >>>>ancestors brought down mammoths, give them some respect. > >>>> > >>>>Belittling the role of meat and hunting in evolution is as much > >>>>pseudo-science as creationism is. The collection of snippets of research > >>>>here and there that seem to offer some suggestion of support for a pre > >>>>decided stance is the antithesis of the scientific method. > >>>> > >>>>Human evolution required meat eating and hunting. That is not to say > >>>>that man was ever exclusively carnivorous, the only largely carnivorous > >>>>hominid was /Homo neanderthalensis/, who was almost as carnivorous as a > >>>>polar bear. But as far as anybody can tell all our direct ancestors were > >>>>omnivorous but more carnivorous than modern chimpanzees and that change > >>>>in diet was significant for the development of larger brains both in > >>>>allowing expansion and requiring it. > >>> > >>> > >>>"It is highly probable that plant foods were indeed the major part > >>>of the early hominid economy, and unequivocal evidence for hunting > >>>as against scavenging carrion does not appear until relatively late in > >>>the fossil record, probably not earlier than half-a-million years ago." > >>>Leakey, The Making of Mankind > >>> > >>>Frugivory is an intellectually demanding feeding behaviour demanding > >>>the development of strategic planning, whereas the folivores feeding > >>>behavior engages relatively simple tactics. According to Caroline E. G. > >>>Tutin et al. 'Allometric analyses suggest a relation between brain size > >>>(relative to body mass) and diet, with frugivores having relatively larger > >>>brains . . . Maintaining a frugivorous diet presents huge intellectual > >>>challenges of memory and spatial mapping compared with the relative > >>>ease of harvesting abundant foliage foods.' Tutin et al. also say that: > >>> > >>>"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary > >>>divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, > >>>and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion & > >>>Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " > >>>Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in > >>>the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions: > >>>Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270 > >>>...' > >>>http://tinyurl.com/dahps > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Yes, as I said, the collection and circulation of snippets of > >>information which support the stance decided upon independently of any > >>evidence, a stance that needs no support, is the antithesis of the > >>scientific method. > > > > > > The information is based on evidence. > > And the bit you have quoted, or re-quoted, or re-re-quoted you believe > supports your argument. Does the entire work? Yes. It certainly does. Skeletal remains from as recently as 12,000 years ago show that meat played a small role, if any. > >>The copy and paste of chapter and verse citation is absolutely typical > >>of the Creationist, another species of mass debater which uses > >>scientific research like a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than > >>illumination. > >> > >>Normally when I come across copy and paste citations in Creationist > >>rants I copy a section of the text, including the citation, and see how > >>many times it comes up. > > > > > > Waffle. > > That is a spurious accusation. Look, I am not interested in your personal head-trips. Ok? > >> "that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion" 9 > >>hits for Google, 12 for Google Groups. It goes up to 18 if I leave out > >>the citation. This makes me just a tad suspicious about the quotation. I > >>wonder if pearl can tell me what the next chapter says? In creationist > >>circles quotations from scientists that can be interpreted (or > >>misinterpreted) as supporting their cause, however obliquely, are traded > >>avidly like relics of the saints and posted by people who haven't a clue > >>about science but know what they believe. More waffle. You don't like the evidence - your problem. > >>Our ancestors of course ate fruit for millions of years. This fruit > >>eating is written all over our bodies, especially in our binocular > >>vision and excellent colour discrimination. I don't know of any > >>evolutionary biologists that do not think we evolved from fruit eaters. > >>Of course we evolved from monkeys, and fruit-eating monkeys are smarter > >>than animals that eat leaves, who wouldn't expect a monkey to outwit a > >>sheep? But we left fruit eating behind to become omnivores. Armed with > >>excellent vision, grasping hands and an agile brain but lacking > >>offensive or defensive weaponry of any kinds a change in habitat that > >>led to a reduction in forests (and therefore fruit) and an increase in > >>open grasslands gave us a push in a new direction. We took to eating > >>tubers, digging them up with sticks as well as hands, we scavenged > >>carrion and we killed what we could catch. Over time what we could catch > >>got bigger, until it encompassed everything we decided we wanted to catch. > > > > > > 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have > > been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance > > on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not > > least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals. > > From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods > > were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during > > the interglacials. ' > > http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm > > > > 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium > > until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current > > calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet > > and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, > > we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust > > to by physiologic mechanisms. > > > > The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small > > changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically > > identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late > > Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was > > much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to > > plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17 > > Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high > > calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy > > products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years > > ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day > > for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had > > a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones. > > As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of > > 17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical > > thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with > > an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17 > > > > High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both > > high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the > > United States.10,11 > > .. > > The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss > > were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical > > activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded > > even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was > > high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 > > ...' > > http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html > > > > John 11:35 ? > What has any of that got to do with the argument I was advancing? Are > you trying to demonstrate that you have a collection of quotes? I > suggested you would have. Doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions, eh. Tough. > >>You cannot live as a fruit-eater outside of tropical forests for the > >>simple reason that there are no fruits available for months at a time in > >>most other environments. There are no fruit-dependent species of mammal > >>of any kind living in Europe. Temperate zone fruits do get eaten, but > >>not by fruit-eating specialists like monkeys, which are confined to the > >>tropics. As modern humans were living well outside the tropics over > >>100,000 years ago you can conclude that they must have had an omnivorous > >>diet of some kind, unless you believe breatharians are not charlatans. > >>They were not big game hunters but they were not vegans or fruitarians > >>either. > > > > > > These days there's nothing to prevent most people being vegan. > > Apart from the fact that they don't want to be perhaps? Does that count > as a reason? You 'don't want to', because you are addicted to animal fat. 'The Longest River: Denial Denial is a hallmark of someone who is engaging in this addiction pattern but has not accepted that his or her behavior is out of control. This denial is a psychological defense mechanism that enables a person to continue to engage in a behavior in spite of relatively obvious negative consequences on his or her life. It's a way to protect oneself from seeing or feeling things that are unpleasant. ... denial permits one to distort reality, a very powerful psychological defense; it can have devastating consequences on our lives, and the ability to disregard such negative consequences while continuing the behavior is a hallmark of denial. ....' http://www.addictionrecov.org/paradi...greenfield.htm. > Do you support freedom of choice and democracy or do you > think your morality and your diet should be imposed on humanity for its > own good? You don't support animals' freedom of choice; you think your 'morality' and your diet should be imposed on other creatures for your own good. Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you. > I have never made any suggestion that veganism was a dangerous or > impossible diet choice. Of course people can live healthily with a vegan > diet if they take extra care, monitor what they eat and are aware of > special sources of particular nutrients. 'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three: * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown nutrient needs. * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based food. * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit. http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html > But I have not been shown any > good reason why anybody should place such restrictions on their diet and > their freedom. In addition to the terrible suffering inflicted on sentient creatures and harm to the environment, you are causing harm to yourself. 'Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA. Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192 California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee, doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians], significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts <1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately 31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the absence of meat. PMID: 10479227 > >>Social cooperation could only have developed through hunting and > >>meat-sharing. Gathering tubers is no more conducive to cooperation than > >>collecting fruit, unless you're a naked mole-rat, it is an activity in > >>which rewards follow efforts quite linearly. In contrast hunting is far > >>more hit and miss, an excellent hunter can have a bad day not through > >>idleness but through dumb luck. > > > > > > How is that cooperating with those who are left to actually > > provide for the urgent needs of dependants - the women? > > > > Sounds like a way of getting out of the real work to me. > > > > The perpetual cry of the woman, the natural belittler of meat in the > diet, the woman who traditionally has supplied the bulk of the calories > through drudgery. It's called cooperation and sharing. > No herbivorous species would ever cooperate for > precicely this reason: providing food from vegetable matter is drudgery > and shirking is bitterly resented. That makes no sense. What's "shirking", if not not cooperating? > Hunting contributes very high quality food to the diet. 'High quality' to carnivorous species- which we are not. Life-saving calories in times of scarcity. > Exactly how > valuable the contribution of meat is will always be a matter of > contention, the hunters were always traditionally the men who would play > up the importance of meat Nice of you to admit it. > and women would play it down. Meat was also > the currency of sexual betrayal. In every hunter gatherer tribe studied > the best hunters had access to the most women. Because it would indicate that they were fitter, no doubt; and in times of need, an ability to actually catch something helps. > Belittling meat is simply > part of the strategy to try to get women's contributions valued > more highly. Strategy? Oh dear. Maybe you should. > >>Cooperation begins to make a lot more > >>sense. If you bring down an animal too big for you to eat alone you > >>share it, and convert the calories you couldn't eat into social debts > >>and obligations. > > > > > > One large animal every thirty hunter days between everyone won't go far. > > It is quite sufficient for most tribes to ensure they don't routinely > resort to cannibalism. If there's a real need for it smaller animals would also be hunted. > >>That kind of society makes sense but it requires a > >>further boost in brains and social skills. Meat helped us to become > >>sharers and carers. Without meat we would never have become human. > > > > > > You're wrong. Compassion is supposedly a human trait. Where's yours? > > > > Ah. Now why did I find this AFTER I was looking for evidence that vegans > made out they were morally superior? NORMAL human beings. '9. Callousness/lack of empathy Psychopaths readily take advantage of others, expressing utter contempt for anyone else's feelings. Someone in distress is not important to them. Psychopaths are unable to empathize with the pain of their victims. ...' http://www.fwselijah.com/psychopa.htm > Compassion is a human trait but it isn't what makes us human. A lack of compassion makes one less-than-hman. Inhuman. in·hu·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hymn) adj. 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel. 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold. 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment. 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous. in·human·ly adv. in·human·ness n. ... inhuman adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold, cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of inhuman noises" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inhuman > If we > discovered a tribe of people who were clearly intelligent, tool-using > and inter-fertile with us but had no compassion we would not conclude > that they did not belong to our species or did not qualify to be called > human, although we would be justified in studying them to understand > this anomalous condition. It's called Psychopathy. > Likewise a species of compassionate wombats or > even chimpanzees would not be regarded as people. As human people. '9. Informal. Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=people > It was sharing and cooperation that was vitally important in making the > transition from a baboon-like existence to the rich complex social life > we enjoy today. The collection, preparation and sharing of plant foods is cooperative. > That would not have happened without a change in diet > that had meat eating as a vital component of it for the simple reason > that no vegetable based food requires elaborate cooperation to exploit. Wrong. You'd have foraging parties, just as you'd go looking for animals. In fact, knowing where to find plant-foods is essential; when on a hunt, you'd do a fairly random search over the terrain. > Digging up a yam or picking a mango does not take a lot of cooperation, > language or plans drawn up in the sand with a stick but gathering honey > or hunting a buffalo does. The gathering, preparation and provisioning of plant-foods involves a lot of cooperation. Your argument is flawed. > >>Of course that does not mean we ate a lot of meat or ate more meat than > >>vegetable-derived calories or even protein, only that meat eating was a > >>vitally important part of our behaviour. > > > > > > I helped us survive in times of need. Be grateful. > > > > *You* did? That seems like a very strange claim to me. Typo, of course. Animals have. Be thankful. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > "ant and dec" > wrote in message ... > > > >>pearl wrote: > > > > >>I've been looking for more evidence of brain development and came across > >>this article "Evolution of the brainstem orofacial motor system in > >>primates: a comparative study of trigeminal, facial, and hypoglossal > >>nuclei" from the Journal of Human Evolution. > >> > >>It's currently free on the following link. > >> > >>It looks at brain stem development in terms of volume and grey level > >>index etc, and comparing these to the function of oral-facial muscles. > >> > >>As a lay person it would seem to support the theory that brain > >>development in hominids is related to visual development, in this case > >>visual communication. > >> > >>http://tinyurl.com/ckxq9 > > > > > > Yes. Very interesting. Thank you. > > > > Have you ever been interested in anything that could not be used to > bolster the conclusions you made before looking at any evidence? Have you? I came to the conclusions I have, because of the evidence. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"ant and dec" > wrote > Dave wrote: >> Martin Willett wrote: >>> ant and dec wrote: >>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >> lecture you just gave us:-) > > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. > > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used general definitions. You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"ant and dec" > wrote > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" > wrote >>> Martin Willett wrote: >> >> [..] >> >>>> If it was me I'd try to use self-effacing humour more. How about making >>>> jokes? >>>> >>>> What is the collective noun for vegetarians? A smugness of vegetarians. >>>> >>>> What is the collective noun for vegans? A superiority of vegans. >>>> >>> How about a Willett of cowards? >> >> How about an anal-retentive-asshole of ant & decs? > > The derogatory collective noun joke is quite old now; so you can go back > to your crayons. Oh no, there's lots of good mileage in this puppy.. How about a stinking cesspool of ant & decs? How about a oozing pustulent sore of ant & decs? Then there's a diseased faggoty bunghole of ant & decs... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote > > Dutch wrote: > >> "ant and dec" > wrote > >>> Martin Willett wrote: > >> > >> [..] > >> > >>>> If it was me I'd try to use self-effacing humour more. How about making > >>>> jokes? > >>>> > >>>> What is the collective noun for vegetarians? A smugness of vegetarians. > >>>> > >>>> What is the collective noun for vegans? A superiority of vegans. > >>>> > >>> How about a Willett of cowards? > >> > >> How about an anal-retentive-asshole of ant & decs? > > > > The derogatory collective noun joke is quite old now; so you can go back > > to your crayons. > > Oh no, there's lots of good mileage in this puppy.. > > How about a stinking cesspool of ant & decs? > > How about a oozing pustulent sore of ant & decs? > > Then there's a diseased faggoty bunghole of ant & decs... Don't start dirt you mother ****er unless you are ready to eat some. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote >> Dave wrote: >>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >>>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >>> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >>> lecture you just gave us:-) >> Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a >> person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. >> >> He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; > > Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. > >> yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. > > You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used > general definitions. > > You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. People like you really make my day, Cheers! I just love it when people like you get out-played by their own game. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"ant and dec" > wrote > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" > wrote >>> Dave wrote: >>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >>>>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >>>> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >>>> lecture you just gave us:-) >>> Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a >>> person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. >>> >>> He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; >> >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. >> >>> yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. >> >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used >> general definitions. >> >> You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. > > People like you really make my day, Cheers! > > I just love it when people like you get out-played by their own game. You're delusional. My "game" from the beginning has been to discuss the ethics of veganism, nothing more. You are the one who started with the personal attacks. You and bpgclm are two of a kind, lowlife shit-stirring garbage. Do you suppose it has anything to do with your diets? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote >> Dutch wrote: >>> "ant and dec" > wrote >>>> Dave wrote: >>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >>>>>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >>>>> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >>>>> lecture you just gave us:-) >>>> Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a >>>> person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. >>>> >>>> He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; >>> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. >>> >>>> yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. >>> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used >>> general definitions. >>> >>> You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. >> People like you really make my day, Cheers! >> >> I just love it when people like you get out-played by their own game. > > You're delusional. My "game" from the beginning has been to discuss the > ethics of veganism, nothing more. You are the one who started with the > personal attacks. You and bpgclm are two of a kind, lowlife shit-stirring > garbage. Do you suppose it has anything to do with your diets? > > My guess is you've been frustrated by the discussion, and this frustration has now been partly released as aggression in the form of ad hominem attacks. - Mildly entertaining. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Dutch wrote: > "ant and dec" > wrote > > Dave wrote: > >> Martin Willett wrote: > >>> ant and dec wrote: > >>>> Martin Willett wrote: > >>>> How about a Willett of cowards? > >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? > >> > >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour > >> lecture you just gave us:-) > > > > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a > > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. > > > > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; > > Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. > > > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. > > You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used > general definitions. What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at the expense of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at the expense of Martin. > > You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"ant and dec" > wrote > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" > wrote >>> Dutch wrote: >>>> "ant and dec" > wrote >>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >>>>>>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >>>>>> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >>>>>> lecture you just gave us:-) >>>>> Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a >>>>> person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. >>>>> >>>>> He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; >>>> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. >>>> >>>>> yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. >>>> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used >>>> general definitions. >>>> >>>> You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. >>> People like you really make my day, Cheers! >>> >>> I just love it when people like you get out-played by their own game. >> >> You're delusional. My "game" from the beginning has been to discuss the >> ethics of veganism, nothing more. You are the one who started with the >> personal attacks. You and bpgclm are two of a kind, lowlife shit-stirring >> garbage. Do you suppose it has anything to do with your diets? >> >> > > My guess is you've been frustrated by the discussion, and this frustration > has now been partly released as aggression in the form of ad hominem > attacks. - Mildly entertaining. Ad hominem? You mean like "How about a Willett of cowards?" Your inability to get Willet to comply with your wishes frustrated *you* and prompted *you* to embark on ad hominems, I am just giving you some back. Yea, what fun. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"Dave" > wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" > wrote >> > Dave wrote: >> >> Martin Willett wrote: >> >>> ant and dec wrote: >> >>>> Martin Willett wrote: >> >>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >> >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >> >> >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >> >> lecture you just gave us:-) >> > >> > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a >> > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. >> > >> > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; >> >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. >> >> > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. >> >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used >> general definitions. > > What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at the expense > of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at the expense > of Martin. The difference is, a joke made about a group, such as Liberals, or gays, is a parody on attitudes or ideas that are arguably typical of that group. Implying that vegans in general are smug is a far cry from calling a person a coward by his name. I can't believe I needed to explain that to you Dave. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch==rick meat industry shill -- Would you like to be eaten?
Dutch==rick the same mother ****ing asshole
Do not start dirt you mother ****ing asshole unless you are ready to eat some. Dutch wrote: > "Dave" > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> "ant and dec" > wrote > >> > Dave wrote: > >> >> Martin Willett wrote: > >> >>> ant and dec wrote: > >> >>>> Martin Willett wrote: > >> >>>> How about a Willett of cowards? > > >> >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? > >> >> > >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour > >> >> lecture you just gave us:-) > >> > > >> > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a > >> > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. > >> > > >> > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; > >> > >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. > >> > >> > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. > >> > >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used > >> general definitions. > > > > What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at the expense > > of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at the expense > > of Martin. > > The difference is, a joke made about a group, such as Liberals, or gays, is > a parody on attitudes or ideas that are arguably typical of that group. > Implying that vegans in general are smug is a far cry from calling a person > a coward by his name. I can't believe I needed to explain that to you Dave. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote >> Dutch wrote: >>> "ant and dec" > wrote >>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>> "ant and dec" > wrote >>>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >>>>>>>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >>>>>>> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >>>>>>> lecture you just gave us:-) >>>>>> Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a >>>>>> person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. >>>>>> >>>>>> He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; >>>>> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. >>>>> >>>>>> yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. >>>>> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used >>>>> general definitions. >>>>> >>>>> You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. >>>> People like you really make my day, Cheers! >>>> >>>> I just love it when people like you get out-played by their own game. >>> You're delusional. My "game" from the beginning has been to discuss the >>> ethics of veganism, nothing more. You are the one who started with the >>> personal attacks. You and bpgclm are two of a kind, lowlife shit-stirring >>> garbage. Do you suppose it has anything to do with your diets? >>> >>> >> My guess is you've been frustrated by the discussion, and this frustration >> has now been partly released as aggression in the form of ad hominem >> attacks. - Mildly entertaining. > > Ad hominem? You mean like "How about a Willett of cowards?" Not Ad hominem at all, just reworded the 'collective noun joke' that he started. The clear explicit message in his 'joke' was that all vegetarians are smug, mine implied that he was coward. - Ironically there is evidence to suggest that Martin was at least reticent in replying to my call to answer my points raised in posts, whereas he has no objective evidence that all vegetarians are smug and just states that that is his opinion. - It possibly also motivated him to attempt to answer those outstanding points. > > Your inability to get Willet to comply with your wishes frustrated *you* and > prompted *you* to embark on ad hominems, I am just giving you some back. > Yea, what fun. You made a mistake and seemingly lost control, hurling an unwarranted tiraid in my direction. The more you try and extricate yourself by attempting to justify your actions the more you incriminate yourself as a polemic squabbler that adds no value to discussions. > > > > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
mindless vegan petro-chemical whore without a clue...
> wrote in message oups.com... > Dutch==rick the same mother ****ing asshole > Do not start dirt you mother ****ing asshole unless you are > ready to > eat some. ==================== Thanks for yet again proving that you care nothing about unnecessary animals death and suffering, hypocrite. Keep up the good work! It's vegan loons like you that will prove to everyone how depraved the adherents to a disorder are, killer. > > Dutch wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> "ant and dec" > wrote >> >> > Dave wrote: >> >> >> Martin Willett wrote: >> >> >>> ant and dec wrote: >> >> >>>> Martin Willett wrote: >> >> >>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >> >> >> >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >> >> >> >> >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >> >> >> lecture you just gave us:-) >> >> > >> >> > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case >> >> > to test a >> >> > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the >> >> > response. >> >> > >> >> > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as >> >> > a 'joke'; >> >> >> >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. >> >> >> >> > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played >> >> > on him. >> >> >> >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his >> >> humor used >> >> general definitions. >> > >> > What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at the >> > expense >> > of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at >> > the expense >> > of Martin. >> >> The difference is, a joke made about a group, such as >> Liberals, or gays, is >> a parody on attitudes or ideas that are arguably typical of >> that group. >> Implying that vegans in general are smug is a far cry from >> calling a person >> a coward by his name. I can't believe I needed to explain that >> to you Dave. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"ant and dec" > wrote in message ... > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" > wrote >>> Dutch wrote: >>>> "ant and dec" > wrote >>>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>>> "ant and dec" > wrote >>>>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>>>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >>>>>>>>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >>>>>>>> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >>>>>>>> lecture you just gave us:-) >>>>>>> Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case >>>>>>> to test a person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and >>>>>>> gauging the response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as >>>>>>> a 'joke'; >>>>>> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. >>>>>> >>>>>>> yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played >>>>>>> on him. >>>>>> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, >>>>>> his humor used general definitions. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. >>>>> People like you really make my day, Cheers! >>>>> >>>>> I just love it when people like you get out-played by their >>>>> own game. >>>> You're delusional. My "game" from the beginning has been to >>>> discuss the ethics of veganism, nothing more. You are the >>>> one who started with the personal attacks. You and bpgclm >>>> are two of a kind, lowlife shit-stirring garbage. Do you >>>> suppose it has anything to do with your diets? >>>> >>>> >>> My guess is you've been frustrated by the discussion, and >>> this frustration has now been partly released as aggression >>> in the form of ad hominem attacks. - Mildly entertaining. >> >> Ad hominem? You mean like "How about a Willett of cowards?" > > Not Ad hominem at all, just reworded the 'collective noun joke' > that he started. The clear explicit message in his 'joke' was > that all vegetarians are smug, mine implied that he was > coward. - Ironically there is evidence to suggest that Martin > was at least reticent in replying to my call to answer my > points raised in posts, whereas he has no objective evidence > that all vegetarians are smug and just states that that is his > opinion. - It possibly also motivated him to attempt to answer > those outstanding points. > > >> >> Your inability to get Willet to comply with your wishes >> frustrated *you* and prompted *you* to embark on ad hominems, >> I am just giving you some back. Yea, what fun. > > You made a mistake and seemingly lost control, hurling an > unwarranted tiraid in my direction. The more you try and > extricate yourself by attempting to justify your actions the > more you incriminate yourself as a polemic squabbler that adds > no value to discussions. ===================== ROTFLMAO And you have added, what hypocrite? > > >> >> >> >> |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:12:33 -0000, Jeff Caird > wrote:
>On 2005-12-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 03:48:58 -0000, Jeff Caird > wrote: >> >>>On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:29:05 -0000, Jeff Caird > wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote: >>>>>> How about rishathra? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Is that from Ringworld? >>>>> >>>>>Feffer >>>> >>>> Yes. I wondered if anyone was familiar with that. I just >>>> found out yesterday they were going to make a movie >>>> a few years ago, but it didn't work out for some reason >>>> dammit. >>> >>>Just as well. Did you see what they did with Riverworld? >>> >>>Feffy >> >> I'm not familiar with that at all. Not even with the concept. >> It would probably be a better use of time to spend less of >> it arguing with people in these ngs and reading something >> else instead. What little reading I've done lately has been >> Niven, since he's my favorite sci fi author. I'm reading >> Ringworld's Children now, about 10 pages per month. That >> would make a hell of a movie! I think the Integral Trees could >> be awesome too. > >The _RiverWorld_ series by Philip Jose Farmer might be worth >your while; there are several books in the series and at 10 >pages per month, it could take years! ;^) I have read >_Ringworld_ and am now on _The Ringworld Engineers_. Not >quite as fast moving as the first, but Niven is a great SF >writer. > >My nym, Jeff Caird, is from Farmers _Dayworld_ series, BTW. > >JC I like SF that's more like theoretical physics ideas than concepts that are mainly about human interactions or outright fantasy and magic ideas, which is pretty rare imo. Niven is one of the very few SF writers I'm aware of who provides plenty of very interesting overall concepts. The concept behind the Integral Trees and that environment, like that of Ringworld, is the sort of thing I like. And the second book: "The Smoke Ring" is much better about it than the first. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:23:37 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote: > >> >> How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget >> it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you >> will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your >> smarter way instead of the way they did. > >If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for >them. Before I could believe that, you would need to explain *why* things developed to be as they are, and *how* God could have done it a better way. >Don't use a capital G for god unless you intend it to be a name, It's the name I use to refer to a creator, if there is one. >and >don't use the singular either, If there is a creator, I believe "he" has a sort of individuality of self regardless of how he might in some other way(s) share identity with other beings. I also don't believe "he" would be restricted to any particular physical form, much less gender, but I refer to God as he out of convenience for myself. >that will help you get a clearer bead on >what you are thinking about without having the language force >assumptions into the argument. I've explained my beliefs. >If a god created animals that god (or >those gods) If you consider the possibility of gods, what do you require in order for a being to be one? >could have made herbivores able to digest cellulose directly >without relying on foreign bacteria, by secreting an enzyme only when it >was required in exactly the dose that was required according to the >animal's body's awareness of what it had eaten and the animal would not >be sidetracked by the process of reproducing and distributing those >bacteria. Why did it develop as it did? Why do all animals need something else to help them break down cellulose, but not to break down starch, even though afaik they are both just complex sugar molecules? >Of course evolution doesn't bother with that route as the bacterial >quick and dirty fix does the job and produces a workable system with far >fewer steps, all of which are viable improvements. But a god who was >wise would know that a better solution would be possible, but it would >require an act of special creation. You will need to go into a lot of detail before I can believe you have any idea about what God could have done better in that respect. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
pearl wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... > >>pearl wrote: >> <snip> >>Have you ever been interested in anything that could not be used to >>bolster the conclusions you made before looking at any evidence? > > > Have you? > > I came to the conclusions I have, because of the evidence. > Can you prove that? Can you prove that your decision to adopt an obsessional diet came *after* your obsessional interest in diet? -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
Dutch wrote: > "Dave" > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> "ant and dec" > wrote > >> > Dave wrote: > >> >> Martin Willett wrote: > >> >>> ant and dec wrote: > >> >>>> Martin Willett wrote: > >> >>>> How about a Willett of cowards? > > >> >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? > >> >> > >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour > >> >> lecture you just gave us:-) > >> > > >> > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a > >> > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. > >> > > >> > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; > >> > >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. > >> > >> > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. > >> > >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor used > >> general definitions. > > > > What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at the expense > > of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at the expense > > of Martin. > > The difference is, a joke made about a group, such as Liberals, or gays, is > a parody on attitudes or ideas that are arguably typical of that group. > Implying that vegans in general are smug is a far cry from calling a person > a coward by his name. I can't believe I needed to explain that to you Dave. As I see it a joke made against a group, such as Liberals, or gays, has just as much danger of causing offense to members of that group as a joke made against the individual in question. The world would be a poorer place without humour but on public forums where the audience are strangers I believe some caution is appropriate. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... > > > >>pearl wrote: > >> > <snip> > >>Have you ever been interested in anything that could not be used to > >>bolster the conclusions you made before looking at any evidence? > > > > > > Have you? > > > > I came to the conclusions I have, because of the evidence. > > > > Can you prove that? Can you prove that your decision to adopt an > obsessional diet came *after* your obsessional interest in diet? Can you prove that you stopped beating your wife after you started on your kids? Can you prove that, troll? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
"ant and dec" > wrote > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" > wrote >>> Dutch wrote: >>>> "ant and dec" > wrote >>>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>>> "ant and dec" > wrote >>>>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>>>>> How about a Willett of cowards? >>>>>>>>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? >>>>>>>> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour >>>>>>>> lecture you just gave us:-) >>>>>>> Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case to test a >>>>>>> person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as a 'joke'; >>>>>> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. >>>>>> >>>>>>> yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played on him. >>>>>> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his humor >>>>>> used general definitions. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a worthless, rotten, lying ****. >>>>> People like you really make my day, Cheers! >>>>> >>>>> I just love it when people like you get out-played by their own game. >>>> You're delusional. My "game" from the beginning has been to discuss the >>>> ethics of veganism, nothing more. You are the one who started with the >>>> personal attacks. You and bpgclm are two of a kind, lowlife >>>> shit-stirring garbage. Do you suppose it has anything to do with your >>>> diets? >>>> >>>> >>> My guess is you've been frustrated by the discussion, and this >>> frustration has now been partly released as aggression in the form of ad >>> hominem attacks. - Mildly entertaining. >> >> Ad hominem? You mean like "How about a Willett of cowards?" > > Not Ad hominem at all, just reworded the 'collective noun joke' that he > started. It's ad hominem when you single out a person BY NAME and refer to them as a coward. That's not a joke. > The clear explicit message in his 'joke' was that all vegetarians are smug No, the message is that smugness is a common trait of vegetarians, not that "all vegetarians" are that way. > mine implied that he was coward. Which makes it an ad hominem der: Latin: "towards a person". - Ironically > there is evidence to suggest that Martin was at least reticent in replying > to my call to answer my points raised in posts, whereas he has no > objective evidence that all vegetarians are smug and just states that that > is his opinion. - It possibly also motivated him to attempt to answer > those outstanding points. It was a cheap shot. I didn't see anything outstanding that needed explaining, his words were self-explanatory. You were simply heckling and it got nasty when he didn't respond the way you wanted. >> Your inability to get Willet to comply with your wishes frustrated *you* >> and prompted *you* to embark on ad hominems, I am just giving you some >> back. Yea, what fun. > > You made a mistake I didn't make any mistake, there's that vivid imagination again. > and seemingly lost control, hurling an unwarranted tiraid in my direction. > The more you try and extricate yourself by attempting to justify your > actions the more you incriminate yourself as a polemic squabbler that adds > no value to discussions. My words require no justification, they were a justifiable response to a cheap shot artist who gets down and dirty when she doesn't get what she wants. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
meat industry shill (rick==Dutch)
The meat industry must be desperate to come up with all kinds of wacky
claims about the "evils" of not eating meat produced by cruel and unhealthy factory farming and slaughterhouses. All people have to do is to look at videos of cruelly cages animals and the filth and cruelty that goes on in the slaughterhouses. It is impossible to argue against the evidence and that is the reason for the wacko arguments. Does it work for anyone other than those working for the meat or rendering industry? rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > Dutch==rick the same mother ****ing asshole > > Do not start dirt you mother ****ing asshole unless you are > > ready to > > eat some. > ==================== > Thanks for yet again proving that you care nothing about > unnecessary animals death and suffering, hypocrite. Keep up the > good work! It's vegan loons like you that will prove to everyone > how depraved the adherents to a disorder are, killer. > > > > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> "ant and dec" > wrote > >> >> > Dave wrote: > >> >> >> Martin Willett wrote: > >> >> >>> ant and dec wrote: > >> >> >>>> Martin Willett wrote: > >> >> >>>> How about a Willett of cowards? > >> > >> >> >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the humour > >> >> >> lecture you just gave us:-) > >> >> > > >> >> > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this case > >> >> > to test a > >> >> > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging the > >> >> > response. > >> >> > > >> >> > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns as > >> >> > a 'joke'; > >> >> > >> >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating. > >> >> > >> >> > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's played > >> >> > on him. > >> >> > >> >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort, his > >> >> humor used > >> >> general definitions. > >> > > >> > What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at the > >> > expense > >> > of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at > >> > the expense > >> > of Martin. > >> > >> The difference is, a joke made about a group, such as > >> Liberals, or gays, is > >> a parody on attitudes or ideas that are arguably typical of > >> that group. > >> Implying that vegans in general are smug is a far cry from > >> calling a person > >> a coward by his name. I can't believe I needed to explain that > >> to you Dave. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
got -> gotten
it's -> its |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
pails -> pales
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you like to be eaten?
tiraid -> tirade
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Have you ever eaten....... | General Cooking | |||
| Anyone eaten Fox ? | General Cooking | |||
| The most food ever eaten... | General Cooking | |||
| How many of these has Kibo eaten? | General Cooking | |||
| How many of these has Kibo eaten? | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
