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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 02:08 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a rational
discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 09:07 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?


wrote
I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while.


You shovel a lot of shit but it all ends up blowing right back in your face
Ronny.

It is almost impossible to get into a rational
discourse


I've never seen you try, all you do is stir shit, it's what you like doing.

with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?


These are not lists, they are public newsgroups. Start a list, there are
lots of free ones available. The you can invite just the people who tell you
what you want to hear, like a good little fascist.

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?


I'm in favor of you taking a flying leap anywhere else but here. You're a
useless slab of flesh.





  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 11:39 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800, wrote:

The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
you went even further and wrote,

"Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
assholes that start dirt"

My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
"mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
warning time and time again instead of actually making
them eat that dirt like you promised you would.

I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while.


Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
the real question should refer to your own efforts against
your critics, because many of us do do better.

It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.


No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
but rather,

"Can I do better?"

Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?


I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.

Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
the same principle, even though the result of each
yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;

"Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption."

But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
"disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
your own if you can and want to.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 01:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

Derek wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800, wrote:

The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
you went even further and wrote,

"Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
assholes that start dirt"

My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
"mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
warning time and time again instead of actually making
them eat that dirt like you promised you would.

I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while.


Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
the real question should refer to your own efforts against
your critics, because many of us do do better.

It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.


No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
but rather,

"Can I do better?"

Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?


I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.

Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
the same principle, even though the result of each
yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;

"Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption."

But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
"disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
your own if you can and want to.


Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous
aliases, I do not. The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded
with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed
to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my
revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.
What is to debate about? Either you have compassion for other living
creatures or you do not. If you have compassion for them then there is
nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength. If you do not,
as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those
who do.

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 01:53 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800, wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800,
wrote:

The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
you went even further and wrote,

"Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
assholes that start dirt"

My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
"mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
warning time and time again instead of actually making
them eat that dirt like you promised you would.

I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while.


Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
the real question should refer to your own efforts against
your critics, because many of us do do better.

It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.


No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
but rather,

"Can I do better?"

Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?


I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.

Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
the same principle, even though the result of each
yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;

"Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption."

But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
"disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
your own if you can and want to.


Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous
aliases, I do not.


They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind
the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're
meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the
courage to explain those reasons.

The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded
with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed
to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my
revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.


Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be
no opposition to your views?

What is to debate about?


Quite a bit really.

Either you have compassion for other living
creatures or you do not.


Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they
do is wrong, then?

If you have compassion for them then there is
nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength.


But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your
"values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate
with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed"
to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the
first place?

If you do not,
as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those
who do.


That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start.
Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make
that same empty threat?
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 04:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

Derek wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800, wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800,
wrote:

The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
you went even further and wrote,

"Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
assholes that start dirt"

My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
"mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
warning time and time again instead of actually making
them eat that dirt like you promised you would.

I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while.

Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
the real question should refer to your own efforts against
your critics, because many of us do do better.

It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.

No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
but rather,

"Can I do better?"

Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?

I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.

Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
the same principle, even though the result of each
yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;

"Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption."

But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
"disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
your own if you can and want to.


Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous
aliases, I do not.


They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind
the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're
meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the
courage to explain those reasons.


There is not much to debate about my reasons for not wanting to eat
meat. I love animals and I am horrified by the cruel and unsanitary
methods of raising and butchering animals. These are my reasons and
that is all there is to it. I posted something close to this and was
immediately attacked by meat industry shills and I have responded and
will continue to respond to them in the fashion most appropriate for
those who start name calling when they do not like what they read.


The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded
with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed
to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my
revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.


Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be
no opposition to your views?


I hoped to find people on ralt.animals.ethics.vegetarian that share my
compassionate view of animals and was looking for exchange of similar
experiences.

What is to debate about?


Quite a bit really.


Not interested to debate meat industry shills. I do it in my spare time
what they are obviously doing for money.

Either you have compassion for other living
creatures or you do not.


Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they
do is wrong, then?

If you have compassion for them then there is
nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength.


But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your
"values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate
with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed"
to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the
first place?


Because of the name of the list.

If you do not,
as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those
who do.


That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start.
Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make
that same empty threat?


Obviously threats have little meaning on the Internet. A 100 lb
weakling can threaten a 300 lb football pro and the football pro can do
little about it. Same thing with dirt. I do not start dirt but make
sure that those who start it with me eat their own dirt.



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 05:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

On 14 Jan 2006 08:27:07 -0800, wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800,
wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800,
wrote:

The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
you went even further and wrote,

"Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
assholes that start dirt"

My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
"mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
warning time and time again instead of actually making
them eat that dirt like you promised you would.

I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while.

Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
the real question should refer to your own efforts against
your critics, because many of us do do better.

It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.

No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
but rather,

"Can I do better?"

Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?

I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.

Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
the same principle, even though the result of each
yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;

"Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption."

But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
"disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
your own if you can and want to.

Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous
aliases, I do not.


They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind
the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're
meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the
courage to explain those reasons.


There is not much to debate about my reasons for not wanting to eat
meat.


Then why participate at all? If you're not willing to debate
with your critics, and you feel it's a waste of time debating
with others that share your values, then who are you going
to debate with?

I love animals and I am horrified by the cruel and unsanitary
methods of raising and butchering animals. These are my reasons and
that is all there is to it.


No, they are your objections, not your reasons. What's most
interesting about another's objections are his reasons behind
those objections. I object to some very plain and ordinary
things, but it's my reasons behind those objections that most
would find interesting and poignant.

I posted something close to this and was
immediately attacked


You were attacked, of course, but those attacks still leave
you plenty of room to explain the principles you use that
lie behind your opinions on those attackers.

by meat industry shills and I have responded and
will continue to respond to them in the fashion most appropriate for
those who start name calling when they do not like what they read.


Oh well.

The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded
with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed
to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my
revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.


Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be
no opposition to your views?


I hoped to find people on ralt.animals.ethics.vegetarian that share my
compassionate view of animals and was looking for exchange of similar
experiences.


Why? According to you, "If you have compassion for them
then there is nothing to debate because we are on the same
wavelength." Why did you hope to find or form a group that
shares your views, only to find you're unwilling to debate
anything with anyone in it?

What is to debate about?


Quite a bit really.


Not interested to debate meat industry shills.


Then you've eliminated your entire choice of people to debate
with, haven't you.

I do it in my spare time
what they are obviously doing for money.


Would it make a difference to your argument if you were
arguing with a professional arguer? If not, and it shouldn't,
press on.

Either you have compassion for other living
creatures or you do not.


Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they
do is wrong, then?

If you have compassion for them then there is
nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength.


But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your
"values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate
with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed"
to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the
first place?


Because of the name of the list.


But if you don't want to discuss anything with your critics,
and you think it's a waste of time to talk with those already
on your level, you've eliminated everyone, so what made
you decide to participate in a group that your principles
have eliminated you from?

If you do not,
as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those
who do.


That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start.
Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make
that same empty threat?


Obviously threats have little meaning on the Internet. A 100 lb
weakling can threaten a 300 lb football pro and the football pro can do
little about it. Same thing with dirt. I do not start dirt but make
sure that those who start it with me eat their own dirt.


No, I'm afraid you're not doing anything of the sort.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 05:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

Derek wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 08:27:07 -0800, wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800,
wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800,
wrote:

The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
you went even further and wrote,

"Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
assholes that start dirt"

My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
"mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
warning time and time again instead of actually making
them eat that dirt like you promised you would.

I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while.

Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
the real question should refer to your own efforts against
your critics, because many of us do do better.

It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.

No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
but rather,

"Can I do better?"

Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?

I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.

Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
the same principle, even though the result of each
yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;

"Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption."

But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
"disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
your own if you can and want to.

Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous
aliases, I do not.

They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind
the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're
meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the
courage to explain those reasons.


There is not much to debate about my reasons for not wanting to eat
meat.


Then why participate at all? If you're not willing to debate
with your critics, and you feel it's a waste of time debating
with others that share your values, then who are you going
to debate with?


There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.

I love animals and I am horrified by the cruel and unsanitary
methods of raising and butchering animals. These are my reasons and
that is all there is to it.


No, they are your objections, not your reasons. What's most
interesting about another's objections are his reasons behind
those objections. I object to some very plain and ordinary
things, but it's my reasons behind those objections that most
would find interesting and poignant.


OK, I object to the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.

I posted something close to this and was
immediately attacked


You were attacked, of course, but those attacks still leave
you plenty of room to explain the principles you use that
lie behind your opinions on those attackers.


Nothing to explain, you either care for animals or not.

by meat industry shills and I have responded and
will continue to respond to them in the fashion most appropriate for
those who start name calling when they do not like what they read.


Oh well.

The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded
with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed
to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my
revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.

Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be
no opposition to your views?


I hoped to find people on ralt.animals.ethics.vegetarian that share my
compassionate view of animals and was looking for exchange of similar
experiences.


Why? According to you, "If you have compassion for them
then there is nothing to debate because we are on the same
wavelength." Why did you hope to find or form a group that
shares your views, only to find you're unwilling to debate
anything with anyone in it?


There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.

What is to debate about?

Quite a bit really.


Not interested to debate meat industry shills.


Then you've eliminated your entire choice of people to debate
with, haven't you.


Not the entire list, only those who are paid to call people names for
expressing views contrary to meat industry interests. They even sued
Oprah and lost


I do it in my spare time
what they are obviously doing for money.


Would it make a difference to your argument if you were
arguing with a professional arguer? If not, and it shouldn't,
press on.


Are you saying that you are a meat industry shill but with better
vocabulary than those only engage in name calling? If your answer yes,
it would make a huge difference!

Either you have compassion for other living
creatures or you do not.

Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they
do is wrong, then?

If you have compassion for them then there is
nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength.

But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your
"values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate
with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed"
to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the
first place?


Because of the name of the list.


But if you don't want to discuss anything with your critics,
and you think it's a waste of time to talk with those already
on your level, you've eliminated everyone, so what made
you decide to participate in a group that your principles
have eliminated you from?


I am having to repeat myself but you are posing the same question:
There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.


If you do not,
as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those
who do.

That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start.
Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make
that same empty threat?


Obviously threats have little meaning on the Internet. A 100 lb
weakling can threaten a 300 lb football pro and the football pro can do
little about it. Same thing with dirt. I do not start dirt but make
sure that those who start it with me eat their own dirt.


No, I'm afraid you're not doing anything of the sort.


How so?

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 05:49 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

wrote:
Derek wrote:

On 14 Jan 2006 08:27:07 -0800,
wrote:

Derek wrote:

On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800,
wrote:

Derek wrote:

On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800,
wrote:

The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
you went even further and wrote,

"Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
assholes that start dirt"

My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
"mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
warning time and time again instead of actually making
them eat that dirt like you promised you would.


I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while.

Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
the real question should refer to your own efforts against
your critics, because many of us do do better.


It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.

No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
but rather,

"Can I do better?"


Could
someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?

I propose:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
alt.food.vegan.moderated

Any ideas?

I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.

Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
the same principle, even though the result of each
yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;

"Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption."

But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
"disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
your own if you can and want to.

Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous
aliases, I do not.

They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind
the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're
meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the
courage to explain those reasons.

There is not much to debate about my reasons for not wanting to eat
meat.


Then why participate at all? If you're not willing to debate
with your critics, and you feel it's a waste of time debating
with others that share your values, then who are you going
to debate with?



There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.


The alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian group is *NOT* a
group "for" "veganism". It is a group to *discuss*
(so-called) "ethical" vegetarianism. There is no
presumption that "veganism" has been "proved" to be the
correct moral stance.

You exemplify what is wrong with nearly all "vegans":
you are a closed-minded true believer adhering to a
bizarre belief system that you can't defend
intellectually. The belief system is one in which you
have an unwarranted certainty in your virtue, and feel
that your virtue entitles you to tell others not only
how they ought to live, but how they *must* live.
There is nothing to distinguish you from the
conservative Christian right: *they* also feel they
are so unquestionably right on moral issues that they
ought to be able to dictate the laws to the rest of us.

All of your assumptions about the "meat industry" are
based on your uncritically having swallowed a lot of
leftist propaganda. You really don't know anything
about it.

You aren't really capable of debate, and you're not
worth debating. It is, however, great recreation to
beat up on you in the newsgroups. Expect much more of it.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 05:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

Leif Erikson wrote:

cut...

How much do they pay you for the garbage you post for the meat industry?

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2006, 06:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

congenital liar and coward lied:

Leif Erikson wrote:

cut...

How much do


Another pusillanimous whiff-off from a congenital liar.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017