"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> snip the racist spew from karen.....
>
> How is it racist?
>===========
Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
are black to dogs.
That you don't see comparing them to animals as racist says
alot...

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

>>rick wrote:

>>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....

>>How is it racist?
>>===========

> Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
> are black to dogs.

There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
country," and historically there have been slaves of every
ethnic group. How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
legal status of animals: both are chattel property.

<snip>

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>
>>>rick wrote:
>
>>>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
>
>>>How is it racist?
>>>===========
>
>> Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
>> are black to dogs.
>
> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> ethnic group. How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
>
> <snip>
=========================
All racists try to cover their hatred... You're not doing a very
good job.
Your comparisions are bogus. Thanks for proving you have
nothing, should I also submit posts to you for spell-checking
too?



>

rick wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >
> >>>rick wrote:
> >
> >>>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
> >
> >>>How is it racist?
> >>>===========
> >
> >> Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
> >> are black to dogs.
> >
> > There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> > country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> > ethnic group. How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> > German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> > of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
> > It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> > legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
> >
> > <snip>
> =========================
> All racists try to cover their hatred...

False. There are plenty of people who are openly racist.

> You're not doing a very
> good job.
> Your comparisions are bogus.

I don't wish to defend her comparisons except against this
ludicrous accusation of racism. She is not comparing black
slaves with dogs but the legal status of black slaves with
the legal status of dogs.

> Thanks for proving you have
> nothing, should I also submit posts to you for spell-checking
> too?

Glorfindel wrote:
> rick wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
>
> >>rick wrote:
>
> >>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
>
> >>How is it racist?
> >>===========
>
> > Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
> > are black to dogs.
>
> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> ethnic group.

Even if this weren't the case it is preposterous of Rick to
be accusing you of racism. The setence "Black people
were treated like dogs" has a completely different meaning
from the sentence "black people are like dogs". The fact
that Rick can't see the difference speaks volumes.

> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
>
> <snip>

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>> rick wrote:
>> > "Dave" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>>
>> >>rick wrote:
>>
>> >>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
>>
>> >>How is it racist?
>> >>===========
>>
>> > Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her
>> > comparisons
>> > are black to dogs.
>>
>> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
>> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
>> ethnic group.
>
> Even if this weren't the case it is preposterous of Rick to
> be accusing you of racism. The setence "Black people
> were treated like dogs" has a completely different meaning
> from the sentence "black people are like dogs". The fact
> that Rick can't see the difference speaks volumes.
==========================
No, the fact that all vegan loons always compare animals to
people speaks volumes to their idiocy. Pets are like slaves, the
meat industry is like killing jews in the holocaust. That you
can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you too...


>
>> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
>> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
>> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
>> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
>> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
>>
>> <snip>
>

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Glorfindel wrote:
> >> rick wrote:
> >> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> >>rick wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
> >>
> >> >>How is it racist?
> >> >>===========
> >>
> >> > Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her
> >> > comparisons
> >> > are black to dogs.
> >>
> >> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> >> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> >> ethnic group.
> >
> > Even if this weren't the case it is preposterous of Rick to
> > be accusing you of racism. The setence "Black people
> > were treated like dogs" has a completely different meaning
> > from the sentence "black people are like dogs". The fact
> > that Rick can't see the difference speaks volumes.
> ==========================
> No, the fact that all

Some

> vegan loons

Advocates

> always compare animals to people

Well they do have some things in common don't they?

> speaks volumes to their idiocy.
> Pets are like slaves,

Is not a racist statement.

> the
> meat industry is like killing jews in the holocaust.

Is not a racist statement.

> That you
> can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you too...

Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. Raising animals
for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
>
> >
> >> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> >> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> >> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
> >> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> >> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Glorfindel wrote:
>> >> rick wrote:
>> >> > "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> > oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> >>rick wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
>> >>
>> >> >>How is it racist?
>> >> >>===========
>> >>
>> >> > Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her
>> >> > comparisons
>> >> > are black to dogs.
>> >>
>> >> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
>> >> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
>> >> ethnic group.
>> >
>> > Even if this weren't the case it is preposterous of Rick to
>> > be accusing you of racism. The setence "Black people
>> > were treated like dogs" has a completely different meaning
>> > from the sentence "black people are like dogs". The fact
>> > that Rick can't see the difference speaks volumes.
>> ==========================
>> No, the fact that all
>
> Some
> =====================
All of them here on usenet. I've said many times here that I
refer only to usenet vegans.


>> vegan loons
>
> Advocates
===========================
Loons. Advocates don't make absurd claims that demean their
position with lys, delusions, and propaganda...


>
>> always compare animals to people
>
> Well they do have some things in common don't they?
=======================
Not rights. You know it, I know, and vegan loons here know it
too. Animals cannot and will not have rights as long as vegan
loons only focus on animals that they think others are killing.
Their lack of concern for animals that die for thier diet and
entertainment prove that they don't belive in, much less support
animal rights. Trying to comapre rights for animals to people
that have had their rights violated is bigotry.


>
>> speaks volumes to their idiocy.
>> Pets are like slaves,
>
> Is not a racist statement.
====================
Yes, it is in the context that vegan loons here use it. I
responding with several years of posting history about their
comparisions...


>
>> the
>> meat industry is like killing jews in the holocaust.
>
> Is not a racist statement.
=========================
Yes, it is. Equating jews dying in the holocaust with chickens
in barns is racist and demeaning. It also displays their hatred
of people quite explicitly too...


>
>> That you
>> can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you
>> too...
>
> Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. Raising
> animals
> for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
==============================
LOL I think that that is what I have been saying. You should
tell that to the vegan LOONS. They comapre animals to slaves and
death camps all the time making just such claims...




>>
>> >
>> >> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
>> >> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
>> >> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is
>> >> showing.
>> >> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
>> >> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >
>

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Glorfindel wrote:
> >> >> rick wrote:
> >> >> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> > oups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> >>rick wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
> >> >>
> >> >> >>How is it racist?
> >> >> >>===========
> >> >>
> >> >> > Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her
> >> >> > comparisons
> >> >> > are black to dogs.
> >> >>
> >> >> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> >> >> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> >> >> ethnic group.
> >> >
> >> > Even if this weren't the case it is preposterous of Rick to
> >> > be accusing you of racism. The sentence "Black people
> >> > were treated like dogs" has a completely different meaning
> >> > from the sentence "black people are like dogs". The fact
> >> > that Rick can't see the difference speaks volumes.
> >> ==========================
> >> No, the fact that all
> >
> > Some
> > =====================
> All of them here on usenet.

Apart from Glorfindel I can't remember seeing anyone make these
types of comparison.

> I've said many times here that I
> refer only to usenet vegans.
>
> >> vegan loons
> >
> > Advocates
> ===========================
> Loons. Advocates don't make absurd claims that demean their
> position with lys, delusions, and propaganda...

I have seen some of the vegans here make absurd claims but not
all of them by any means.

> >
> >> always compare animals to people
> >
> > Well they do have some things in common don't they?
> =======================
> Not rights. You know it, I know, and vegan loons here know it
> too.

Rights are a social construct, not an inherent property. Slaves
don't have rights either.

> Animals cannot and will not have rights as long as vegan
> loons only focus on animals that they think others are killing.
> Their lack of concern for animals that die for thier diet and
> entertainment prove that they don't belive in, much less support
> animal rights. Trying to comapre rights for animals to people
> that have had their rights violated is bigotry.
>
>
> >
> >> speaks volumes to their idiocy.
> >> Pets are like slaves,
> >
> > Is not a racist statement.
> ====================
> Yes, it is in the context that vegan loons here use it. I
> responding with several years of posting history about their
> comparisions...

The statement you replied to was not racist.
>
>
> >
> >> the
> >> meat industry is like killing jews in the holocaust.
> >
> > Is not a racist statement.
> =========================
> Yes, it is. Equating jews dying in the holocaust with chickens
> in barns is racist and demeaning.

It is not racist. Glorfindel is not comparing Chickens to jews.
She is comparing the way humans treat chickens with the
way humans treated humans in the past.

> It also displays their hatred
> of people quite explicitly too...

I disagree.

> >
> >> That you
> >> can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you
> >> too...
> >
> > Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. Raising
> > animals
> > for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
> ==============================
> LOL I think that that is what I have been saying.

It is the part of what you have been saying that I can agree with.
The idea that it is racist to make such analogies is absurd.

> You should
> tell that to the vegan LOONS. They comapre animals to slaves and
> death camps all the time making just such claims...
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> >> >> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> >> >> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is
> >> >> showing.
> >> >> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> >> >> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >

Dave wrote:

<snip>

> Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. Raising animals
> for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.

<snip>

I would argue this, for I do believe pet ownership is morally
equivalent to slavery, and raising animals for meat as it is
done in modern factory farms is equivalent to treatment of
humans in concentration camps or poorly-run prison camps. It
is not equivalent to genocide, because the purpose is not to
eliminate a species or breed of animal. It is immoral, IMO,
for two main reasons: the welfare concerns WART the way the
animals are treated, and the more basic moral issue of treating
subject-of-a-life beings with inherent value as mere economic
products, as things, as property. The moral issue for both pets
and "food" animals is the same: treating a being who should be
treated as a "he" or "she" -- even if not a being with the same
kind of rights as a normal adult human -- as an "it", a thing,
a mere piece of property which has only contingent worth based
on its utilitarian value to humans.

Karen Winter blabbered:

> Dave wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. Raising animals
> > for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
>
> <snip>
>
> I would argue this, for I do believe pet ownership is morally
> equivalent to slavery,

You don't "argue" it, Karen - you merely assert it as an expression of
your incoherent belief.

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. Raising
>> animals
>> for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
>
> <snip>
>
> I would argue this, for I do believe pet ownership is morally
> equivalent to slavery, and raising animals for meat as it is
> done in modern factory farms is equivalent to treatment of
> humans in concentration camps or poorly-run prison camps. It
> is not equivalent to genocide, because the purpose is not to
> eliminate a species or breed of animal. It is immoral, IMO,
> for two main reasons: the welfare concerns WART the way the
> animals are treated, and the more basic moral issue of treating
> subject-of-a-life beings with inherent value as mere economic
> products, as things, as property. The moral issue for both
> pets
> and "food" animals is the same: treating a being who should be
> treated as a "he" or "she" -- even if not a being with the same
> kind of rights as a normal adult human -- as an "it", a thing,
> a mere piece of property which has only contingent worth based
> on its utilitarian value to humans.
> ================================

Yet YOU fail to treat animals in any humane way for your diet and
entertainemnt, fool. You continue to prove that animals do not
have rights, and that YOU do not belive they do or should,
killer.


>
>

Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. Raising animals
> > for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
>
> <snip>
>
> I would argue this, for I do believe pet ownership is morally
> equivalent to slavery,

I disagree because in there is a major difference in
motivation and consequence. People generally buy pets
for companionship and treat them well. People who
buy slaves generally do so for selfish reasons so they
can live off the work of others.

> and raising animals for meat as it is
> done in modern factory farms is equivalent to treatment of
> humans in concentration camps or poorly-run prison camps.

I have some sympathy for this view. I abhor the way animals
are treated as little more than production machines in many
intensive systems.

> It
> is not equivalent to genocide, because the purpose is not to
> eliminate a species or breed of animal. It is immoral, IMO,
> for two main reasons: the welfare concerns WART

what does WART stand for?

the way the
> animals are treated, and the more basic moral issue of treating
> subject-of-a-life beings with inherent value as mere economic
> products, as things, as property.

I believe the vast majority of pets are treated with far more
consideration then mere, economic products, things, property.
Some food animals are too.

> The moral issue for both pets
> and "food" animals is the same: treating a being who should be
> treated as a "he" or "she" -- even if not a being with the same
> kind of rights as a normal adult human -- as an "it", a thing,
> a mere piece of property which has only contingent worth based
> on its utilitarian value to humans.

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> snip the racist spew from karen.....
> >
> > How is it racist?
> >===========
> Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
> are black

Her comparisons mentioned nothing about being American or black.

> to dogs.

Her comparisons were based on legal status, not individual worth.

> That you don't see comparing them to animals as racist says
> alot...