Discussion:
It doesn't matter how many CDs lurk behind an omnivore's diet
(too old to reply)
Bill
2003-11-16 17:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.

Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".

First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.

Once the admission is made, the game is over. The huge
number of collateral animal deaths for which "vegans"
are morally complicit illustrates the bankruptcy of
"veganism" as an ethical choice. It is not based, in
any way, on any legitimate ethical principle. Rather,
is is merely blind, irrational obedience to a silly rule.

It is a tactical mistake for omnivores who are trying
to illustrate the hypocrisy of "veganism" to get caught
up in a counting game. It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Ipse dixit
2003-11-16 17:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do. Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15

The omnivores on this group who attack any vegan
for denying the collateral deaths associated with
their food ignore Rick's denial, so yes, omnivores
do have a consistency problem.
usual suspect
2003-11-16 18:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally. Your comparisons have not been
apropos to his situation. You've done nothing, as usual, to disprove his
claims. You've also failed to note your unethical snips, as usual.

It's been 48 hours since I responded to you. Your silence is very, very
telling.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
How do you propose protecting the lamb's inalienable
rights from the lion's desire to eat him?
Rights can only be held against other moral agents,
and you already knew that.
Then the term "animal rights" is oxymoronic.
<snip>
Two days and no response from the crippled, bluefooted, deranged, OBESE
greasemonkey.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-16 18:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
They allow themselves and other meatarians to make
the claim that they eat a CD-free food while denying
the same claim to be made by vegetarians. That's an
inconsistency problem.
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally, so does that mean they are
CD free? Thanks for letting me know I eat a CD free
diet. It seems all vegans need to say is that their veg is
produced locally; that way we can all avoid your red
herring argument altogether.
Bill
2003-11-16 18:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
They allow themselves and other meatarians to make
the claim that they eat a CD-free food while denying
the same claim to be made by vegetarians. That's an
inconsistency problem.
No, it isn't, because you are lying:

1. omnivores generally don't make the claim that they
follow a CD-free diet; you are lying to allege they
do;

2. omnivores don't "allow" others to make the claim.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally,
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store, you fuckwitted cocksucking
liar.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-16 20:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally,
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store,
Nope. I buy every single item from local producers
that tell me the same as they tell Rick; that it's all
CD-free.
usual suspect
2003-11-16 20:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store,
Nope.
Yep, liar. Take a look at what you wrote. You wrote that you get sprouts
at Sainsbury's:

All these part players who get my sprouts into Sainsbury's are
only linked commercially.
http://tinyurl.com/v8kf

You also noted in another post that you order online from Tesco:

Incidentally, when ordering goods from Tescos on line, a small
box alongside each item asks for any additional information or
notes from the consumer. From now on I shall add; "Please ensure
no animals died in the production of this item." That should do
it.

And you suggested you might start including a Hyacinth Bucket-style note:

Dear Manager at Tescos,
Please ensure that no animals die during the production of my
food that I buy from you, and withold any monies I pay for my
items from any farmers.

Both above: http://tinyurl.com/v8kr

It's been over 48 hours since I responded to you. Why the stone cold
silence, Dreck?
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
How do you propose protecting the lamb's inalienable
rights from the lion's desire to eat him?
Rights can only be held against other moral agents,
and you already knew that.
Then the term "animal rights" is oxymoronic.
<snip>
Two days and no response from the crippled, bluefooted, deranged, OBESE
greasemonkey.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 11:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by usual suspect
Post by Bill
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store,
Nope.
Yep, liar. Take a look at what you wrote. You wrote that you get sprouts
I've changed from them to locally produced stuff.
All CD-free. Just like Rick's GFB.
Bill
2003-11-17 03:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally,
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store,
Nope.
Yep.
Post by Ipse dixit
I buy every single item from local producers
No, you don't, cocksucker. You buy from Sainsbury,
Safeway, Tesco. You're as commercial as one could be.
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 11:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally,
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store,
Nope.
Yep.
Not any more. Can you prove otherwise?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I buy every single item from local producers
No, you don't
Yes, I do, and those blessed farmers tell me that
no CDs accrue during the production of it.
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to. It's easy once you get the hang
of it.
Bill
2003-11-17 15:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally,
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store,
Nope.
Yep.
Not any more.
You're lying.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I buy every single item from local producers
No, you don't
Yes, I do,
No, you don't.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 16:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally,
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store,
Nope.
Yep.
Not any more.
You're lying.
And your proof of this is?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I buy every single item from local producers
No, you don't
Yes, I do,
No, you don't.
Do.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Shall I arrange for her to call you on your mobile in
about an about ten minutes?
Bill
2003-11-17 17:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally,
That's a lie. You buy from the multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store,
Nope.
Yep.
Not any more.
You're lying.
And your proof of this is?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I buy every single item from local producers
No, you don't
Yes, I do,
No, you don't.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Shall I arrange for her to call you on your mobile in
about an about ten minutes?
No. I'll file a harassment complaint with Scotland
Yard if you do.

You can't cook, you don't shop. Your groceries
continue to come from the giant multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store chains.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 17:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Shall I arrange for her to call you on your mobile in
about an about ten minutes?
No. I'll file a harassment complaint with Scotland
Yard if you do.
You have just proved you know Belinda is still with
me. If Sherlock asks the suspect, "Don't you know
your wife was killed last night?", and the suspect
replies, "No, who murdered her?", he has been
caught knowing what he claims not to know. He
*implicitly* contradicted himself by asserting a
premise and denying its conclusion.

This is essentially what you have done by threatening
to call the cops if Belinda rings you. You have have
*implicity* contradicted yourself by asserting a premise
(Belinda has left me and cannot call you when asked
by me to do so) but denied your conclusion by
threatening to call the cops in an effort to stop her
calling you after I've asked her to do so; something
you shouldn't have had to do if you knew she wasn't
here right now.

I'm not daft, y'know.
Post by Bill
You can't cook
It's not as complicated as you might think. It's
all about timing and prep. I'm a fast learner with
a good sense of timing, so I should do well.
Post by Bill
you don't shop.
True.
Post by Bill
Your groceries
continue to come from the giant multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store chains.
No. They come from a lovely farmer-type I know
of just down the road and on a few miles who
categorically demands and assures me that no
animals died during its production. Eureka!
Bill
2003-11-17 17:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Shall I arrange for her to call you on your mobile in
about an about ten minutes?
No. I'll file a harassment complaint with Scotland
Yard if you do.
You have just proved you know Belinda is still with
me. If Sherlock asks the suspect, "Don't you know
your wife was killed last night?", and the suspect
replies, "No, who murdered her?", he has been
caught knowing what he claims not to know. He
*implicitly* contradicted himself by asserting a
premise and denying its conclusion.
This is essentially what you have done by threatening
to call the cops if Belinda rings you. You have have
*implicity* contradicted yourself by asserting a premise
(Belinda has left me and cannot call you when asked
by me to do so) but denied your conclusion by
threatening to call the cops in an effort to stop her
calling you after I've asked her to do so; something
you shouldn't have had to do if you knew she wasn't
here right now.
I'm not daft, y'know.
You're much worse than daft; you're fool by choice.

I haven't given evidence, let alone "prove", what you
allege. You could induce your estranged and
living-elsewhere and soon-to-be-ex wife Belinda to call
me, even though she has left you.

Beating you in debate is like shooting fish in a
barrel, Dreck.

Thanks for admitting that you *are* Dreck Nash, though.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You can't cook
It's not as complicated as you might think.
I know that, as I am an accomplished cook. You do not
*know* it to be true, as you don't cook.
Post by Ipse dixit
It's all about timing and prep.
Nope. That is not an exhaustive list, so it can't be
"all" about those two.
Post by Ipse dixit
I'm a fast learner
Not based on what we've seen of you here, you're not.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
you don't shop.
True.
Post by Bill
Your groceries
continue to come from the giant multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store chains.
No.
Yes.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 19:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Shall I arrange for her to call you on your mobile in
about an about ten minutes?
No. I'll file a harassment complaint with Scotland
Yard if you do.
You have just proved you know Belinda is still with
me. If Sherlock asks the suspect, "Don't you know
your wife was killed last night?", and the suspect
replies, "No, who murdered her?", he has been
caught knowing what he claims not to know. He
*implicitly* contradicted himself by asserting a
premise and denying its conclusion.
This is essentially what you have done by threatening
to call the cops if Belinda rings you. You have have
*implicity* contradicted yourself by asserting a premise
(Belinda has left me and cannot call you when asked
by me to do so) but denied your conclusion by
threatening to call the cops in an effort to stop her
calling you after I've asked her to do so; something
you shouldn't have had to do if you knew she wasn't
here right now.
I'm not daft, y'know.
You're much worse than daft; you're fool by choice.
I haven't given evidence, let alone "prove", what you
allege. You could induce your estranged and
living-elsewhere and soon-to-be-ex wife Belinda to call
me, even though she has left you.
That's true. I can't do anything else with it.
Post by Bill
Beating you in debate is like shooting fish in a
barrel, Dreck.
That's where you'd need to put me to stand any
chance of a hit.
Post by Bill
Thanks for admitting that you *are* Dreck Nash, though.
Who's Dreck Nash? I'm Ipse dixit.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You can't cook
It's not as complicated as you might think.
I know that, as I am an accomplished cook.
The only thing you've ever cooked is the top of
head by forgetting *that* hat.
Post by Bill
You do not *know* it to be true, as you don't cook.
I'm taking it up as a hobby now I'm out of work
again.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
It's all about timing and prep.
Nope. That is not an exhaustive list, so it can't be
"all" about those two.
Oh, and a stove.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I'm a fast learner
Not based on what we've seen of you here, you're not.
You can always try using those mind reading skills if
what you see here doesn't convince you.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Your groceries
continue to come from the giant multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store chains.
No.
Yes.
No. I now hire a farmer to supply every morsel of food
I eat with a guarantee that no collateral deaths occurred
during its production.
Bill
2003-11-17 19:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Shall I arrange for her to call you on your mobile in
about an about ten minutes?
No. I'll file a harassment complaint with Scotland
Yard if you do.
You have just proved you know Belinda is still with
me. If Sherlock asks the suspect, "Don't you know
your wife was killed last night?", and the suspect
replies, "No, who murdered her?", he has been
caught knowing what he claims not to know. He
*implicitly* contradicted himself by asserting a
premise and denying its conclusion.
This is essentially what you have done by threatening
to call the cops if Belinda rings you. You have have
*implicity* contradicted yourself by asserting a premise
(Belinda has left me and cannot call you when asked
by me to do so) but denied your conclusion by
threatening to call the cops in an effort to stop her
calling you after I've asked her to do so; something
you shouldn't have had to do if you knew she wasn't
here right now.
I'm not daft, y'know.
You're much worse than daft; you're a fool by choice.
I haven't given evidence, let alone "prove", what you
allege. You could induce your estranged and
living-elsewhere and soon-to-be-ex wife Belinda to call
me, even though she has left you.
That's true.
Yes, it's true.
Post by Ipse dixit
I can't do anything else with it.
You can't do much of anything, where logically correct
reasoning is concerned.
Post by Ipse dixit
Beating you in debate is like shooting fish in a
barrel, Dreck.
That's where you'd need to put me to stand any
chance of a hit.
You look like a fucking collander, you've been hit so
many times already.
Post by Ipse dixit
Thanks for admitting that you *are* Dreck Nash, though.
Who's Dreck Nash? I'm Ipse dixit.
Dreck Nash, aka Dipsey Dreckshit, formerly married to
Belinda Nash.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You can't cook
It's not as complicated as you might think.
I know that, as I am an accomplished cook.
The only thing you've ever cooked is the top of
head by forgetting *that* hat.
Nope. I'm not a gourmet cook by any stretch, but I'm
quite a good cook. I know my way around a kitchen, and
before I got a contract that required me to work in the
client's office, I did almost all the cooking here. My
wife is the first to admit she's not as good a cook as
I am, and she has become reasonably proficient at it
(although I'm going to have to have a strong word with
her about these midwestern casseroles she's begun
making; I didn't intend to marry her mother.)
Post by Ipse dixit
You do not *know* it to be true, as you don't cook.
I'm taking it up as a hobby now I'm out of work
again.
That's a lie. You aren't taking it up at all, and
you're not out of work "again", as you never were back
in work.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
I'm a fast learner
Not based on what we've seen of you here, you're not.
You can always try using those mind reading skills if
what you see here doesn't convince you.
No clairvoyance has ever been needed.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Your groceries
continue to come from the giant multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store chains.
No.
Yes.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 20:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Shall I arrange for her to call you on your mobile in
about an about ten minutes?
No. I'll file a harassment complaint with Scotland
Yard if you do.
You have just proved you know Belinda is still with
me. If Sherlock asks the suspect, "Don't you know
your wife was killed last night?", and the suspect
replies, "No, who murdered her?", he has been
caught knowing what he claims not to know. He
*implicitly* contradicted himself by asserting a
premise and denying its conclusion.
This is essentially what you have done by threatening
to call the cops if Belinda rings you. You have have
*implicity* contradicted yourself by asserting a premise
(Belinda has left me and cannot call you when asked
by me to do so) but denied your conclusion by
threatening to call the cops in an effort to stop her
calling you after I've asked her to do so; something
you shouldn't have had to do if you knew she wasn't
here right now.
I'm not daft, y'know.
You're much worse than daft; you're a fool by choice.
I haven't given evidence, let alone "prove", what you
allege. You could induce your estranged and
living-elsewhere and soon-to-be-ex wife Belinda to call
me, even though she has left you.
That's true.
Yes, it's true.
Post by Ipse dixit
I can't do anything else with it.
You can't do much of anything, where logically correct
reasoning is concerned.
That's not true, as my conceding a dead end in this
example shows.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Beating you in debate is like shooting fish in a
barrel, Dreck.
That's where you'd need to put me to stand any
chance of a hit.
You look like a fucking collander, you've been hit so
many times already.
With what - garden peas?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Thanks for admitting that you *are* Dreck Nash, though.
Who's Dreck Nash? I'm Ipse dixit.
Dreck Nash, aka Dipsey Dreckshit, formerly married to
Belinda Nash.
I don't know a Dreck Nash.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You can't cook
It's not as complicated as you might think.
I know that, as I am an accomplished cook.
The only thing you've ever cooked is the top of
head by forgetting *that* hat.
Nope. I'm not a gourmet cook by any stretch, but I'm
quite a good cook. I know my way around a kitchen, and
before I got a contract that required me to work in the
client's office, I did almost all the cooking here. My
wife is the first to admit she's not as good a cook as
I am, and she has become reasonably proficient at it
(although I'm going to have to have a strong word with
her about these midwestern casseroles she's begun
making; I didn't intend to marry her mother.)
Do "midwestern casseroles" come with suet dumplins,
carrots, swedes, parsnips and taters? If they do, you
ought to at least let her mother move into the spare
room.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
You do not *know* it to be true, as you don't cook.
I'm taking it up as a hobby now I'm out of work
again.
That's a lie.
It's true. I need a hobby, and seeing as I'm a vegan,
I thought I may as well see if cooking tickled my
fancy. I'm giving it a try, at least.
Post by Bill
You aren't taking it up at all, and you're not out of
work "again", as you never were back
in work.
I could prove it by e-mailing you the telephone numbers
for each college if it'll help, but I won't, because I'm
hoping they'll be able to hold my job open for me so
I can return one day if I want to.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
I'm a fast learner
Not based on what we've seen of you here, you're not.
You can always try using those mind reading skills if
what you see here doesn't convince you.
No clairvoyance has ever been needed.
A medium?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Your groceries
continue to come from the giant multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store chains.
No. I now hire a farmer to supply every morsel of food
I eat with a guarantee that no collateral deaths occurred
during its production.
Bill
2003-11-17 20:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't even cook, for christallfuckingmighty.
I'm learning to.
No, although now you're wife's left you, you might need
to learn.
Shall I arrange for her to call you on your mobile in
about an about ten minutes?
No. I'll file a harassment complaint with Scotland
Yard if you do.
You have just proved you know Belinda is still with
me. If Sherlock asks the suspect, "Don't you know
your wife was killed last night?", and the suspect
replies, "No, who murdered her?", he has been
caught knowing what he claims not to know. He
*implicitly* contradicted himself by asserting a
premise and denying its conclusion.
This is essentially what you have done by threatening
to call the cops if Belinda rings you. You have have
*implicity* contradicted yourself by asserting a premise
(Belinda has left me and cannot call you when asked
by me to do so) but denied your conclusion by
threatening to call the cops in an effort to stop her
calling you after I've asked her to do so; something
you shouldn't have had to do if you knew she wasn't
here right now.
I'm not daft, y'know.
You're much worse than daft; you're a fool by choice.
I haven't given evidence, let alone "prove", what you
allege. You could induce your estranged and
living-elsewhere and soon-to-be-ex wife Belinda to call
me, even though she has left you.
That's true.
Yes, it's true.
Post by Ipse dixit
I can't do anything else with it.
You can't do much of anything, where logically correct
reasoning is concerned.
That's not true, as my conceding a dead end in this
example shows.
It is true. The concession was forced out of you
against your will. You had no choice.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Beating you in debate is like shooting fish in a
barrel, Dreck.
That's where you'd need to put me to stand any
chance of a hit.
You look like a fucking collander, you've been hit so
many times already.
Post by Ipse dixit
Thanks for admitting that you *are* Dreck Nash, though.
Who's Dreck Nash? I'm Ipse dixit.
Dreck Nash, aka Dipsey Dreckshit, formerly married to
Belinda Nash.
I don't know a Dreck Nash.
You are he, fuckwad. You may not like the name, but
you're stuck with it.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
You do not *know* it to be true, as you don't cook.
I'm taking it up as a hobby now I'm out of work
again.
That's a lie.
It's true.
Yes, I spoke the truth: you lied.
Post by Ipse dixit
I need a hobby, and seeing as I'm a vegan,
You're not.
Post by Ipse dixit
I thought I may as well see if cooking tickled my
fancy. I'm giving it a try, at least.
That's a lie.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
I'm a fast learner
Not based on what we've seen of you here, you're not.
You can always try using those mind reading skills if
what you see here doesn't convince you.
No clairvoyance has ever been needed.
A medium?
No, just keen powers of observation (not in dispute),
and a profound knowledge of western logic.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Your groceries
continue to come from the giant multi-billion
dollar/pound grocery store chains.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 20:53:34 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I can't do anything else with it.
You can't do much of anything, where logically correct
reasoning is concerned.
That's not true, as my conceding a dead end in this
example shows.
It is true. The concession was forced out of you
against your will. You had no choice.
Correct. That's what logical deductive reasoning is
all about. Now, if you could prove with equal logical
clarity that I cause and am responsible for the collateral
deaths already caused by an autonomous moral agent,
as farmers are, allegedly, then I'll concede as promptly
as I was forced to before. I would have no choice.

Even a modicom of ability in this area tells me you can't
do it, and our history here confirms it.
[..]
Bill
2003-11-17 20:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
[..]
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I can't do anything else with it.
You can't do much of anything, where logically correct
reasoning is concerned.
That's not true, as my conceding a dead end in this
example shows.
It is true. The concession was forced out of you
against your will. You had no choice.
Correct.
Yes: correct. The End.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-18 07:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
[..]
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I can't do anything else with it.
You can't do much of anything, where logically correct
reasoning is concerned.
That's not true, as my conceding a dead end in this
example shows.
It is true. The concession was forced out of you
against your will. You had no choice.
Correct.
Yes: correct. The End.
That's what logical deductive reasoning is all about.
Now, if you could prove with equal logical clarity
that I cause and am responsible for the collateral
deaths already caused by an autonomous moral agent,
as farmers are, allegedly, then I'll concede as promptly
as I was forced to before. I would have no choice.

Even a modicom of ability in this area tells me you can't
do it, and our history here confirms it.
Bill
2003-11-18 15:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
[..]
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I can't do anything else with it.
You can't do much of anything, where logically correct
reasoning is concerned.
That's not true, as my conceding a dead end in this
example shows.
It is true. The concession was forced out of you
against your will. You had no choice.
Correct.
Yes: correct. The End.
That's what logical deductive reasoning is all about.
You didn't reason correctly. You were forced to admit,
against your will, that I was right, you filthy
post-forging prick-cheese.
usual suspect
2003-11-16 19:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
They allow themselves and other meatarians to make
the claim that they eat a CD-free food while denying
the same claim to be made by vegetarians.
No, they don't play the counting game.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally, so does that mean they are
CD free?
Since when? You get sprouts at Sainsbury's:

All these part players who get my sprouts into Sainsbury's are
only linked commercially.
http://tinyurl.com/v8kf

You also noted in another post that you order online from Tesco:

Incidentally, when ordering goods from Tescos on line, a small
box alongside each item asks for any additional information or
notes from the consumer. From now on I shall add; "Please ensure
no animals died in the production of this item." That should do
it.

And you suggested you might start including a Hyacinth Bucket-style note:

Dear Manager at Tescos,
Please ensure that no animals die during the production of my
food that I buy from you, and withold any monies I pay for my
items from any farmers.

Both above: http://tinyurl.com/v8kr

It's been over 48 hours since I responded to you. Why the stone cold
silence, Dreck?
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
How do you propose protecting the lamb's inalienable
rights from the lion's desire to eat him?
Rights can only be held against other moral agents,
and you already knew that.
Then the term "animal rights" is oxymoronic.
<snip>
Two days and no response from the crippled, bluefooted, deranged, OBESE
greasemonkey.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-16 20:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
They allow themselves and other meatarians to make
the claim that they eat a CD-free food while denying
the same claim to be made by vegetarians.
No, they don't play the counting game.
They all do. They're sitting ducks. In fact, it's getting
to the point where "I have lost the faculty of enjoying
their destruction, and I am too idle to destroy for
nothing."
Emily Bronte
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally, so does that mean they are
CD free?
I've changed supplier now that Rick has guaranteed
me no animals will die during the production of locally
produced food. It's a winner.
rick etter
2003-11-16 20:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
They allow themselves and other meatarians to make
the claim that they eat a CD-free food while denying
the same claim to be made by vegetarians.
No, they don't play the counting game.
They all do. They're sitting ducks. In fact, it's getting
to the point where "I have lost the faculty of enjoying
their destruction, and I am too idle to destroy for
nothing."
Emily Bronte
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
His grass-fed beef is raised locally.
All my veg is grown locally, so does that mean they are
CD free?
I've changed supplier now that Rick has guaranteed
me no animals will die during the production of locally
produced food.
=====================
Nope. You've never seen me make that statement at all.


It's a winner.
================
And you're still a loser, killer.



Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite...
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 11:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
They allow themselves and other meatarians to make
the claim that they eat a CD-free food while denying
the same claim to be made by vegetarians.
No, they don't play the counting game.
They all do. They're sitting ducks. In fact, it's getting
to the point where "I have lost the faculty of enjoying
their destruction, and I am too idle to destroy for
nothing."
Emily Bronte
I guess that quote went straight over your head, eh,
hypocrite? What's your favourite night-time read;
Spiderman comics?
rick etter
2003-11-17 17:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
They allow themselves and other meatarians to make
the claim that they eat a CD-free food while denying
the same claim to be made by vegetarians.
No, they don't play the counting game.
They all do. They're sitting ducks. In fact, it's getting
to the point where "I have lost the faculty of enjoying
their destruction, and I am too idle to destroy for
nothing."
Emily Bronte
I guess that quote went straight over your head, eh,
hypocrite? What's your favourite night-time read;
Spiderman comics?
====================
You have just lost all faculties, stupid. Too bad you have nothing left to
say for
yourself!


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, killer.
Bill
2003-11-16 18:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Right on cue, Dipsey Dreckshit, the foulest moral
shirker anyone here has ever encountered, displays his
spastic reflexes.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't. They don't have a moral consistency
problem. Only "vegans" do.
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
That's not a moral consistency problem, you fucking
pile of horseshit. It's an erroneous statement.
Post by Ipse dixit
"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15
The omnivores on this group who attack any vegan
for denying the collateral deaths associated with
their food ignore Rick's denial, so yes, omnivores
do have a consistency problem.
False, on three counts. First, you claim that "vegans"
DON'T deny the CDs they cause. Which is it, you
bluefooted fat cocksucker: do they deny them, in which
case they're flatly wrong? Or, do they admit them,
which totally queers "veganism" as an ethical choice?
Your shriveled little raisin-sized nuts are in a vise.

Second, no omnivore attacks "vegans" for denying CDs.
Omnivores DO attack "vegans" who admit to causing the
CDs, but who either refuse (most) or are just too
goddamned fucking stupid (you) to admit their moral
culpability.

Third, I and others have told Rick in the past that the
counting game is a mistake, that the typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
PROVISIONALLY, to tell him that. The proviso is that
he has actually said that no animals die in the course
of producing his beef, and I'm not at all certain he's
said it. I haven't read a post from him in which he's
said it; all I've seen are your claims that he's said
it, and you are a notorious liar. With that in mind,
then here's a small crumb for you: Rick, if you
believe no animals die in the course of the production
of your beef, then I believe you are mistaken.

The consistency I'm talking about is the intellectual
and moral consistency of what one is claiing about
one's diet. "vegans" are entirely inconsistent.
rick etter
2003-11-16 20:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Right on cue, Dipsey Dreckshit, the foulest moral
shirker anyone here has ever encountered, displays his
spastic reflexes.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't. They don't have a moral consistency
problem. Only "vegans" do.
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
That's not a moral consistency problem, you fucking
pile of horseshit. It's an erroneous statement.
Post by Ipse dixit
"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15
The omnivores on this group who attack any vegan
for denying the collateral deaths associated with
their food ignore Rick's denial, so yes, omnivores
do have a consistency problem.
False, on three counts. First, you claim that "vegans"
DON'T deny the CDs they cause. Which is it, you
bluefooted fat cocksucker: do they deny them, in which
case they're flatly wrong? Or, do they admit them,
which totally queers "veganism" as an ethical choice?
Your shriveled little raisin-sized nuts are in a vise.
Second, no omnivore attacks "vegans" for denying CDs.
Omnivores DO attack "vegans" who admit to causing the
CDs, but who either refuse (most) or are just too
goddamned fucking stupid (you) to admit their moral
culpability.
Third, I and others have told Rick in the past that the
counting game is a mistake, that the typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
======================
But I am not talking about 'general' diets. The discussion is about what
individual
vegans *could* do to improve their own bloody footprints. Including looking
into
which of their own foods cause more/less death and suffering, and an
alternative meat
production method. It's the individual vegan here that is claiming their
diet is free of,
or invovles less of, the death and suffering they have never counted for
themselves.
That a vegan can just say, but my diet is better than an average meat eaters
diet
doesn't say much at all. Even at that, they have still never determined
their own individual
impact on animals.
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have always seperated
production,
processing, storage, and transportation of all food I've ever discussed
here, especially
a vegans diet. Again, the production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
Post by Bill
PROVISIONALLY, to tell him that. The proviso is that
he has actually said that no animals die in the course
of producing his beef, and I'm not at all certain he's
said it. I haven't read a post from him in which he's
said it; all I've seen are your claims that he's said
it, and you are a notorious liar. With that in mind,
then here's a small crumb for you: Rick, if you
believe no animals die in the course of the production
of your beef, then I believe you are mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it. I thought that twits had at last caught his
mistake,
but have since decided he didn't. All he's done is finally change his
actual
question. The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs. Even in one the
many
threads he's divided his idiocy into I have claimed that the process,
storage, and
preperation is not CD free.
Post by Bill
The consistency I'm talking about is the intellectual
and moral consistency of what one is claiing about
one's diet. "vegans" are entirely inconsistent.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 09:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Jonathan Ball's failure to correct Rick Etter on his
failure to recognise the collateral deaths associated
with grass fed beef is evidence of my earlier claim
that the CD argument is biased and holds a double
standard.

Rick's desperation to escape the fact that grass fed
beef accrues collateral deaths has now forced him
to separate the growth of the animal in the field from
the processing, storage and distribution of it.

If Rick can separate the growing of his food that is
grown in fields from the processing, storage and
distribution of it, then why aren't vegans allowed to
separate the growing of their food that is grown in
fields in a similar way, and conclude, as Rick and
Jonathan apparently does, that no animals die for
their food?

Read on.
[snip]
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Third, I and others have told Rick in the past that the
counting game is a mistake, that the typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
======================
But I am not talking about 'general' diets.
Everyone else is, including you, but if we look at the
best case scenario of each diet, the vegan diet accrues
no deaths at all, since veg can be grown under glass, but
the meatarian diet always includes at least one death: the
target animal.

Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

Looking at the typical scenarios for each diet produces
the conclusion that Jon has reached: "that the typical
ominvore's diet causes more CDs than the typical
vegan's diet."
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
Goody, then so can we. Vegans can now argue that
veg production accrues no collateral deaths at all.
Like you, we can now separate and discard the
processing, storage and distribution of our veg.
Post by Ipse dixit
especially a vegans diet.
Thanks again for showing that the CD argument is
biased against the vegan and holds a massive double
standard, Rick.
Post by Ipse dixit
Again, the production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
Likewise, then, the production of the veg I eat causes no CDs.

[snip]
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Rick, if you believe no animals die in the course of
the production of your beef, then I believe you are
mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it.
Yep, we did.
"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15

[snip]
Post by Ipse dixit
The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
Then, following your standard, every vegan can
now say that the production of the veg they eat
causes no CDs, because you're not the only one
who can separate out and discard the processing,
storage and distribution side to your food, Dick.
Bill
2003-11-17 15:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Jonathan Ball's failure to correct Rick Etter on his
failure to recognise the collateral deaths associated
with grass fed beef is evidence of my earlier claim
that the CD argument is biased and holds a double
standard.
No, it's evidence of exactly nothing, fuckwit. No one
is obliged to read everything posted, then correct errors.

The CD argument only works against "vegans", because
only "vegans" claim that following a fuckwitted,
inadequate rule makes for a more "ethical" person.
There is no principle behind the fuckwitted rule.
rick etter
2003-11-17 17:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Jonathan Ball's failure to correct Rick Etter on his
failure to recognise the collateral deaths associated
with grass fed beef is evidence of my earlier claim
that the CD argument is biased and holds a double
standard.
=============================
No, it does not, and I have never denied that my food does cause
CDs. In fact, I've never claimed that my food doesn't cause
deliberate deaths of animals. I've never claimed I don't take
responsibility for my complicity in those deaths, even though I
personally don't kill anything. Afterall, I'm just asking for a good
juicy burger, I didn't tell anybody they had to kill something.
</sarcasm> (Since I'm sure you're too stupid to realize that for what is
was)
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick's desperation to escape the fact that grass fed
beef accrues collateral deaths has now forced him
to separate the growth of the animal in the field from
the processing, storage and distribution of it.
=====================
As I have *always* done even for your foods you ignorant fool.
ry reading my possts, you'll see that, killer. Itwas you that first
treid to make hay of the production of my beef. Only after
you're ignorance was exposed, again, did you then start adding
the rest of the processing. You're too stupid to play, dolt.
Post by Ipse dixit
If Rick can separate the growing of his food that is
grown in fields from the processing, storage and
distribution of it, then why aren't vegans allowed to
separate the growing of their food that is grown in
fields in a similar way, and conclude, as Rick and
Jonathan apparently does, that no animals die for
their food?
==========================
Hey, you ignorant fool. Try reading for comprehension sometimes. I have
always
divided your crops into production, processing, storage and transportation.
Man, you
really are that stupid, aren't you, killer? You cannot though make the
claim that any
mono-cultured crops cause no CDs. It's not possible. So, if you make that
statement
you'll be lying. But then, that's nothing new to you, is it hypocrite?
Post by Ipse dixit
Read on.
[snip]
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Third, I and others have told Rick in the past that the
counting game is a mistake, that the typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
======================
But I am not talking about 'general' diets.
Everyone else is, including you,
========================
No, I have always talked about the individual and how they *could* improve
their 'numbers.'
It's you and the vegan loons that *have* to talk about general diets because
you already know
that you're specific diet can be trumped very easily with some meat-included
diets.


but if we look at the
Post by Ipse dixit
best case scenario of each diet, the vegan diet accrues
no deaths at all, since veg can be grown under glass, but
the meatarian diet always includes at least one death: the
target animal.
=======================
But you don't grow you veggies that way. remember the vegan comeback to
grass-fed beff,
"but can you feed the world like that"? You cannot come close to feeding
yourself with under
glass veggies, killer. Again, it's vegans that have to resort to
generalizations because they realize
that specifics make they're case fall apart.
Post by Ipse dixit
Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.
====================
Again, it's vegans that have to resort to generalizations because they
realize
that specifics make they're case fall apart.
Post by Ipse dixit
Looking at the typical scenarios for each diet produces
the conclusion that Jon has reached: "that the typical
ominvore's diet causes more CDs than the typical
vegan's diet."
============================
Again, it's vegans that have to resort to generalizations because they
realize
that specifics make they're case fall apart.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
Goody, then so can we. Vegans can now argue that
veg production accrues no collateral deaths at all.
===================
No, you can't. because the veggies you eat comes from factory-farms,
killer.
Post by Ipse dixit
Like you, we can now separate and discard the
processing, storage and distribution of our veg.
=====================
And your tofu burgers lose again. Big time! Meat substitutes are a process
intensive product.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
especially a vegans diet.
Thanks again for showing that the CD argument is
biased against the vegan and holds a massive double
standard, Rick.
=====================
Yes, the whole process is biased agains't your diet. The double standard
however is all yours.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Ipse dixit
Again, the production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
Likewise, then, the production of the veg I eat causes no CDs.
====================
Nope. You can'r make that claim. Your veggies are machine intensively
farmed.
Too bad for you that your lys are as transparent as usual.
Post by Ipse dixit
[snip]
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Rick, if you believe no animals die in the course of
the production of your beef, then I believe you are
mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it.
Yep, we did.
"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15
====================
Yep, true. Too bad for you, killer.
Post by Ipse dixit
[snip]
Post by Ipse dixit
The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
Then, following your standard, every vegan can
now say that the production of the veg they eat
causes no CDs, because you're not the only one
who can separate out and discard the processing,
storage and distribution side to your food, Dick.
==========================
BNope, a vegan cannot say that at all, because you crops are still machine
intensivly grown.
Too bad your crops don't just grow themselves out in the wild, eh hypocrite?
Bill
2003-11-17 17:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Right on cue, Dipsey Dreckshit, the foulest moral
shirker anyone here has ever encountered, displays his
spastic reflexes.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't. They don't have a moral consistency
problem. Only "vegans" do.
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
That's not a moral consistency problem, you fucking
pile of horseshit. It's an erroneous statement.
Post by Ipse dixit
"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15
The omnivores on this group who attack any vegan
for denying the collateral deaths associated with
their food ignore Rick's denial, so yes, omnivores
do have a consistency problem.
False, on three counts. First, you claim that "vegans"
DON'T deny the CDs they cause. Which is it, you
bluefooted fat cocksucker: do they deny them, in which
case they're flatly wrong? Or, do they admit them,
which totally queers "veganism" as an ethical choice?
Your shriveled little raisin-sized nuts are in a vise.
Second, no omnivore attacks "vegans" for denying CDs.
Omnivores DO attack "vegans" who admit to causing the
CDs, but who either refuse (most) or are just too
goddamned fucking stupid (you) to admit their moral
culpability.
Third, I and others have told Rick in the past that the
counting game is a mistake, that the typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
======================
But I am not talking about 'general' diets. The discussion is about what
individual
vegans *could* do to improve their own bloody footprints. Including looking
into
which of their own foods cause more/less death and suffering, and an
alternative meat
production method. It's the individual vegan here that is claiming their
diet is free of,
or invovles less of, the death and suffering they have never counted for
themselves.
That a vegan can just say, but my diet is better than an average meat eaters
diet
doesn't say much at all. Even at that, they have still never determined
their own individual
impact on animals.
Exactly right, and as I have long pointed out, one may
not establish one's own virtue by comparing one's
behavior with that of someone else, for two reasons:

1. Virtue simply is not legitimately measured that way,
for obvious reasons.

2. If we did allow virtue to be measured comparatively,
then a "vegan" could actually *increase* the number
of deaths he causes and still feel entitled to claim
superior "virtue", so long as the number remained
below that of the omnivore to whom he was comparing
himself. That clearly will not do.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have always seperated
production,
processing, storage, and transportation of all food I've ever discussed
here, especially
a vegans diet. Again, the production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
PROVISIONALLY, to tell him that. The proviso is that
he has actually said that no animals die in the course
of producing his beef, and I'm not at all certain he's
said it. I haven't read a post from him in which he's
said it; all I've seen are your claims that he's said
it, and you are a notorious liar. With that in mind,
then here's a small crumb for you: Rick, if you
believe no animals die in the course of the production
of your beef, then I believe you are mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it.
I have noticed. As you have stated it, I think it's an
absurd claim. You should drop it. It weakens your
overall position, and your overall position is correct
and sufficiently strong without trying to embellish it.
Post by Ipse dixit
I thought that twits had at last caught his
mistake,
but have since decided he didn't. All he's done is finally change his
actual
question. The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs. Even in one the
many
threads he's divided his idiocy into I have claimed that the process,
storage, and
preperation is not CD free.
Post by Bill
The consistency I'm talking about is the intellectual
and moral consistency of what one is claiing about
one's diet. "vegans" are entirely inconsistent.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 18:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.

[snip]
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Rick, if you
believe no animals die in the course of the production
of your beef, then I believe you are mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it.
I have noticed. As you have stated it, I think it's an
absurd claim. You should drop it. It weakens your
overall position
And yours, Jon. It weakens yours too, which is why
I knew you'd have to sort out Rick, one way or the
other eventually. Thanks for playing, you two.
Bill
2003-11-17 18:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
Post by Ipse dixit
[snip]
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Rick, if you
believe no animals die in the course of the production
of your beef, then I believe you are mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it.
I have noticed. As you have stated it, I think it's an
absurd claim. You should drop it. It weakens your
overall position
And yours
Nope. It has nothing to do with my position.
Post by Ipse dixit
It weakens yours too,
False. The claim has nothing to do with my position.
usual suspect
2003-11-17 18:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Bill wrote:
<...>
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
He's always going to put words in your mouth to distort what you
actually said for his own gain. It's part of his despicable, intolerable
nature.

<snip>
Bill
2003-11-17 18:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by usual suspect
<...>
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
He's always going to put words in your mouth to distort what you
actually said for his own gain. It's part of his despicable, intolerable
nature.
It's part and parcel of Dipsey Dreckshit being a
contemptible shitworm.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 18:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
You implied it. The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
necessarily means you think he's absurd.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Rick, if you
believe no animals die in the course of the production
of your beef, then I believe you are mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it.
I have noticed. As you have stated it, I think it's an
absurd claim. You should drop it. It weakens your
overall position
And yours
Nope.
You've already established that Rick is insane, so yes,
the absurd claims he keeps making every time he runs
his mouth does weaken your position as well.
Post by Bill
It has nothing to do with my position.
Distance yourself from him as quickly as you can
before he ruins your own position, Jon. Take my
advice and you'll be thanking me this time tomorrow.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
It weakens yours too,
False. The claim has nothing to do with my position.
Good move!
Bill
2003-11-17 18:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
You implied it.
I didn't. You didn't even infer it; you're pretending
to infer it.
Post by Ipse dixit
The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
I did not point out any such thing. I pointed out one
claim he has made that I believe to be absurd.
Post by Ipse dixit
necessarily means you think he's absurd.
False, but an excellent demonstration of your utter
ineptitude with logic. That one goes right along with
your absurd claim that I have "proved" that Belinda
hasn't left you.

You simply can't do logic, Dreck. That's not
surprising; stupid grease monkeys aren't expected to
understand abstract logic; they're barely able to
understand a wiring diagram.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 19:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
You implied it.
I didn't.
By implication, Rick must be absurd to think absurd
things, else Harrison is fully sane.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
I did not point out any such thing. I pointed out one
claim he has made that I believe to be absurd.
Harrison only makes one absurd claim.
Bill
2003-11-17 19:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
You implied it.
I didn't.
By implication, Rick must be absurd to think absurd
things, else Harrison is fully sane.
No. He has made an error. Sane people make errors;
they generally don't consistently make them, as insane
people like "vegans" do.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
I did not point out any such thing. I pointed out one
claim he has made that I believe to be absurd.
Harrison only makes one absurd claim.
No, he makes several. However, his overall fuckwitted
philosophy depends crucially on the one big absurd
claim he makes.

You really are a fuckwit, Dreck; you insist I have
misstated Fuckwit's beliefs in the past, yet you just
now acknowledge that I haven't.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 20:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
You implied it.
I didn't.
By implication, Rick must be absurd to think absurd
things, else Harrison is fully sane.
No. He has made an error.
They both have.
Post by Bill
Sane people make errors;
they generally don't consistently make them
Rick has been making his error consistently and for
just as long as Harrison, so which out of the two is
absurd, if not both of them?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
I did not point out any such thing. I pointed out one
claim he has made that I believe to be absurd.
Harrison only makes one absurd claim.
No, he makes several.
Each have held a single absurd claim that has been
unique to them only, so which out of the two is
absurd, if not both of them?
Post by Bill
However, his overall fuckwitted
philosophy depends crucially on the one big absurd
claim he makes.
So does Rick's.
Bill
2003-11-17 20:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
You implied it.
I didn't.
By implication, Rick must be absurd to think absurd
things, else Harrison is fully sane.
No. He has made an error.
They both have.
Making an error is not evidence of insanity.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Sane people make errors;
they generally don't consistently make them
Rick has been making his error consistently and for
just as long as Harrison, so which out of the two is
absurd, if not both of them?
Making errors, even absurd ones, doesn't mean the
person committing the error is insane.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
I did not point out any such thing. I pointed out one
claim he has made that I believe to be absurd.
Harrison only makes one absurd claim.
No, he makes several.
Each have held a single absurd claim that has been
unique to them only, so which out of the two is
absurd, if not both of them?
Fuckwit's whole story is absurd, because it depends
crucially on his absurd error. Rick's position overall
doesn't depend on his error. His error stands in
isolation. He can acknowledge it without abandoning
his position. Fuckwit can't do the same.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
However, his overall fuckwitted
philosophy depends crucially on the one big absurd
claim he makes.
So does Rick's.
No, it doesn't.


You'll never get it, Cliff.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-18 09:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
You implied it.
I didn't.
By implication, Rick must be absurd to think absurd
things, else Harrison is fully sane.
No. He has made an error.
They both have.
Making an error is not evidence of insanity.
According to you, it is. Harrison makes a single absurd
claim wich is unique to him only, and from that you
have judged that he is insane;

["False. "aras" do not view them as morally considerable
before they are conceived. ONLY YOU do that, Fuckwit.
ONLY YOU. You're insane.]
Jonathan Ball 2002-11-09

Rick also makes a single absurd claim that is unique
to him only, and he's been making this same claim
for as long as Harrison has been making his, yet you
don't judge that he is insane. Do you use a double
standard in all your judgements, Jon?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Sane people make errors;
they generally don't consistently make them
Rick has been making his error consistently and for
just as long as Harrison, so which out of the two is
absurd, if not both of them?
Making errors, even absurd ones, doesn't mean the
person committing the error is insane.
["False. "aras" do not view them as morally considerable
before they are conceived. ONLY YOU do that, Fuckwit.
ONLY YOU. You're insane.]
Jonathan Ball 2002-11-09
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
I did not point out any such thing. I pointed out one
claim he has made that I believe to be absurd.
Harrison only makes one absurd claim.
No, he makes several.
He make only the one claim; that animals are
morally considerable before they are concieved,
and from that he goes on to conclude that they
should be given the chance to experience life.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Each have held a single absurd claim that has been
unique to them only, so which out of the two is
absurd, if not both of them?
Fuckwit's whole story is absurd, because it depends
crucially on his absurd error.
I noticed you used the singular term "error" instead
of "errors" when noting the number of absurd claims
Harrison makes. By doing that you have contradicted
yourself by asserting a premise (Harrisons makes
error[s]) but denied your conclusion ( Fuckwit's whole
story is absurd, because it depends crucially on his
absurd error.) tch tch tch
Post by Bill
Rick's position overall doesn't depend on his error.
Rick's whole position stands or falls on his error,
because once it's been established that his claim
is absurd, then his other claims in that vegans could
do better by eating grass fed beef are shattered.
Bill
2003-11-18 16:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
By implication, Rick must be absurd to think absurd
things, else Harrison is fully sane.
No. He has made an error.
They both have.
Making an error is not evidence of insanity.
According to you, it is.
No. That isn't according to me, you post-forging
prick-cheese.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Sane people make errors;
they generally don't consistently make them
Rick has been making his error consistently and for
just as long as Harrison, so which out of the two is
absurd, if not both of them?
Making errors, even absurd ones, doesn't mean the
person committing the error is insane.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
I did not point out any such thing. I pointed out one
claim he has made that I believe to be absurd.
Harrison only makes one absurd claim.
No, he makes several.
He make only the one claim; that animals are
morally considerable before they are concieved,
and from that he goes on to conclude that they
should be given the chance to experience life.
No. You are wrong. He makes more claims than that.

That claim you have identified, however, is at the root
of his entire position. Rick's erroneous claim about
no CDs resulting from raising his cattle is not the
cornerstone of anything.

It's over, Dreckshit. You've lost. Again.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Each have held a single absurd claim that has been
unique to them only, so which out of the two is
absurd, if not both of them?
Fuckwit's whole story is absurd, because it depends
crucially on his absurd error.
I noticed you used the singular term "error" instead
of "errors" when noting the number of absurd claims
Harrison makes.
Because only the one is absurd. The rest are merely silly.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Rick's position overall doesn't depend on his error.
Dutch
2003-11-18 16:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Rick's position overall doesn't depend on his error.
Rick's whole position stands or falls on his error,
because once it's been established that his claim
is absurd, then his other claims in that vegans could
do better by eating grass fed beef are shattered.
That's false. Rick's argument is equally valid if his source of meat only
causes a greatly reduced number of cds compared to factory farmed meat or
vegetables. It does not depend on it causing none.
Bill
2003-11-17 19:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
I didn't say Rick is absurd, fuckwad. You lied.
You implied it.
I didn't. You didn't even infer it; you're pretending
to infer it.
Post by Ipse dixit
The fact that you pointed out Rick
makes absurd claims every time he runs his mouth
I did not point out any such thing. I pointed out one
claim he has made that I believe to be absurd.
Post by Ipse dixit
necessarily means you think he's absurd.
False, but an excellent demonstration of your utter
ineptitude with logic. That one goes right along with
your absurd claim that I have "proved" that Belinda
hasn't left you.

You simply can't do logic, Dreck. That's not
surprising; stupid grease monkeys aren't expected to
understand abstract logic; they're barely able to
understand a wiring diagram.
rick etter
2003-11-17 22:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have
always seperated production, processing, storage, and
transportation of all food I've ever discussed here,
especially a vegans diet. Again, the production of the
beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
Exactly, Jon: Rick's absurd, just like you said he is.
====================
Nope, but you still are stupid.
Post by Ipse dixit
[snip]
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Rick, if you
believe no animals die in the course of the production
of your beef, then I believe you are mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it.
I have noticed. As you have stated it, I think it's an
absurd claim. You should drop it. It weakens your
overall position
And yours, Jon. It weakens yours too, which is why
I knew you'd have to sort out Rick, one way or the
other eventually. Thanks for playing, you two.
====================
LOL You haven't sorted out anything, stupid, nor have you weakened
anything.
You only thing that took a hit wae your ethics, but that was down the toilet
anyway.
rick etter
2003-11-17 22:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Right on cue, Dipsey Dreckshit, the foulest moral
shirker anyone here has ever encountered, displays his
spastic reflexes.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do.
No, they don't. They don't have a moral consistency
problem. Only "vegans" do.
Post by Ipse dixit
Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
That's not a moral consistency problem, you fucking
pile of horseshit. It's an erroneous statement.
Post by Ipse dixit
"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15
The omnivores on this group who attack any vegan
for denying the collateral deaths associated with
their food ignore Rick's denial, so yes, omnivores
do have a consistency problem.
False, on three counts. First, you claim that "vegans"
DON'T deny the CDs they cause. Which is it, you
bluefooted fat cocksucker: do they deny them, in which
case they're flatly wrong? Or, do they admit them,
which totally queers "veganism" as an ethical choice?
Your shriveled little raisin-sized nuts are in a vise.
Second, no omnivore attacks "vegans" for denying CDs.
Omnivores DO attack "vegans" who admit to causing the
CDs, but who either refuse (most) or are just too
goddamned fucking stupid (you) to admit their moral
culpability.
Third, I and others have told Rick in the past that the
counting game is a mistake, that the typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
======================
But I am not talking about 'general' diets. The discussion is about what
individual
vegans *could* do to improve their own bloody footprints. Including looking
into
which of their own foods cause more/less death and suffering, and an
alternative meat
production method. It's the individual vegan here that is claiming their
diet is free of,
or invovles less of, the death and suffering they have never counted for
themselves.
That a vegan can just say, but my diet is better than an average meat eaters
diet
doesn't say much at all. Even at that, they have still never determined
their own individual
impact on animals.
Exactly right, and as I have long pointed out, one may
not establish one's own virtue by comparing one's
1. Virtue simply is not legitimately measured that way,
for obvious reasons.
2. If we did allow virtue to be measured comparatively,
then a "vegan" could actually *increase* the number
of deaths he causes and still feel entitled to claim
superior "virtue", so long as the number remained
below that of the omnivore to whom he was comparing
himself. That clearly will not do.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If you now want me to tell Rick that he is mistaken in
claiming that no animals die collaterally in the course
of the production of his beef, then I am happy,
==================
And you'd be wrong. Notice for a second that I have always seperated
production,
processing, storage, and transportation of all food I've ever discussed
here, especially
a vegans diet. Again, the production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
Sorry; that's an absurd claim. You don't follow the
cattle around from birth to death to ensure that
NOTHING in the course of raising them causes other
animals to die. Your claim is absurd on its face.
==================
nope. No input goes into their roaming around the fields and pastures.
No 'farming' takes place for the raising of the cows themselves.
they live right here. i see them every day. Yesterday they were
intermingled
with a group of deer. Same lack of CDs go into their 'production' as well.
Although, I might give twts more for the deer, since they do have the
ability
to jump fences and eat corn and other crops. Of course, these crops aren't
grown just for
them, but maybe Twits would like to claim they have CDs behind them now.
Now, if I were buying beef from a store somewhere, I'd agree with you.
But again, I have always broken down the process into production,
processing, storage and transportation.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
PROVISIONALLY, to tell him that. The proviso is that
he has actually said that no animals die in the course
of producing his beef, and I'm not at all certain he's
said it. I haven't read a post from him in which he's
said it; all I've seen are your claims that he's said
it, and you are a notorious liar. With that in mind,
then here's a small crumb for you: Rick, if you
believe no animals die in the course of the production
of your beef, then I believe you are mistaken.
==================
Again, notice how I stated it.
I have noticed. As you have stated it, I think it's an
absurd claim. You should drop it. It weakens your
overall position, and your overall position is correct
and sufficiently strong without trying to embellish it.
=======================
Not trying to embellish anything. twits was too stupid to see what I was
saying.
Nothing is weakened, except twits' twisted logic. As if that could go any
lower.
It's nothing I rely on, just a poke in his eye, again. Again, I never
claimed that
all grass-fed beef would be CD free, just one very specific set.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
I thought that twits had at last caught his
mistake,
but have since decided he didn't. All he's done is finally change his
actual
question. The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs. Even in one the
many
threads he's divided his idiocy into I have claimed that the process,
storage, and
preperation is not CD free.
Post by Bill
The consistency I'm talking about is the intellectual
and moral consistency of what one is claiing about
one's diet. "vegans" are entirely inconsistent.
rick etter
2003-11-16 20:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem
Yes, they do. Rick Etter believes grass fed beef is
a CD-free alternative to regular meat and vegetables.
"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15
=======================
True. The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs. Deal with it,
killer.
Post by Ipse dixit
The omnivores on this group who attack any vegan
for denying the collateral deaths associated with
their food ignore Rick's denial, so yes, omnivores
do have a consistency problem.
=====================
No, we don't. Again, I've never denied that animals die for my food.
*You* have. I've never denied my complicity in animal deaths for my
food and lifestyle. *You* have.


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite...
Ipse dixit
2003-11-16 18:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Post by Bill
The huge
number of collateral animal deaths for which "vegans"
are morally complicit illustrates the bankruptcy of
"veganism" as an ethical choice.
The choice being made by vegans is to avoid eating
farmed animals. The CDs caused by farmers to
produce vegetables has nothing to do with our choice
to avoid meat.
Post by Bill
It is not based, in
any way, on any legitimate ethical principle. Rather,
is is merely blind, irrational obedience to a silly rule.
And that "silly rule" ( to aviod eating meat) is based on
a "legitimate ethical priciple" (an animal's right to be free
from our exploitation of it), so this does prove that your
claim is certainly wrong.
Post by Bill
It is a tactical mistake for omnivores who are trying
to illustrate the hypocrisy of "veganism" to get caught
up in a counting game.
heh heh heh, but they never learn.
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights. It doesn't
work, Jon.
Bill
2003-11-16 18:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The huge
number of collateral animal deaths for which "vegans"
are morally complicit illustrates the bankruptcy of
"veganism" as an ethical choice.
The choice being made by vegans is to avoid eating
farmed animals.
It's too narrow a choice, and is not based on any
ethical principle.
Post by Ipse dixit
The CDs caused by farmers
to satisfy the demand of "vegans"...
Post by Ipse dixit
to produce vegetables has nothing to do with our choice
to avoid meat.
You prove, beyond doubt, that "veganism" isn't based on
any morally coherent ethical principle. "veganism" is,
simply and stupidly, blind obedience to an inadequate,
principle-free rule.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It is not based, in
any way, on any legitimate ethical principle. Rather,
is is merely blind, irrational obedience to a silly rule.
And that "silly rule" ( to aviod eating meat) is based on
a "legitimate ethical priciple" (an animal's right to be free
from our exploitation of it)
No, it is not. If it were, then you would stop
exploiting animals by killing them collaterally. You
don't, hence you illustrate that there is no ethically
legitimate priniciple behind your dirty choice. The
only principle you may be said to be following is the
principle of self exaltation, clearly a despicable one.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It is a tactical mistake for omnivores who are trying
to illustrate the hypocrisy of "veganism" to get caught
up in a counting game.
heh heh heh, but they never learn.
Slowly, thanks to my tutelage, they are.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs. The colossal moral
difference is not in dispute.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-16 19:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites while the real
killers out there like Saunby and Mercer laugh
their heads off at them. Nice work Jon! You're
exceptionally good at this, and that deserves a
certain amount of respect.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The huge
number of collateral animal deaths for which "vegans"
are morally complicit illustrates the bankruptcy of
"veganism" as an ethical choice.
The choice being made by vegans is to avoid eating
farmed animals.
It's too narrow a choice, and is not based on any
ethical principle.
The width of choice is irrelevant, and you're wrong
to say the choice isn't based on an ethical principle.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
The CDs caused by farmers
to satisfy the demand of "vegans"...
To increase their profits, actually. Vegan don't "demand"
farmers cause collateral deaths.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
to produce vegetables has nothing to do with our choice
to avoid meat.
You prove, beyond doubt, that "veganism" isn't based on
any morally coherent ethical principle. "veganism" is,
simply and stupidly, blind obedience to an inadequate,
principle-free rule.
Ipse dixit.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It is not based, in
any way, on any legitimate ethical principle. Rather,
is is merely blind, irrational obedience to a silly rule.
And that "silly rule" ( to aviod eating meat) is based on
a "legitimate ethical priciple" (an animal's right to be free
from our exploitation of it)
No, it is not.
It is where I'm concerned.
Post by Bill
If it were, then you would stop
exploiting animals by killing them collaterally.
How can I stop something I'm not doing, Jon? The
farmer is killing them.
Post by Bill
You
don't, hence you illustrate that there is no ethically
legitimate priniciple behind your dirty choice. The
only principle you may be said to be following is the
principle of self exaltation, clearly a despicable one.
If you mean we're proud of our efforts in sticking
to our ethical principles, then yes, you could call
that a form of self exaltation, and a wholesome at
that too.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It is a tactical mistake for omnivores who are trying
to illustrate the hypocrisy of "veganism" to get caught
up in a counting game.
heh heh heh, but they never learn.
Slowly, thanks to my tutelage, they are.
I don't think they ever will. Even the brightest
amongst you can't resist trying it. Maybe it's
because they aren't fully behind your other
argument where buying from unethical sources
illustrates a contempt on the part of the buyer
for the rights of those who suffer during its
production.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
Post by Bill
The colossal moral
difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
Bill
2003-11-16 19:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites. They don't merely think it, and
the designation isn't restricted only to those who
admit it and shut up. YOU are a hypocrite, Dreck.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The huge
number of collateral animal deaths for which "vegans"
are morally complicit illustrates the bankruptcy of
"veganism" as an ethical choice.
The choice being made by vegans is to avoid eating
farmed animals.
It's too narrow a choice, and is not based on any
ethical principle.
The width of choice is irrelevant,
It's highly relevant, lying hypocrite.
Post by Ipse dixit
and you're wrong
to say the choice isn't based on an ethical principle.
I am correct in saying it is not based on an ethical
principle.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
The CDs caused by farmers
to satisfy the demand of "vegans"...
To increase their profits, actually.
To produce food, actually: food demanded by "vegans".
Post by Ipse dixit
Vegan don't "demand"
farmers cause collateral deaths.
Irrelevant. Farmers DO cause collateral deaths, the
few fuckwitted "vegans" who hang out here know it, yet
you continue to trade with those farmers.

You are morally complicit in those animal deaths, thus
there is no principle behind your decision not to eat
meat. If there were any ethics behind it, your
decision would be not to participate in animal death.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
to produce vegetables has nothing to do with our choice
to avoid meat.
You prove, beyond doubt, that "veganism" isn't based on
any morally coherent ethical principle. "veganism" is,
simply and stupidly, blind obedience to an inadequate,
principle-free rule.
Ipse dixit.
Nope. Demonstrated truth.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It is not based, in
any way, on any legitimate ethical principle. Rather,
is is merely blind, irrational obedience to a silly rule.
And that "silly rule" ( to aviod eating meat) is based on
a "legitimate ethical priciple" (an animal's right to be free
from our exploitation of it)
No, it is not.
It is where I'm concerned.
Nope. You're lying, simply trying to free ride on real
ethics. There is no real ethical principle behind your
inadequate decision not to eat meat, a decision I'm not
persuaded you even follow. You may have thought there
was one, but there isn't, and it's been proved to you
that there isn't. Your continued claim to be following
ethical principle is untenable.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
If it were, then you would stop
exploiting animals by killing them collaterally.
How can I stop something I'm not doing, Jon? The
farmer is killing them.
In the course of producing your food.

You lost this argument more than two years ago.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You
don't, hence you illustrate that there is no ethically
legitimate priniciple behind your dirty choice. The
only principle you may be said to be following is the
principle of self exaltation, clearly a despicable one.
If you mean we're proud of our efforts in sticking
to our ethical principles,
I don't, because you're not. You adopted a fuckwitted
misanthropic pseudo-philosophy merely to feel good
about yourself, not actually to do good. You have
nothing about which you may legitimately and morally
feel good.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral
difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't. You simply close your eyes. You don't
really need to close them; you are morally blind.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 10:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites.
You might be right, for if they truly believe they are
responsible for and causal to the collateral deaths
of animals in agriculture, even though farmers are
causing them, then they cannot also make the claim
that their victims have a right against them not to be
intentionally harmed for their own personal gains.

The same goes for those who truly believe they are
responsible for and causal to the use of animals in labs.
If they truly believe they are causing the tooth-grinding
agonies suffered by apes holding their swollen, pussy
xenotransplanted organs to their necks with their trembling
hands as they sit in their cages, then why do they continue
to use treatments gained from this torture and cruelty if
they also believe that those animals have a right not to be
intentionally tortured for their personal gains in this way?

Personally though, I think the problem lies with their
concepts of moral responsibility and their faulty logic
on causality rather than any fault in their belief that
animals have certain rights against us.

[snip}
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
No. You are still COUNTING, you fool, and you'll
always get a bloodied nose when you try the counting
game. In fact, if you don't pack it in I'll be forced to
conclude that there's another double standard in the
CD argument: that meatarians will only count animal
collateral death while ignoring the human collateral
deaths.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't.
It is, y'know. What moral difference is there between
a farmer being dragged through a combine and an
animal if both have the right not to be intentionally
dragged through a combine? What moral difference
is there between the intentional poisoning of animals
and humans if both have a right not to be intentionally
poisoned?
Post by Bill
You simply close your eyes. You don't
really need to close them; you are morally blind.
Urgh. I can see where Dutch gets all that crap from.
Bill
2003-11-17 15:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites.
You might be right,
I am right.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
No. You are still COUNTING,
No, I am not counting. I don't need to count; the
massive, towering pile of animal CDs lurking behind
your diet is clearly seen to be orders of magnitude
greater than the tiny, numerically insignificant tally
of human CDs.

The two are not comparable, you stupid bluefooted
uneducated crippled grease monkey, if for no other
reason than the fact that human CDs ARE counted, for
moral and legal reasons, while the animal CDs you cause
are not counted and are forever consequence-free.

I think you *do* get it, Dreck; you're just playing
dumb, something that comes quite naturally to a lowlife
lying moral shirker like you.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't.
It is, y'know.
It isn't. The colossal moral difference is not in
dispute, not to anyone.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You simply close your eyes. You don't
really need to close them; you are morally blind.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 18:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites.
You might be right,
I am right.
You might be right, for if they truly believe they are
responsible for and causal to the collateral deaths
of animals in agriculture, even though farmers are
causing them, then they cannot also make the claim
that their victims have a right against them not to be
intentionally harmed for their own personal gains.

The same goes for those who truly believe they are
responsible for and causal to the use of animals in labs.
If they truly believe they are causing the tooth-grinding
agonies suffered by apes holding their swollen, pussy
xenotransplanted organs to their necks with their trembling
hands as they sit in their cages, then why do they continue
to use treatments gained from this torture and cruelty if
they also believe that those animals have a right not to be
intentionally tortured for their personal gains in this way?

Personally though, I think the problem lies with their
concepts of moral responsibility and their faulty logic
on causality rather than any fault in their belief that
animals have certain rights against us.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
No. You are still COUNTING,
No, I am not counting. I don't need to count; the
massive, towering pile of animal CDs lurking behind
your diet is clearly seen to be orders of magnitude
greater than the tiny, numerically insignificant tally
of human CDs.
That's counting, you fool.
Post by Bill
The two are not comparable
Numerically, no, as your *counting* shows, but
I believe they are morally comparable. You ought
to stop counting, Jon, especially if you're going
to keep complaining at those on your side of the
argument for doing so.
Post by Bill
you stupid bluefooted
uneducated crippled grease monkey
I'll cope with all that just fine.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't.
It is, y'know.
It isn't. The colossal moral difference is not in
dispute, not to anyone.
Then what moral difference is there between a
farmer being dragged through a combine and an
animal if both have the right not to be intentionally
dragged through a combine? What moral difference
is there between the intentional poisoning of animals
and humans if both have a right not to be intentionally
poisoned?
Bill
2003-11-17 18:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites.
You might be right,
I am right.
You might be right,
I am right.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
No. You are still COUNTING,
No, I am not counting. I don't need to count; the
massive, towering pile of animal CDs lurking behind
your diet is clearly seen to be orders of magnitude
greater than the tiny, numerically insignificant tally
of human CDs.
That's counting, you fool.
No. It is not counting.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The two are not comparable
Numerically, no, as your *counting* shows,
I am not counting.
Post by Ipse dixit
but I believe they are morally comparable.
You may or may not believe it. If you do, you are
wrong. If you don't, then you're just lying again.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
you stupid bluefooted
uneducated crippled grease monkey
I'll cope with all that just fine.
Uh-huh.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't.
It is, y'know.
It isn't. The colossal moral difference is not in
dispute, not to anyone.
Then what moral difference is there between a
farmer being dragged through a combine and an
animal if both have the right not to be intentionally
dragged through a combine?
Because they don't have the same right, dumb fuck. You
don't believe they do, either, or else you wouldn't
buy, through your agents Sainsbury and Tesco and
Safeway, from farmers who drag animals through combines.
Post by Ipse dixit
What moral difference
is there between the intentional poisoning of animals
and humans if both have a right not to be intentionally
poisoned?
Both do not enjoy such a right.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-17 19:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites.
You might be right, for if they truly believe they are
responsible for and causal to the collateral deaths
of animals in agriculture, even though farmers are
causing them, then they cannot also make the claim
that their victims have a right against them not to be
intentionally harmed for their own personal gains.

The same goes for those who truly believe they are
responsible for and causal to the use of animals in labs.
If they truly believe they are causing the tooth-grinding
agonies suffered by apes holding their swollen, pussy
xenotransplanted organs to their necks with their trembling
hands as they sit in their cages, then why do they continue
to use treatments gained from this torture and cruelty if
they also believe that those animals have a right not to be
intentionally tortured for their personal gains in this way?

Personally though, I think the problem lies with their
concepts of moral responsibility and their faulty logic
on causality rather than any fault in their belief that
animals have certain rights against us.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
No. You are still COUNTING,
No, I am not counting. I don't need to count; the
massive, towering pile of animal CDs lurking behind
your diet is clearly seen to be orders of magnitude
greater than the tiny, numerically insignificant tally
of human CDs.
That's counting, you fool.
No. It is not counting.
If, as you claim, the "CDs lurking behind my diet
are clearly seen to be orders of magnitude greater
than the tiny, *numerically insignificant tally* of
human CDs", what are you doing if not counting?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The two are not comparable
Numerically, no, as your *counting* shows,
I am not counting.
You are, you fool. Taking note of a *numerically
insignificant tally* is counting.

tally
A stick on which notches are made to keep a count or score.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tally
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
but I believe they are morally comparable.
You may or may not believe it. If you do, you are
wrong.
Ipse dixit.
Post by Bill
If you don't, then you're just lying again.
Prove it.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
you stupid bluefooted
uneducated crippled grease monkey
I'll cope with all that just fine.
Uh-huh.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't.
It is, y'know.
It isn't. The colossal moral difference is not in
dispute, not to anyone.
Then what moral difference is there between a
farmer being dragged through a combine and an
animal if both have the right not to be intentionally
dragged through a combine?
Because they don't have the same right, dumb fuck.
They do according to the conditional "if" statement
in that example.
Post by Bill
You don't believe they do, either, or else you wouldn't
buy, through your agents Sainsbury and Tesco and
Safeway, from farmers who drag animals through combines.
I now hire a farmer to supply every morsel of food
I eat with a guarantee that no collateral deaths
occurred during its production.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
What moral difference
is there between the intentional poisoning of animals
and humans if both have a right not to be intentionally
poisoned?
Both do not enjoy such a right.
They do according to the conditional "if" statement
in that example
Bill
2003-11-17 19:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites.
You might be right,
I am right. Stop going over old ground, fuckhead. Try
to find a job, instead.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
No. You are still COUNTING,
No, I am not counting. I don't need to count; the
massive, towering pile of animal CDs lurking behind
your diet is clearly seen to be orders of magnitude
greater than the tiny, numerically insignificant tally
of human CDs.
That's counting, you fool.
No. It is not counting.
If, as you claim, the "CDs lurking behind my diet
are clearly seen to be orders of magnitude greater
than the tiny, *numerically insignificant tally* of
human CDs", what are you doing if not counting?
Contrasting two obviously different sized piles, and
correctly concluding from the magnitude of the contrast
that there is some fundamental moral difference.

We're not looking at two piles that look as if they
might be the same size, or where one looks as if it may
be half again as large as the other, fuckwit. We're
contrasting the Mount Everest of "vegans" casually
ignored animal CDs with the tiny molehill of genuinely
accidental human CDs, and concluding that some profound
moral difference exists.

The conclusion is right.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The two are not comparable
Numerically, no, as your *counting* shows,
I am not counting.
You are,
I am not.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
but I believe they are morally comparable.
You may or may not believe it. If you do, you are
wrong.
Ipse dixit.
Post by Bill
If you don't, then you're just lying again.
Prove it.
Use Google.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
you stupid bluefooted
uneducated crippled grease monkey
I'll cope with all that just fine.
Uh-huh.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't.
It is, y'know.
It isn't. The colossal moral difference is not in
dispute, not to anyone.
Then what moral difference is there between a
farmer being dragged through a combine and an
animal if both have the right not to be intentionally
dragged through a combine?
Because they don't have the same right, dumb fuck.
They do according to the conditional "if" statement
in that example.
Your condition does not obtain in the world.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't believe they do, either, or else you wouldn't
buy, through your agents Sainsbury and Tesco and
Safeway, from farmers who drag animals through combines.
Post by Ipse dixit
What moral difference
is there between the intentional poisoning of animals
and humans if both have a right not to be intentionally
poisoned?
Both do not enjoy such a right.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-18 09:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites.
You might be right, for if they truly believe they are
responsible for and causal to the collateral deaths
of animals in agriculture, even though farmers are
causing them, then they cannot also make the claim
that their victims have a right against them not to be
intentionally harmed for their own personal gains.

The same goes for those who truly believe they are
responsible for and causal to the use of animals in labs.
If they truly believe they are causing the tooth-grinding
agonies suffered by apes holding their swollen, pussy
xenotransplanted organs to their necks with their trembling
hands as they sit in their cages, then why do they continue
to use treatments gained from this torture and cruelty if
they also believe that those animals have a right not to be
intentionally tortured for their personal gains in this way?

Personally though, I think the problem lies with their
concepts of moral responsibility and their faulty logic
on causality rather than any fault in their belief that
animals have certain rights against us.
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
No. You are still COUNTING,
No, I am not counting. I don't need to count; the
massive, towering pile of animal CDs lurking behind
your diet is clearly seen to be orders of magnitude
greater than the tiny, numerically insignificant tally
of human CDs.
That's counting, you fool.
No. It is not counting.
If, as you claim, the "CDs lurking behind my diet
are clearly seen to be orders of magnitude greater
than the tiny, *numerically insignificant tally* of
human CDs", what are you doing if not counting?
Contrasting two obviously different sized piles, and
correctly concluding from the magnitude of the contrast
that there is some fundamental moral difference.
Apart from the obvious ad hoc goal post move from
a *numerically insignificant tally* to *different sized
piles*, how does changing the numerical tally into a
volume help your argument when it is just as easy for
me to change that volume back into numbers?
Post by Bill
We're not looking at two piles that look as if they
might be the same size, or where one looks as if it may
be half again as large as the other, fuckwit.
Comparing piles or volumes is still counting, especially
since those piles are made from individuals which can
be counted. Give it up, Jon. This one doesn't fly.
Post by Bill
We're
contrasting the Mount Everest of "vegans" casually
ignored animal CDs with the tiny molehill of genuinely
accidental human CDs, and concluding that some profound
moral difference exists.
By counting, weighing or measuring.
Post by Bill
The conclusion is right.
The conclusion is made by counting, weighing or
measuring, and this is something you explicitly said
you should never do, so how can it be right?

[..]
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't.
It is, y'know.
It isn't. The colossal moral difference is not in
dispute, not to anyone.
Then what moral difference is there between a
farmer being dragged through a combine and an
animal if both have the right not to be intentionally
dragged through a combine?
Because they don't have the same right, dumb fuck.
They do according to the conditional "if" statement
in that example.
Your condition does not obtain in the world.
That "if" condition didn't exist for slaves, but it does
now. Back then, the moral difference between a
slave being dragged though a combine and a white
master was huge in the eyes of fellow slave masters,
so my question is a valid one and does exist in the
real World according to ARAs. Why don't you
agree that to someone who believes both have a
right not to be intentionally dragged through a
combine, the moral difference is zero?
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
You don't believe they do, either, or else you wouldn't
buy, through your agents Sainsbury and Tesco and
Safeway, from farmers who drag animals through combines.
Post by Ipse dixit
What moral difference
is there between the intentional poisoning of animals
and humans if both have a right not to be intentionally
poisoned?
Both do not enjoy such a right.
They do in the example I gave. Can't you answer it?
Bill
2003-11-18 16:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths. This is plainly
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Once the admission is made, the game is over.
You mean, once vegans accept your argument that
they themselves are causing them, then yes, you do
have them! Deservedly.
Yet strangely, they don't admit it and shut up.
The stupid ones do. You've got them all walking
around thinking they're hypocrites
They ARE hypocrites.
You might be right,
I am right. You are a time-wasting fat fuck.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
It simply doesn't matter,
intellectually or morally, that a typical omnivore's
diet causes more CDs than the typical "vegan's" diet.
The presence of ANY CDs in the "vegan's" diet is enough
to illustrate the massive moral inconsistency and
towering dishonesty of "vegans".
Then following that line of thinking, if ANY human
CDs occur in farming, or in fact any industry which
we benefit from, then that is enough to illustrate a
contempt for the basic idea of human rights.
No. I have elaborated at length on the immense moral
difference between the massive number of animal CDs and
the miniscule number of human CDs.
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop counting!
The vast difference in scale, as opposed to your
fuckwitted guesses about the actual number you cause,
is relevant.
No. You are still COUNTING,
No, I am not counting. I don't need to count; the
massive, towering pile of animal CDs lurking behind
your diet is clearly seen to be orders of magnitude
greater than the tiny, numerically insignificant tally
of human CDs.
That's counting, you fool.
No. It is not counting.
If, as you claim, the "CDs lurking behind my diet
are clearly seen to be orders of magnitude greater
than the tiny, *numerically insignificant tally* of
human CDs", what are you doing if not counting?
Contrasting two obviously different sized piles, and
correctly concluding from the magnitude of the contrast
that there is some fundamental moral difference.
We're not looking at two piles that look as if they
might be the same size, or where one looks as if it may
be half again as large as the other, fuckwit.
Comparing piles or volumes is still counting,
It is not. It is contrasting.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
We're
contrasting the Mount Everest of "vegans" casually
ignored animal CDs with the tiny molehill of genuinely
accidental human CDs, and concluding that some profound
moral difference exists.
By counting, weighing or measuring.
Measuring is not counting.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The conclusion is right.
The conclusion is made by counting,
False.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
The colossal moral difference is not in dispute.
It is to an ARist who believes both animals and humans
deserve rights.
It isn't.
It is, y'know.
It isn't. The colossal moral difference is not in
dispute, not to anyone.
Then what moral difference is there between a
farmer being dragged through a combine and an
animal if both have the right not to be intentionally
dragged through a combine?
Because they don't have the same right, dumb fuck.
They do according to the conditional "if" statement
in that example.
Your condition does not obtain in the world.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-18 21:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
By counting, weighing or measuring.
Measuring is not counting.
Then, those who believe animals hold a right against
us not to be intentionally poisoned or dragged through
a combine are morally obligated to opt for a lifestyle
which accrues the lowest measure of them : veganism.
Thanks, Jon. I can work with that.
Jonathan Ball
2003-11-18 21:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
By counting, weighing or measuring.
Measuring is not counting.
Then, those who believe animals hold a right against
us not to be intentionally poisoned or dragged through
a combine are morally obligated to opt for a lifestyle
which accrues the lowest measure of them : veganism.
Non sequitur.

You DON'T believe animals hold any such rights: you
willingly and repeatedly buy from farmers who
intentionally poison and drag animals through combines.

You are morally complicit in those deaths. You are a
lying hypocrite, in addition to being a lying forger.
Ipse dixit
2003-11-18 21:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
Post by Ipse dixit
By counting, weighing or measuring.
Measuring is not counting.
Then, those who believe animals hold a right against
us not to be intentionally poisoned or dragged through
a combine are morally obligated to opt for a lifestyle
which accrues the lowest measure of them : veganism.
Non sequitur.
I think you'll find my conclusion does follow logically
from my premise.
Post by Jonathan Ball
You DON'T believe animals hold any such rights
Ipse dixit and false.
Post by Jonathan Ball
you
willingly and repeatedly buy from farmers who
intentionally poison and drag animals through combines.
You are morally complicit in those deaths. You are a
lying hypocrite, in addition to being a lying forger.
Your dying soon, anyway, old Jon.
usual suspect
2003-11-16 18:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
And that "silly rule" ( to aviod eating meat) is based on
a "legitimate ethical priciple" (an animal's right to be free
from our exploitation of it), so this does prove that your
claim is certainly wrong.
Please explain your "legitimate ethical" principle more fully. While
you're at it, consider and address the following in light of your flawed
"ethical" principle --
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by Bill
How do you propose protecting the lamb's inalienable
rights from the lion's desire to eat him?
Rights can only be held against other moral agents,
and you already knew that.
Then the term "animal rights" is oxymoronic.
<snip>
Two days and still no response from the big fat dole scrounger.
Larry
2003-11-16 18:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths.
I think many vegans who have visited this NG are willing to admit they cause
some animal deaths - maybe more than they'd like to are intended to. We run
over insects and rarely a squirrel driving to work too -but we don't give up
driving. The goal of absolutely zero animal deaths is difficult to achieve.

I purpose that ethical vegetarianism is not a worthless concept - because as
a result less deaths are caused and less deaths of higher animals. Don't
throw out the baby with the bathwater. You first need some ideas of the
numbers and some ideas of the values of the lives lost (and the pain and
suffering involved). A clam has a life of little value to me. An insect
even less. I hate mosquitoes as a matter of fact!

I am not willing to start wolfing down bacon burgers just because Rick tells
me a grasshopper or vole dies when plowing a field of cucumbers. I'm not
that stupid or naive.

Many of you here rant and rave about CD's because it makes you feel more
comfortable and placated as you wolf down your bacon burgers - not thinking
for 1 second about all the pain and suffering that goes on with factory
farming.

Wake up and smell the coffee (or the veal, as it may be)!


This is plainly
Post by Bill
false and an absurd thing to believe: "vegans" cause
massive numbers of animal deaths, which they readily
admit once it is pointed out to them just where, why
and how the deaths occur.
Bill
2003-11-16 19:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths.
I think many vegans who have visited this NG are willing to admit they cause
some animal deaths - maybe more than they'd like to are intended to.
ALL "vegans" who visit this n.g. *begin* by claiming
they don't cause any animal deaths at all. It is only
after they stupidly advance that claim that they learn
otherwise.
Post by Larry
We run
over insects and rarely a squirrel driving to work too -but we don't give up
driving. The goal of absolutely zero animal deaths is difficult to achieve.
It isn't the running over of insects or the rare
squirrel that is the issue, dummy. It's the systematic
and methodical and COMMON killing of animals in the
course of daily living that totally queers the "vegan"
claim.
Post by Larry
I purpose that ethical vegetarianism is not a worthless concept - because as
a result less deaths are caused and less deaths of higher animals.
You have made a bad reputation for yourself here by
trying to imagine a stupid, fuckwitted hierarchy of
animals according to their moral worth. You have
proposed that it's worse to kill a large ruminant
animal like a cow than it is to kill a small rodent
like a mouse. That idea is must monstrously stupid.
Your concept of "higher animals" is simply untenable.

If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Post by Larry
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You only have a leaky pail, dumbo. You don't have a
baby, you don't have any water. Your concept is empty,
just like your leaky bucket.
Post by Larry
You first need some ideas of the
numbers and some ideas of the values of the lives lost (and the pain and
suffering involved).
No, dumb-ass. The numbers are IRRELEVANT. You are
just too stupid to see it, aren't you?
Post by Larry
A clam has a life of little value to me. An insect
even less. I hate mosquitoes as a matter of fact!
I'm not talking about mollusks and mosquitos, dumbo,
although you ought to be, and you have no rational
basis, absolutely none, for making your division into
"higher" and "lower" animals. Your division is
entirely arbitrary, and fuckwitted to boot.
Post by Larry
I am not willing to start wolfing down bacon burgers just because Rick tells
me a grasshopper or vole dies when plowing a field of cucumbers. I'm not
that stupid or naive.
You are WORSE than being that stupid and naive.
Post by Larry
Many of you here rant and rave about CD's because it makes you feel more
comfortable and placated as you wolf down your bacon burgers - not thinking
for 1 second about all the pain and suffering that goes on with factory
farming.
False. The calm, thoughtful discussion about CDs is to
point out the horrible moral inconsistency of "vegans".
Larry
2003-11-16 20:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
Omnivores don't have a consistency problem, either
moral or intellectual, due to CDs. "vegans" do.
Omnivores don't believe that killing animals in the
course of obtaining food to eat is intrinsically wrong,
as "vegans" do, and omnivores don't claim to be
following a "least harm" diet, as "vegans" falsely do.
The indisputable fact of a huge number of animal
collateral deaths in the course of producing food is a
problem for "vegans", and ONLY for "vegans".
First, ALL "vegans", without exception, begin by
claiming that following a "vegan" "lifestyle" means
they don't cause any animal deaths.
I think many vegans who have visited this NG are willing to admit they cause
some animal deaths - maybe more than they'd like to are intended to.
ALL "vegans" who visit this n.g. *begin* by claiming
they don't cause any animal deaths at all. It is only
after they stupidly advance that claim that they learn
otherwise.
Thank God they were lucky enought to encounter your brilliance - to steer
them right. I feel entrapped in the jaws of your blinding logic.
Post by Bill
Post by Larry
We run
over insects and rarely a squirrel driving to work too -but we don't give up
driving. The goal of absolutely zero animal deaths is difficult to achieve.
It isn't the running over of insects or the rare
squirrel that is the issue, dummy. It's the systematic
and methodical and COMMON killing of animals in the
course of daily living that totally queers the "vegan"
claim.
Post by Larry
I purpose that ethical vegetarianism is not a worthless concept - because as
a result less deaths are caused and less deaths of higher animals.
You have made a bad reputation for yourself here by
trying to imagine a stupid, fuckwitted hierarchy of
animals according to their moral worth. You have
proposed that it's worse to kill a large ruminant
animal like a cow than it is to kill a small rodent
like a mouse. That idea is must monstrously stupid.
Your concept of "higher animals" is simply untenable.
If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Less deaths will do for many of us. Why - do you prefer more deaths (and
suffering)? You're position makes no sense.
Post by Bill
Post by Larry
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You only have a leaky pail, dumbo. You don't have a
baby, you don't have any water. Your concept is empty,
just like your leaky bucket.
Post by Larry
You first need some ideas of the
numbers and some ideas of the values of the lives lost (and the pain and
suffering involved).
No, dumb-ass. The numbers are IRRELEVANT. You are
just too stupid to see it, aren't you?
Post by Larry
A clam has a life of little value to me. An insect
even less. I hate mosquitoes as a matter of fact!
I'm not talking about mollusks and mosquitos, dumbo,
although you ought to be, and you have no rational
basis, absolutely none, for making your division into
"higher" and "lower" animals. Your division is
entirely arbitrary, and fuckwitted to boot.
Today while sailing in my boat I had to make a quick decision, do I steer
right and kill a clam or steer left and kill a dolphin. There was a pole
staight ahead, so that wasn't option. I decide to kill the clam. I know
this decision makes absolutely no sense to you and is completely irrational
to you, however IMHO it was the best thing to do. By the way 99.99% of the
human population agree with my decision. Perhaps you should reconsider your
position.
rick etter
2003-11-16 21:04:50 UTC
Permalink
snippage...
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Less deaths will do for many of us.
========================
Yet you prove with every post that that is not the case. Your continued
casual killing of animals to psot for your selfish entertainment proves
that, hypocrite.

Why - do you prefer more deaths (and
Post by Larry
suffering)? You're position makes no sense.
===========================
No, it's yours that is lacking any veracity, killer. You claim to care, eyt
your actions
show us differently, killer.
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
Post by Larry
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You only have a leaky pail, dumbo. You don't have a
baby, you don't have any water. Your concept is empty,
just like your leaky bucket.
Post by Larry
You first need some ideas of the
numbers and some ideas of the values of the lives lost (and the pain and
suffering involved).
No, dumb-ass. The numbers are IRRELEVANT. You are
just too stupid to see it, aren't you?
Post by Larry
A clam has a life of little value to me. An insect
even less. I hate mosquitoes as a matter of fact!
I'm not talking about mollusks and mosquitos, dumbo,
although you ought to be, and you have no rational
basis, absolutely none, for making your division into
"higher" and "lower" animals. Your division is
entirely arbitrary, and fuckwitted to boot.
Today while sailing in my boat I had to make a quick decision, do I steer
right and kill a clam or steer left and kill a dolphin. There was a pole
staight ahead, so that wasn't option. I decide to kill the clam. I know
this decision makes absolutely no sense to you and is completely irrational
to you, however IMHO it was the best thing to do. By the way 99.99% of the
human population agree with my decision. Perhaps you should reconsider your
position.
Dutch
2003-11-16 22:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Less deaths will do for many of us. Why - do you prefer more deaths (and
suffering)? You're position makes no sense.
Counting deaths is a mug's game, you can't do it in any meaningful way,
you're deluding yourself if you think you can.

[..]
Post by Larry
Today while sailing in my boat I had to make a quick decision, do I steer
right and kill a clam or steer left and kill a dolphin. There was a pole
staight ahead, so that wasn't option. I decide to kill the clam. I know
this decision makes absolutely no sense to you and is completely irrational
to you, however IMHO it was the best thing to do. By the way 99.99% of the
human population agree with my decision. Perhaps you should reconsider your
position.
As usual you use a deliberately irrelevant metaphor. Answer this, how is it
more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to spread
Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every insect,
amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the story
behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to the
topic.

I predict you will not reply sincerely, but make some off-the-wall strawman
reply about bacon-burgers or something.
Larry
2003-11-16 23:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Less deaths will do for many of us. Why - do you prefer more deaths (and
suffering)? You're position makes no sense.
Counting deaths is a mug's game, you can't do it in any meaningful way,
you're deluding yourself if you think you can.
[..]
Post by Larry
Today while sailing in my boat I had to make a quick decision, do I steer
right and kill a clam or steer left and kill a dolphin. There was a pole
staight ahead, so that wasn't option. I decide to kill the clam. I know
this decision makes absolutely no sense to you and is completely
irrational
Post by Larry
to you, however IMHO it was the best thing to do. By the way 99.99% of
the
Post by Larry
human population agree with my decision. Perhaps you should reconsider
your
Post by Larry
position.
As usual you use a deliberately irrelevant metaphor. Answer this, how is it
more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to spread
Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every insect,
amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the story
behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to the
topic.
I predict you will not reply sincerely, but make some off-the-wall strawman
reply about bacon-burgers or something.
You must have missed Derek's knowledgeable and insightful posts on this, but
I will paste them below:

Or simply see:
http://tinyurl.com/v9b2
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
The mistake often made is that some people here really
believe that raising grass fed beef doesn't include any
collateral deaths. They omit the fact that tens of thousands
of animals, mainly coyotes and other predators are killed
to protect this grass fed beef as well as other livestock
The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
under its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS). One of ADC's biggest and most
controversial activities is killing coyotes and other
predators, primarily to protect western livestock.
Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers,
76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and
200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some
400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently killed.
Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting,
gassing, and burning animals in their dens. Keith Schneider,
"Mediating the Federal War of the Jungle," New York
Times, July 9, 1991, 4E; Carol Grunewald, ed, _Animal
Activist Alert_, 8:3 (Washington D.C.: Humane Society
of the United States, 1990), 3.
Two wildlife groups, Wildlife Damage Review, from
Tucson, Arizona, and the Predator Project, from Bozeman,
Montana, asked the Thoreau Institute to audit ADC's
program. This audit examines ADC's budget in general
and focuses in particular on the funds it spends controlling
coyotes and other livestock predators. The principle
1) ADC's programs are unfairly distributed to selected
Americans. A program to protect sunflower crops
from blackbirds operates in North Dakota to the
exclusion of sunflower farmers in Minnesota,
South Dakota, and other states. The livestock
protection program primarily benefits western
ranchers to the exclusion of most eastern
livestock growers.
2) ADC's livestock protection program creates perverse
incentives for ranchers to use submarginal land, to
overgraze public land, and to rely on taxpayers rather
than actions they could take to protect their herds.
3) Although ADC has expanded its scope of activities,
western livestock protection, which mainly means
killing coyotes, still accounts for most --53 percent
--of its total operational budget.
4) Since 75 percent of federal livestock funds are spent
on public lands, 40 percent of ADC's federal funds
are dedicated to the 27,000 ranchers who graze
livestock on public lands.
5) On-the-ground costs to the federal government of
western livestock protection total more than $10
million per year. When ADC and APHIS overhead
is added, the costs total to more than $13 million
per year. Research costs probably add several
more million.
6) When state and local contributions are added,
ADC kills coyotes at an average cost of well over
$100 per animal. Costs sometimes exceed $2,000
per animal.
7) ADC's livestock-protection mission has apparently
failed. In general, states with active ADC livestock
programs experience higher predator losses than
states with minimal or no livestock programs. The
starkest contrast: Farmers in Kansas, with no
federal ADC livestock program, suffer significantly
lower predation rates than those in neighboring
Nebraska and Oklahoma, which each spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars to kill thousands of predators
each year.
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
Dutch
2003-11-17 00:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Less deaths will do for many of us. Why - do you prefer more deaths
(and
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
suffering)? You're position makes no sense.
Counting deaths is a mug's game, you can't do it in any meaningful way,
you're deluding yourself if you think you can.
Conceding this point Larry?
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
[..]
Post by Larry
Today while sailing in my boat I had to make a quick decision, do I
steer
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
right and kill a clam or steer left and kill a dolphin. There was a
pole
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
staight ahead, so that wasn't option. I decide to kill the clam. I
know
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
this decision makes absolutely no sense to you and is completely
irrational
Post by Larry
to you, however IMHO it was the best thing to do. By the way 99.99% of
the
Post by Larry
human population agree with my decision. Perhaps you should reconsider
your
Post by Larry
position.
As usual you use a deliberately irrelevant metaphor. Answer this, how is
it
Post by Dutch
more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to spread
Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every insect,
amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the story
behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to the
topic.
I predict you will not reply sincerely, but make some off-the-wall
strawman
Post by Dutch
reply about bacon-burgers or something.
You must have missed Derek's knowledgeable and insightful posts on this, but
You have GOT to be joking.

-snip-

Irrelevant, I don't deny beef causes cds.

Why did you not try to answer my question Larry?

Here. I'll put it in again:

How is it more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to
spread Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every
insect, amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the
story behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to
the topic.
Rat & Swan
2003-11-18 19:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Dutch wrote:

<snip>
Post by Dutch
How is it more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to
spread Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every
insect, amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the
story behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to
the topic.
There are several ways to approach this issue, and using each criterion,
The AR position proves either more ethical or no less ethical.

Each death counts for one only. The death of a steer is no more or
less ethically significant than the death of a "pest". Therefore,
if one steer is killed deliberately in meat-farming, it cannot be
more ethical than if one mouse is killed deliberately in veggie
farming. This is the argument Antis use against vegans, but it
applies both ways, given the vegan ethical principle. Jon's silly
claim notwithstanding, his own argument disproves it: he can only
claim a superiority for meat-farming by counting.

So, if the meat-farming cannot be more ethical on the basis of
counting, what other issues are involved?

The nature of the entire system involved: Here, veggie farming
clearly is superior, because the meat-farming system defines
animals as property and slaves, while the veggie farming system
defines them as rivals for resources, which may allow them to
be seen as having basic rights ( even if the farmer does not see
it that way.)

The degree of suffering involved: a quick death by accident, or
even a death by poison, causes less suffering than a lifetime of
slavery in a factory farm.

The degree of oppression involved: Killing rivals for resources in
the field is no different in terms of violation of rights than
killing animals in meat-farming. But the meat-farming system adds
additional violation by restricting and controlling every aspect
of the animals life up to the killing, which is a greater violation
of rights.

The primary influence of meat-farming in term of philosophical
justification of oppression: the belief that animals are
property and without basic rights is at the root of killing
in both veggie and meat production; therefore it is the most
important aspect of the system to be changed.

The inherent immorality of meat farming: there is no way meat-
farming can ever be morally just under an AR system of thought,
but veggie farming can. It can be reformed.

Being vegan is a small step, true, in a vast system of injustice.
But, as even Jon has admitted, it is a small step in the right
direction if one believes in AR. It is more consistent with AR
ethics than not being vegan.

Rat
Dutch
2003-11-18 22:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
<snip>
Post by Dutch
How is it more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to
spread Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every
insect, amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the
story behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to
the topic.
There are several ways to approach this issue, and using each criterion,
The AR position proves either more ethical or no less ethical.
That conclusion is not supported by reality, nor the arguments to follow.
Post by Ipse dixit
Each death counts for one only. The death of a steer is no more or
less ethically significant than the death of a "pest". Therefore,
if one steer is killed deliberately in meat-farming, it cannot be
more ethical than if one mouse is killed deliberately in veggie
farming. This is the argument Antis use against vegans, but it
applies both ways, given the vegan ethical principle.
I have always argued that the "death and suffering" issue applies both ways.
When you consider death and suffering as an argument, veganism simply cannot
always win out. It's nearly impossible to produce as much high quality food
with as few deaths as one can do with hand raised or freshly caught game. At
the very least the point is highly debatable. This fact destroys this
primary vegan argument, an argument that is used widely to show the
superiority of veganism. Categorical health and environmental claims are
similiarly weak.
Post by Ipse dixit
Jon's silly
claim notwithstanding, his own argument disproves it: he can only
claim a superiority for meat-farming by counting.
I'm not going to try to debate what others say. I am happy to indulge your
counting game, because as I showed above it illustrates that the outright
categorical superiority of veganism wrt to animal deaths and suffering is
disproved by counting.
Post by Ipse dixit
So, if the meat-farming cannot be more ethical on the basis of
counting, what other issues are involved?
Consuming meat or fish as part of a diet *can* cause a given diet to be
associated with fewer animal deaths than if that meat or fish were not
there. Therefore, based on the criteria *vegans themselves* introduce into
the argument, vegan diets lose out.
Post by Ipse dixit
The nature of the entire system involved: Here, veggie farming clearly
is superior,

That's a personal point of view that I don't share. I do veggie farming on a
fairly large scale, and it's deadly.
Post by Ipse dixit
because the meat-farming system defines
animals as property and slaves,
Those concepts are misapplied since animals do not understand them.
Post by Ipse dixit
while the veggie farming system
defines them as rivals for resources, which may allow them to
be seen as having basic rights ( even if the farmer does not see
it that way.)
Farming cannot view animals as having basic rights without ceasing to exist
on any level beyond a patio-sized hand-raised plot.
Post by Ipse dixit
The degree of suffering involved: a quick death by accident, or
even a death by poison, causes less suffering than a lifetime of
slavery in a factory farm.
Domestic animals do not suffer from slavery, they don't understand the term.
Besides, the term slavery is a misnomer, slaves are forced labourers,
domestic livestock just eat and sleep.
Post by Ipse dixit
The degree of oppression involved: Killing rivals for resources in
the field is no different in terms of violation of rights than
killing animals in meat-farming. But the meat-farming system adds
additional violation by restricting and controlling every aspect
of the animals life up to the killing, which is a greater violation
of rights.
Animals do not suffer from a deprivation of rights, they don't understand
the term.
Post by Ipse dixit
The primary influence of meat-farming in term of philosophical
justification of oppression: the belief that animals are
property and without basic rights is at the root of killing
in both veggie and meat production; therefore it is the most
important aspect of the system to be changed.
It's purely a pipe dream to believe that humans can feed themselves on any
kind of modern scale without killing animals in large numbers.
Post by Ipse dixit
The inherent immorality of meat farming: there is no way meat-
farming can ever be morally just under an AR system of thought,
but veggie farming can. It can be reformed.
No it can't, not to any great degree. The downfalls of livestock production
are at least as available to being reformed, and are being reformed on many
fronts. I don't see much progress in this regard in plant farming. Even
so-called "conservation farming" that is supposed to preserve the
environment is resulting in a huge increase in herbicide use.
Post by Ipse dixit
Being vegan is a small step, true, in a vast system of injustice.
But, as even Jon has admitted, it is a small step in the right
direction if one believes in AR.
Viewing AR as you have presented, it is not necessarily a step in the right
direction. It may be a step forward in the viewing of the animals as
property, but it may be a step back in the causing of animal death and
suffering.
Post by Ipse dixit
It is more consistent with AR
ethics than not being vegan.
It is inherently and massively INconsistent. If you believe in human rights
you must be prepared to accept that in order to respect the rights of
individuals we must be prepared to sacrifice large potential utilitarian
benefits that would be otherwise available to us. AR claims a similiar
principle of rights applies to animals, yet vegans consistently refuse to
ackowlede the huge utilitarian downsides to the idea. They pretend that
research would unaffected (a huge lie), they pretend that more animals would
never be made to suffer, basically they pretend that something quite
outlandish is even possible.

Until AR/veganism supporters pull their heads out the sand the idea will
never get to first base.
Bill
2003-11-19 03:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rat & Swan
Being vegan is a small step, true, in a vast system of injustice.
But, as even Jon has admitted, it is a small step in the right
direction if one believes in AR.
No, you lying whore, no opponent of "ar" has ever
admitted that.
Rat & Swan
2003-11-19 07:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rat & Swan
Being vegan is a small step, true, in a vast system of injustice.
But, as even Jon has admitted, it is a small step in the right
direction if one believes in AR.
No, you lying whore, no opponent of "ar" has ever admitted that.
Ah, Jonnie -- you yourself said that *given my beliefs* I would
be less consistent with them if I ate meat than if I were a
vegan.

Rat
Bill
2003-11-19 18:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rat & Swan
Post by Rat & Swan
Being vegan is a small step, true, in a vast system of injustice.
But, as even Jon has admitted, it is a small step in the right
direction if one believes in AR.
No, you lying whore, no opponent of "ar" has ever admitted that.
Ah, Jonnie -- you yourself said that *given my beliefs*
Your belief is not based in ethical principle AT ALL,
so being more consistent with your belief does not make
you more ethical than someone who holds the same belief
but behaves less consistently with the BELIEF.

This is beyond dispute: your belief is not based on an
ethical principle.
Post by Rat & Swan
I would
be less consistent with them if I ate meat than if I were a
vegan.
You are so fucking simple. Behaving consistently with
a belief doesn't make you ethical at all. One must
behave consistently with a legitimate and good ethical
principle to be ethical. You are not. Your belief has
no basis in ethical principle.

You lied, as you always lie, when you said that an
opponent of "ar" had "admitted" that your obedience of
a stupid, fuckwitted rule was a step in the right
direction. No one ever admitted it.
usual suspect
2003-11-19 06:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rat & Swan
Post by Dutch
How is it more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to
spread Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every
insect, amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the
story behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to
the topic.
There are several ways to approach this issue, and using each criterion,
The AR position proves either more ethical or no less ethical.
Each death counts for one only. The death of a steer is no more or
less ethically significant than the death of a "pest". Therefore,
if one steer is killed deliberately in meat-farming, it cannot be
more ethical than if one mouse is killed deliberately in veggie
farming. This is the argument Antis use against vegans, but it
applies both ways, given the vegan ethical principle.
There is no vegan ethical principle, just a dogmatic pose with respect
to meat consumption without regard to reality. This is borne out when
vegans start by denying the antecedent and then getting drawn into the
patently unethical counting game -- no longer is one diet axiomatically
ethical, it's axiomatically "more" ethical. It still demands a bit of
*relativism*, which is why it's not more ethical.

It would also be silly to apply one faulty axiomatic "standard" to those
who disagree with it, disavow it, or simply don't care about your flawed
philosophy and declare victory. Oh, maybe that's why you do it anyway.
Post by Rat & Swan
Jon's silly
claim notwithstanding, his own argument disproves it: he can only
claim a superiority for meat-farming by counting.
That's where you're completely wrong: you're the only one making such
claims. Meat-eaters are concerned about taste and flavor; vegans are
concerned about ethical superiority.
Post by Rat & Swan
So, if the meat-farming cannot be more ethical on the basis of
counting, what other issues are involved?
The nature of the entire system involved: Here, veggie farming
clearly is superior,
Ipse dixit.
Post by Rat & Swan
because the meat-farming system defines
animals as property and slaves,
Which is what they are legally, though animals aren't "slaves" except
under twisted definitions used by ARAs.
Post by Rat & Swan
while the veggie farming system
defines them as rivals for resources, which may allow them to
be seen as having basic rights ( even if the farmer does not see
it that way.)
Not rivals for resources. Nature works in cycles. Out of the animal one
will eat comes fertilizer and other byproducts which aid vegetable
production.
Post by Rat & Swan
The degree of suffering involved: a quick death by accident, or
even a death by poison, causes less suffering than a lifetime of
slavery in a factory farm.
Hyperbole.
Post by Rat & Swan
The degree of oppression involved: Killing rivals for resources in
the field is no different in terms of violation of rights than
killing animals in meat-farming. But the meat-farming system adds
additional violation by restricting and controlling every aspect
of the animals life up to the killing, which is a greater violation
of rights.
Ipse dixit. Animals don't have rights.
Post by Rat & Swan
The primary influence of meat-farming in term of philosophical
justification of oppression: the belief that animals are
property and without basic rights is at the root of killing
in both veggie and meat production; therefore it is the most
important aspect of the system to be changed.
Well, Doña Quixote, that's the biggest windmill of them all. I don't
know if you get out much or have any non-AR friends, but your radical
pagan views are the antithesis of the rest of society's.
Post by Rat & Swan
The inherent immorality of meat farming: there is no way meat-
farming can ever be morally just under an AR system of thought,
Do you make this up as you go along?
Post by Rat & Swan
but veggie farming can. It can be reformed.
But can *people who want hamburgers* be reformed? Where will you put the
re-education camps in your utopia?
Post by Rat & Swan
Being vegan is a small step, true, in a vast system of injustice.
It's a phony step in a world of delusions. Farming isn't a system of
injustice, nitwit.
Post by Rat & Swan
But, as even Jon has admitted, it is a small step in the right
direction if one believes in AR. It is more consistent with AR
ethics than not being vegan.
"AR ethics" is oxymoronic. So is "animal rights."
Rat & Swan
2003-11-19 07:24:35 UTC
Permalink
I'll reply to the rest of this tomorrow, but just one question
tonight:

usual suspect wrote:

<snip>
your radical pagan views....
Just where do you get "radical pagan" from?

I'm an Anglican Christian, and nothing in AR conflicts
with that (see Andrew Linzey).

<snip>

Rat
usual suspect
2003-11-19 13:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rat & Swan
I'll reply to the rest of this tomorrow, but just one question
<snip>
your radical pagan views....
Just where do you get "radical pagan" from?
The concepts in AR have their roots in paganism, not Western Civ or
Judeo-Christian traditions -- both of which are very AW, as you surely
know, but not AR.
Post by Rat & Swan
I'm an Anglican Christian,
Yes, well we all have our crosses to bear. Pity the schismatics have
taken over your church and thrown it into crisis with the ordination of
the divorced and openly homosexual bishop.
Post by Rat & Swan
and nothing in AR conflicts
with that (see Andrew Linzey).
No, and apparently neither does much else anymore. It does conflict with
*historic* Christianity.
Rat & Swan
2003-11-19 16:34:32 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
your radical pagan views....
Just where do you get "radical pagan" from?
The concepts in AR have their roots in paganism, not Western Civ or
Judeo-Christian traditions -- both of which are very AW, as you surely
know, but not AR.
I thought you said AR is derived from AW. Make up your mind.

You are wrong here. As you know, the genuine rights position
(Regan/Francione, et. al.) derived its ideas from extending
18th-century rights theory to non-humans. That has no relationship
to paganism whatever, and is strictly Western/Judeo-Christian
(or at least deist). Linzey founds his concept of AR in Theos-rights,
which is a strictly Christian theory.
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
I'm an Anglican Christian,
Yes, well we all have our crosses to bear. Pity the schismatics have
taken over your church and thrown it into crisis with the ordination of
the divorced and openly homosexual bishop.
I support Bishop Robinson.
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
and nothing in AR conflicts
with that (see Andrew Linzey).
No, and apparently neither does much else anymore. It does conflict with
*historic* Christianity.
So does wearing Polyester-cotton pants and eating pork -- those
prohibitions are based on the same Old Testament purity codes as the
prohibition against same-sex activity. Jesus said nothing against
homosexuality as we understand it today. Even Paul said nothing
about homosexuality as we understand it today -- as an orientation.
Hop over to alt.religion.Christian.Episcopal (or Christian-Episcopal --
I don't remember) where a thorough discussion is raging even now on
the subject. The Episcopal Church/Anglican church has been in the
forefront of movements for social justice. It was an Anglican clergyman
who founded the SPCA; the Episcopal church has accepted
African-Americans as full members, women as full members, and now gay
people as full members. I think that's something to be proud of.

Rat
griffin
2003-11-19 18:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ipse dixit
<snip>
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
your radical pagan views....
Just where do you get "radical pagan" from?
The concepts in AR have their roots in paganism, not Western Civ or
Judeo-Christian traditions -- both of which are very AW, as you surely
know, but not AR.
I thought you said AR is derived from AW. Make up your mind.
You are wrong here. As you know, the genuine rights position
(Regan/Francione, et. al.) derived its ideas from extending
18th-century rights theory to non-humans. That has no relationship
to paganism whatever, and is strictly Western/Judeo-Christian
(or at least deist). Linzey founds his concept of AR in Theos-rights,
which is a strictly Christian theory.
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
I'm an Anglican Christian,
Yes, well we all have our crosses to bear. Pity the schismatics have
taken over your church and thrown it into crisis with the ordination of
the divorced and openly homosexual bishop.
I support Bishop Robinson.
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
and nothing in AR conflicts
with that (see Andrew Linzey).
No, and apparently neither does much else anymore. It does conflict with
*historic* Christianity.
So does wearing Polyester-cotton pants and eating pork -- those
prohibitions are based on the same Old Testament purity codes as the
prohibition against same-sex activity. Jesus said nothing against
homosexuality as we understand it today. Even Paul said nothing
about homosexuality as we understand it today -- as an orientation.
But they do oppose premarital sex. And because there are no same-sex
marriages recognized in the contiguous US, homosexuals that are sexually
active are commiting sin.
Post by Ipse dixit
Hop over to alt.religion.Christian.Episcopal (or Christian-Episcopal --
I don't remember) where a thorough discussion is raging even now on
the subject. The Episcopal Church/Anglican church has been in the
forefront of movements for social justice. It was an Anglican clergyman
who founded the SPCA; the Episcopal church has accepted
African-Americans as full members, women as full members, and now gay
people as full members. I think that's something to be proud of.
Rat
usual suspect
2003-11-19 18:22:14 UTC
Permalink
griffin wrote:
<...>
Post by griffin
Post by Rat & Swan
So does wearing Polyester-cotton pants and eating pork -- those
prohibitions are based on the same Old Testament purity codes as the
prohibition against same-sex activity. Jesus said nothing against
homosexuality as we understand it today. Even Paul said nothing
about homosexuality as we understand it today -- as an orientation.
But they do oppose premarital sex. And because there are no same-sex
marriages recognized in the contiguous US, homosexuals that are sexually
active are commiting sin.
Sin isn't simply disobedience of US law.

usual suspect
2003-11-19 18:19:59 UTC
Permalink
This goes pretty far off-topic. I'm more than happy to address the OT
part of it elsewhere should you find an appropriate forum or care to
battle it out in e-mail.
Post by Ipse dixit
<snip>
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
your radical pagan views....
Just where do you get "radical pagan" from?
The concepts in AR have their roots in paganism, not Western Civ or
Judeo-Christian traditions -- both of which are very AW, as you surely
know, but not AR.
I thought you said AR is derived from AW. Make up your mind.
I said AR is a bastard stepchild of AW. My view hasn't changed a bit.
AR's other parent is rooted in paganism.
Post by Ipse dixit
You are wrong here.
Ipse dixit.
Post by Ipse dixit
As you know, the genuine rights position
(Regan/Francione, et. al.) derived its ideas from extending
18th-century rights theory to non-humans.
I don't "know" that because I don't accept your position that one
particular camp in AR is "genuine" and the others aren't. Such
distinctions are like radical Islamacists' claims that their version of
Islam is genuine and others are false. And before you question *my*
views of heterodoxy, I don't automatically dismiss liberal churches like
yours en masse from the church universal.

I also reject your claim that AR has any direct philosophical lineage to
18th century rights theories; it has only adopted those concepts and
applied them to animals even though animals are neither moral nor
capable of moral agency (patient-hood only begs the issue: see the post
which Dreck has REFUSED to respond). AR has its basis in the more
radical wing of the AW movement of the last two centuries.
Post by Ipse dixit
That has no relationship
to paganism whatever, and is strictly Western/Judeo-Christian
(or at least deist).
It is not strictly Judeo-Christian, particularly if it's Deist (Deism
isn't Christian at all; see John 8:19 and consider the doctrine of the
Trinity -- this was dealt with at Nicea). Nevertheless, the pagan roots
of AR are quite clear. AR elevates animals to the same level as man.
This certainly isn't the view of Judaism or Christianity, in which man
is created in the image and likeness of God and charged with stewardship
of animals. AR and paganism are eco-centric; Christianity is
theo-centric. Etc.
Post by Ipse dixit
Linzey founds his concept of AR in Theos-rights,
which is a strictly Christian theory.
Heterodox, or heretical, Christian theory. Linzey explains his notion of
theos-rights as:
To put it at its most basic: animals have the right to be
animals. The natural life of a Spirit-filled creature is a gift
from God. When we take over the life of an animal to the extent
of distorting its natural life for no other purpose than our own
gain, we fall into sin. There is no clearer blasphemy before God
than the perversion of his creatures.

The Bible, though, says:
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast
of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the
earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your
hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I
have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
-- Genesis 9:2-3

Linzey denies that God has given us animals to work (see Leviticus) and
to eat (see Genesis, Leviticus, and the NT -- especially Colossians
2:16ff.), much less that they're for *our* benefit. Linzey sets up law
that goes beyond that which God has given, and beyond that which Christ
fulfilled. Consider Jesus' "seven woes" in St Matthew's Gospel (chapter 23).

This theos-rights concept is patently un-Christian.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
I'm an Anglican Christian,
Yes, well we all have our crosses to bear. Pity the schismatics have
taken over your church and thrown it into crisis with the ordination
of the divorced and openly homosexual bishop.
I support Bishop Robinson.
I don't.

Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once,
temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not
a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping
his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man
does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take
care of the church of God?
-- 1 Tim 3

"Married only once" doesn't also mean "divorced only once so he can
shack up with his homosexual lover, with whom he'd carried on an illicit
affair before his divorce." Self-control is operative in that, as well.
His failure to maintain his marriage vows and "household well" also
disqualify him from leadership in the church. His membership isn't at
issue here -- just his leadership role.
Post by Ipse dixit
Post by usual suspect
Post by Rat & Swan
and nothing in AR conflicts
with that (see Andrew Linzey).
No, and apparently neither does much else anymore. It does conflict
with *historic* Christianity.
So does wearing Polyester-cotton pants and eating pork -- those
prohibitions are based on the same Old Testament purity codes as the
prohibition against same-sex activity.
Very true. What you're leaving out, though, is that the Decalogue
forbids all adultery, including homosexuality.
Post by Ipse dixit
Jesus said nothing against homosexuality as we understand it today.
Irrelevant, and not necessarily true since we only have a limited view
of his life and sermons. The point remains that homosexuality is
mentioned throughout the NT as well as the OT, and never is it condoned.

Jesus' own brother (at least according to many scholars) *did* address
the issue, and it couldn't be more clear:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like
manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire.
-- Jude 7

The relevant part of that for this discussion isn't simply the
fornication in Sodom and Gomorrha, which is quite clear if you go back
and read about it (the men flatly rejected Lot's daughters when they
were offered by him, demanding instead to have sex with his male
visitors). It's the mention of "strange flesh," which is
(transliterated) in Greek PORNEIA. Porneia is graphic, illicit sex --
homosexuality (BOTH kinds), bestiality, incest, and adultery (as with a
divorced person -- like Dr Robinson), etc.

PORNEIA: illicit sexual intercourse

1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse
with animals etc.
2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202

This is used also in the Septuagint, not just the NT. The use of Sodom
and Gomorrha as examples in this context are unmistakable. Those cities
were destroyed for their abominable sexual practices.
Post by Ipse dixit
Even Paul said nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today
-- as an orientation.
This is sophistry and "orientation" is a red herring. Heterosexuals as
well as homosexual may be "oriented" to having affairs, but that doesn't
make affairs acceptable -- and St Paul didn't address such issues as
"orientation," either. He did in fact write very emphatically about the
issue. Churches have accepted that people have certain tendencies and
impulses. All sin starts with such "orientation" -- particularly in
light of the doctrine of original sin. Turning it into a lifestyle
doesn't alter or diminish its status as sin, and denying one's
sinfulness is denying the need for a savior.

This is at the heart of the tragedy of the Robinson crisis, and it
justly threatens schism in the Anglican See. A man who leaves his wife
for another man simply is unqualified for a leadership position in the
church. It's not a sign of strength and diversity, it's a sign of decay.
Post by Ipse dixit
Hop over to alt.religion.Christian.Episcopal (or Christian-Episcopal --
I don't remember) where a thorough discussion is raging even now on
the subject.
No thanks, I have better uses of my time than getting wrapped up in
internicene skirmishes.
Post by Ipse dixit
The Episcopal Church/Anglican church has been in the
forefront of movements for social justice.
Not to mention feminism, ordination of women, and rank paganism.
Consider Re-Imaging. The use of "Sophia" was completely out of
historical context. Sophia as knowledge isn't a metaphor for the target
of the following prayer from the 1993 conference co-sponsored by your
church:
"We are women in your image. With the nectar of our thighs, we
invited a lover... With our warm body fluids we remind the
world of its pleasures and sensations."

This is quite a departure from how Christ taught us to pray ("Our
Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."). Many ordained
women clergy from various liberal denominations took very serious issue
with this conference and movement which had leadership support. They
rightly noted at the time that it simply wasn't Christian.
Post by Ipse dixit
It was an Anglican clergyman who founded the SPCA;
Irrelevant. Many religious people take on hard issues related to various
issues, some of which neither of us would care to support. You left out
that Charles Darwin was an Anglican clergyman. That doesn't make
Anglicanism scientific.
Post by Ipse dixit
the Episcopal church has accepted African-Americans as full members,
Many denominations beat you to the punch, certainly with respect to
integrated congregations. Like many mainline churches, yours has a long
and sordid history of segregation and paternalism. See Shattuck:
http://gc2003.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal-life/BkRace.html
Post by Ipse dixit
women as full members,
Again, other churches beat you to that. You've beaten others on the
radical and anti-Scriptural practice of female ordination. The role of
deaconess is open to women, but not bishop (or pastor). And before you
throw out Priscilla (cf Acts 18:24ff), she and Aquila took Apollos aside
IN PRIVATE. That was not in and of itself a leadership role in the
synagogue. Read the following passage, too, for context: "And when he
wanted to cross to Achaia, the *brothers* encouraged him and wrote to
the disciples there to welcome him."
Post by Ipse dixit
and now gay people as full members.
You mean homosexual people. Gay means happy. Not all homosexuals are
happy. Need study citations on homosexuality and depression and suicide?
Post by Ipse dixit
I think that's something to be proud of.
Pride is one the seven deadly sins. Instead, "...[Look] unto Jesus the
author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before
him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right
hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2).
rick etter
2003-11-17 01:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Less deaths will do for many of us. Why - do you prefer more deaths
(and
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
suffering)? You're position makes no sense.
Counting deaths is a mug's game, you can't do it in any meaningful way,
you're deluding yourself if you think you can.
[..]
Post by Larry
Today while sailing in my boat I had to make a quick decision, do I
steer
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
right and kill a clam or steer left and kill a dolphin. There was a
pole
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
staight ahead, so that wasn't option. I decide to kill the clam. I
know
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
this decision makes absolutely no sense to you and is completely
irrational
Post by Larry
to you, however IMHO it was the best thing to do. By the way 99.99% of
the
Post by Larry
human population agree with my decision. Perhaps you should reconsider
your
Post by Larry
position.
As usual you use a deliberately irrelevant metaphor. Answer this, how is
it
Post by Dutch
more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to spread
Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every insect,
amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the story
behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to the
topic.
I predict you will not reply sincerely, but make some off-the-wall
strawman
Post by Dutch
reply about bacon-burgers or something.
You must have missed Derek's knowledgeable and insightful posts on this, but
=======================
Dutch won that bet! Why are you afraid to actually answer the question utch
asked?
It had nothing to do with the BS twits posted.
Post by Dutch
http://tinyurl.com/v9b2
snippage of usual crappola that didn't even come close to answering the
question that was asked...
K D B
2003-11-17 02:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Less deaths will do for many of us. Why - do you prefer more deaths
(and
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
suffering)? You're position makes no sense.
Counting deaths is a mug's game, you can't do it in any meaningful way,
you're deluding yourself if you think you can.
[..]
Post by Larry
Today while sailing in my boat I had to make a quick decision, do I
steer
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
right and kill a clam or steer left and kill a dolphin. There was a
pole
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
staight ahead, so that wasn't option. I decide to kill the clam. I
know
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
this decision makes absolutely no sense to you and is completely
irrational
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
to you, however IMHO it was the best thing to do. By the way 99.99% of
the
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
human population agree with my decision. Perhaps you should reconsider
your
Post by Dutch
Post by Larry
position.
As usual you use a deliberately irrelevant metaphor. Answer this, how is
it
Post by Dutch
more ethical to raise a steer and kill it for it's meat than to spread
Roundup over millions of square miles of cropland, poisoning every insect,
amphibian, mammal and bird that comes in contact with it? That's the story
behind that "whole grain bread" that you dismiss as not relevant to the
topic.
I predict you will not reply sincerely, but make some off-the-wall
strawman
Post by Dutch
reply about bacon-burgers or something.
You must have missed Derek's knowledgeable and insightful
The words 'knowledgeable' and 'insightful' do not belong in the same
sentence as the name "Dreck'. Don't make that mistake again. Doing so
is an insult to everyone who has EVER had even one insightful moment.
Kevin



<snipped>
Bill
2003-11-17 03:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
Post by Larry
I think many vegans who have visited this NG are willing to admit they
cause some animal deaths - maybe more than they'd like to are intended to.
ALL "vegans" who visit this n.g. *begin* by claiming
they don't cause any animal deaths at all. It is only
after they stupidly advance that claim that they learn
otherwise.
Thank God they were lucky enought to encounter your brilliance - to steer
them right. I feel entrapped in the jaws of your blinding logic.
That's really cute, dummy, but you don't deny the
problem. You can't, of course.
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
Post by Larry
We run over insects
and rarely a squirrel driving to work too -but we don't give up
driving. The goal of absolutely zero animal deaths is difficult to achieve.
It isn't the running over of insects or the rare
squirrel that is the issue, dummy. It's the systematic
and methodical and COMMON killing of animals in the
course of daily living that totally queers the "vegan"
claim.
Post by Larry
I purpose that ethical vegetarianism is not a worthless concept - because as
a result less deaths are caused and less deaths of higher animals.
You have made a bad reputation for yourself here by
trying to imagine a stupid, fuckwitted hierarchy of
animals according to their moral worth. You have
proposed that it's worse to kill a large ruminant
animal like a cow than it is to kill a small rodent
like a mouse. That idea is must monstrously stupid.
Your concept of "higher animals" is simply untenable.
If the claim of "vegans" is that they "respect" the
"rights" of animals not to be killed casually and
without consequence by humans, then "less deaths" is
not good enough.
Less deaths will do for many of us.
It is morally worthless. You don't have a coherent
stopping rule. Never forget, dummy, that you began by
asserting ZERO animals died for your diet. Now, you
know that's not true. Why do you stop at whatever
number you do?
Post by Larry
Why - do you prefer more deaths (and
suffering)? You're position makes no sense.
Your position makes no sense, because it's an utter lie.
Post by Larry
Post by Bill
Post by Larry
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You only have a leaky pail, dumbo. You don't have a
baby, you don't have any water. Your concept is empty,
just like your leaky bucket.
Post by Larry
You first need some ideas of the
numbers and some ideas of the values of the lives lost (and the pain and
suffering involved).
No, dumb-ass. The numbers are IRRELEVANT. You are
just too stupid to see it, aren't you?
Post by Larry
A clam has a life of little value to me. An insect
even less. I hate mosquitoes as a matter of fact!
I'm not talking about mollusks and mosquitos, dumbo,
although you ought to be, and you have no rational
basis, absolutely none, for making your division into
"higher" and "lower" animals. Your division is
entirely arbitrary, and fuckwitted to boot.
Today while sailing in my boat I had to make a quick decision, do I steer
right and kill a clam or steer left and kill a dolphin.
The animals killed collaterally are not so far apart.
Try rabbits vs. deer. You have no coherent way to
determine that the deer is a "higher" animal than a rabbit.

You're just stuck.
Purple
2003-11-16 22:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
Dutch
2003-11-17 00:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
You're missing the point. It's not that you're too selfish to starve
yourself to death, you're too selfish to do *anything* significant to end
the death and suffering of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond
slavish adherence to a completely inadequate rule against consumption of
[some] animal products. This is a completely token measure which only serves
to leave the impression of a compassionate lifestyle.
Post by Purple
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths
You aren't "minimizing" anything, you do not make any attempt to address the
massive killing of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond this one
superficial choice.
Post by Purple
caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
The hypocrisy is not in the act of avoiding animal products, it's the
attempt to project immorality onto people who make different choices, while
you continue to blindly and self-servingly view your your own comfortable
vegan lifestyle as moral.
Purple
2003-11-18 01:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Purple
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
You're missing the point. It's not that you're too selfish to starve
yourself to death, you're too selfish to do *anything* significant to end
the death and suffering of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond
slavish adherence to a completely inadequate rule against consumption of
[some] animal products.
I agree that some vegan products are worse than some meat products.
I disagree with the anti argument that all diets cause some suffering
and therefore you may as well eat whatever you fancy.
Post by Dutch
This is a completely token measure which only serves
to leave the impression of a compassionate lifestyle.
Post by Purple
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths
You aren't "minimizing" anything, you do not make any attempt to address the
massive killing of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond this one
superficial choice.
Prove it.
Post by Dutch
Post by Purple
caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
The hypocrisy is not in the act of avoiding animal products, it's the
attempt to project immorality onto people who make different choices, while
you continue to blindly and self-servingly view your your own comfortable
vegan lifestyle as moral.
I don't project immorality onto non-vegans, only people with no standards.
rick etter
2003-11-18 04:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
Post by Purple
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
You're missing the point. It's not that you're too selfish to starve
yourself to death, you're too selfish to do *anything* significant to end
the death and suffering of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond
slavish adherence to a completely inadequate rule against consumption of
[some] animal products.
I agree that some vegan products are worse than some meat products.
I disagree with the anti argument that all diets cause some suffering
and therefore you may as well eat whatever you fancy.
========================
Nobody has said that fool. That's just another strawman you're going to now
start thrashing around. What we say is that the diet you eat, with only the
categorical
rule of 'no meat' means absolutely nothing. There are meats that cause
less than some veggies.
Do vegans care? No, they'll continue to hypocritically eat the vegan foods
regardless of
the consequences to animals. they care nothing about animals in real life.
Animals are just the tools
of their hatred for others.
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
This is a completely token measure which only serves
to leave the impression of a compassionate lifestyle.
Post by Purple
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths
You aren't "minimizing" anything, you do not make any attempt to address the
massive killing of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond this one
superficial choice.
Prove it.
======================
No stupid. You made the statement that you(vegans) are minimizing. that's
a
statement that none of them, or you, has ever been able to back up, nor will
you ever be able to.. Besides, there are no real vegans here on usenet.
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
Post by Purple
caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
The hypocrisy is not in the act of avoiding animal products, it's the
attempt to project immorality onto people who make different choices, while
you continue to blindly and self-servingly view your your own comfortable
vegan lifestyle as moral.
I don't project immorality onto non-vegans, only people with no standards.
====================
There you go.
Purple
2003-11-19 00:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick etter
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
Post by Purple
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
You're missing the point. It's not that you're too selfish to starve
yourself to death, you're too selfish to do *anything* significant to
end
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
the death and suffering of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond
slavish adherence to a completely inadequate rule against consumption of
[some] animal products.
I agree that some vegan products are worse than some meat products.
I disagree with the anti argument that all diets cause some suffering
and therefore you may as well eat whatever you fancy.
========================
Nobody has said that fool. That's just another strawman you're going to now
start thrashing around.
It may not be your opinion but I am curious to know how you believe a post
entitled "It doesn't matter how many CDs lurk behind an omnivores diet" and
the sentiments contained within.
Post by rick etter
What we say is that the diet you eat, with only the
categorical rule of 'no meat' means absolutely nothing.
That's what you say. You don't speak on behalf of anyone except yourself.
If I have misunderstood Bill's position than I hereby apologise to him.
Post by rick etter
There are meats that cause
less than some veggies.
Of course.
Post by rick etter
Do vegans care? No, they'll continue to hypocritically eat the vegan foods
regardless of the consequences to animals.
Some do. Some are more selective about what veggies they do eat.
Post by rick etter
they care nothing about animals in real life.
Animals are just the tools
of their hatred for others.
The broad brush approach just doesn't cut it. Your posts betray
far greater hatred towards other people than those of rat and swan.
Post by rick etter
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
This is a completely token measure which only serves
to leave the impression of a compassionate lifestyle.
Post by Purple
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths
You aren't "minimizing" anything, you do not make any attempt to address
the
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
massive killing of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond this
one
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
superficial choice.
Prove it.
======================
No stupid. You made the statement that you(vegans) are minimizing.
I made a statement that trying to minimize was not evil or hypocritical.

that's
Post by rick etter
a
statement that none of them, or you, has ever been able to back up, nor will
you ever be able to..
As far as I know it has not been proven either way how organic veggies compare
with (eg venison).
Post by rick etter
Besides, there are no real vegans here on usenet.
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
Post by Purple
caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
The hypocrisy is not in the act of avoiding animal products, it's the
attempt to project immorality onto people who make different choices,
while
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
you continue to blindly and self-servingly view your your own
comfortable
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
vegan lifestyle as moral.
I don't project immorality onto non-vegans, only people with no standards.
====================
There you go.
rick etter
2003-11-19 03:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple
Post by rick etter
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
Post by Purple
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
You're missing the point. It's not that you're too selfish to starve
yourself to death, you're too selfish to do *anything* significant to
end
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
the death and suffering of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond
slavish adherence to a completely inadequate rule against consumption of
[some] animal products.
I agree that some vegan products are worse than some meat products.
I disagree with the anti argument that all diets cause some suffering
and therefore you may as well eat whatever you fancy.
========================
Nobody has said that fool. That's just another strawman you're going to now
start thrashing around.
It may not be your opinion but I am curious to know how you believe a post
entitled "It doesn't matter how many CDs lurk behind an omnivores diet" and
the sentiments contained within.
========================
I'm responding to what *you* say. Not what you think you replied to.
Post by Purple
Post by rick etter
What we say is that the diet you eat, with only the
categorical rule of 'no meat' means absolutely nothing.
That's what you say. You don't speak on behalf of anyone except yourself.
If I have misunderstood Bill's position than I hereby apologise to him.
Post by rick etter
There are meats that cause
less than some veggies.
Of course.
Post by rick etter
Do vegans care? No, they'll continue to hypocritically eat the vegan foods
regardless of the consequences to animals.
Some do. Some are more selective about what veggies they do eat.
======================
No, all do. The will categorically exclude the meat choices.
Post by Purple
Post by rick etter
they care nothing about animals in real life.
Animals are just the tools
of their hatred for others.
The broad brush approach just doesn't cut it. Your posts betray
far greater hatred towards other people than those of rat and swan.
======================
Nope. telling the truth isn't hatred. Now, wishing me dead is another
matter, which your 'side' does often enough.
Post by Purple
Post by rick etter
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
This is a completely token measure which only serves
to leave the impression of a compassionate lifestyle.
Post by Purple
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths
You aren't "minimizing" anything, you do not make any attempt to address
the
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
massive killing of animals associated with your lifestyle beyond this
one
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
superficial choice.
Prove it.
======================
No stupid. You made the statement that you(vegans) are minimizing.
I made a statement that trying to minimize was not evil or hypocritical.
=======================
By saying that a vegan diets is the way to try. Like the other
hypocritical vegans here, you'll exclude meat for only your simple
categorical rule of no meat. A simple rule for simple minds...
Post by Purple
that's
Post by rick etter
a
statement that none of them, or you, has ever been able to back up, nor will
you ever be able to..
As far as I know it has not been proven either way how organic veggies compare
with (eg venison).
=======================
Organic does not mean some magical manna from heaven dolt. It's still
machine intensive, and still uses pesticides and chemicals.
just different ones. Some of them require even more machine intensive
farming because they need to be applied several times a growing season
because of their short life. That's the plus for the finished product with
maybe less contamination, but requires more farming during the season.
Post by Purple
Post by rick etter
Besides, there are no real vegans here on usenet.
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
Post by Purple
caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
The hypocrisy is not in the act of avoiding animal products, it's the
attempt to project immorality onto people who make different choices,
while
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
you continue to blindly and self-servingly view your your own
comfortable
Post by Purple
Post by Dutch
vegan lifestyle as moral.
I don't project immorality onto non-vegans, only people with no standards.
====================
There you go.
rick etter
2003-11-17 01:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
==========================
Tell us the diet that accomplishes this. Provide the proof that your choice
is real.
If you really believe animal deaths are a 'bad' thing if not for your
direct survival,
then why are you still posting to usenet?

Your diet has by far the least impact of your consumer oriented western
lifestyle.
Purple
2003-11-18 01:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick etter
Your diet has by far the least impact of your consumer oriented western
lifestyle.
I don't believe that. Aren't you the one who is always reminding us
just how many animals die to feed us?
rick etter
2003-11-18 03:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple
Post by rick etter
Your diet has by far the least impact of your consumer oriented western
lifestyle.
I don't believe that. Aren't you the one who is always reminding us
just how many animals die to feed us?
==========================
Yes, but the rest of your life causes even more. Like your continued
posting to usenet. You have no real *need* for usenet posting, it's just
one of your many selfish entertainments. All of which cause animal
death and suffering.



cue dh and his list.....
K D B
2003-11-17 04:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
Show that you're minimizing.

Kevin
Bill
2003-11-17 04:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purple
Bill, if you believe (as I do) that animal deaths are a bad
thing
I don't believe that.
Post by Purple
but are too selfish to starve oneself to death over it,
can you explain why chosing a diet to minimise the number of
deaths caused is such an evil, hypocritical thing to do?
It's morally inconsistent.
Loading...