It's been a crazy week or so, and it's hard to get back into this, but here
goes...
I'm trying to use a reply style you'll be comfortable with, Rick. ;)
[snipped discussion of snipping and a little transitional stuff]
> > > > > Just that veg*ns have more than enough death and suffering to
worry about in their own lifstyles. That's where they have a real impact,
yet instead they concentrate on the lifstle of others. They demonize others
for animal death and suffering, yet really do nothing in their own lives
that has any real positive impact. Hypocritcal
> > > > Those who do that are indeed hypocritical. That doesn't mean that
the aims of non-hypocritical vegans are at fault.
> > > Aims? Again, just a word. A word not backed up by any action that
you have demonstrated any of these veg*ns take. You can't point to one on
usenet at isn't hypocritical.
> > It has never been my intention to prove that having vegans in the world
means that there is less animal suffering/death in the world, and I
certainly don't know enough about the personal life of anyone on usenet to
be able to judge whether they're a hypocrite or not.
> Maybe not your intentions, but veg*ns claim that they do that.
==============================
You say above that vegans do nothing that has any real positive impact, yet
you seem to say below that a truly dedicated vegan could live a life that is
more free of cruelty than others' lives are. Are you saying that truly
dedicated vegans don't exist, or do you think that less cruelty is not a
positive impact, or is there some other way that you reconcile those two
statements?
> > As I have said, the question of whether vegans reduce the amount of
animal suffering/death in the world is too complex a question for me to
answer. You can't answer it either. All we can do is make qualitative
estimates. The main difference between us is that I admit that I don't know
the answer, while you insist that you do. That's why I was shocked when you
agreed with me on question #3. I guess that was a typo, eh? ;)
> No, why would you assume that?
==============================
I assumed nothing, but I guessed what I did because you make so many
statements like the ones at the top of this post.
> I've stated before that a truly dedicated veg*n could a a life that is
more free of cruelty than others. I just also maintained that there are none
of those said dedicated veg*ns on usenet. Again, I have stated before that
what I propose is not the 'best' ever diet in terms of cruelty-free, just
better than the mass-consumer driven, plastic wrapped variety of veg*n that
inhabits these groups..
==============================
But whenever I say things like "some do; some don't", you jump all over me
and say they're *all* hypocrites, *all* sanctimonious, etc. etc. Certainly
you can see how you give an impression that your beliefs are quite unlike
what you just said they are.
[snipped boring part where we agree :) ]
> > > > > > That's assuming that vegans don't grow their own veggies. Some
do.
> > > > > Some probably do. None of them here on these groups are
self-sufficient though. And, just by being on these groups proves that
their 'ethics' is far from really meaning anything in their lives.
> > > > That's a mighty bold statement there, son! :D Me, I come to these
groups as a tourist, popping in once in a while, looking around, chatting
with some folks. You might know quite a few regulars, having been coming
here 5 years and all, but you don't know the heart and soul of everyone who
lurks. (Or do you have powers of which I should be made aware?)
> > > Nope, I just know how much time it would take for them to be truly
self-sufficient.
> > And how do you know that?
> Previous attempts at such. Even with the meat we had, we couldn't really
come close to being self-sufficient without giving up jobs, leisure, etc.
================================
You couldn't do it, so it can't be done?
> > > they couldn't spend any time here, and then, if their 'ethics' has
them being self-sufficient and it means that much to them, I'd doubt they
would blow their 'ethics'just be another hypocritical usenet poster. Do you?
> > What are you asking me? Do I doubt it or do I blow my ethics?
> I don't know.
=================================
Why don't you know? Doesn't re-reading the preceding lines jog your memory?
Maybe you need a check-up. ;)
> Are yours based on the statement that you 'do all you can' to reduce
animal death and suffreing?
=================================
My what? Looks like you've latched onto the last part of my question as if
it were the whole thing. OK. So you're asking now if my *ethics* are based
on the statement that I do all I can to reduce animal death and suffering?
If that's your question, the answer is no.
> > Because you have met vegans foolish enough to say that they have no
connections to animal suffering whatsoever, are you redefining "vegan" as a
person who has no connection whatsoever to animal suffering? If so, you
need to get yourself into a good logic class. :D
> Nope, Veg*ns should get themselves into a good 'ethics' class. It is
their claim that they have no/fewer/less(depends on the veg*n you talk to)
connections to animal death and suffering.
=================================
You just said "a truly dedicated veg*n could a a life that is more free of
cruelty than others". (I'm assuming that "a a life" was meant to be
something like "live a life"?) You and the vegans don't seem so far apart
anymore. :D
[snipped two staled segments (unreplied to by RE) ]
> > > > > > Sure, you could break the vegan camp into further groups, some
causing more suffering than others, and you could then go on to break those
groups up into still smaller groups, and on and on.
> > > > > But, if 'ethics' were the true concern of vegans, why would they
not have to make the comparison in their own diets and lifstyle? Again, it
boils down to only their hatred of others, not really a true concern for
animals.
> > > > For some, sure. That's what so many fervent beliefs boil down to:
an "us vs. them" mentality looking for a cause to hang their hostility on.
> > > Which makes them the hypocrites that the veg*ns on these newsgroups
are. That's all I've ever said.
> > Not true. You have made many other statements about vegans and what
they all do or don't do. Some of those statements are defensible, but
others are not. Many times you start from what seems to be solid footing,
but then you start ranting and raving and making mistakes.
===========================
The whole paragraph, or just the part about you ranting and raving?
[snipped my suggestion that RE write an article]
> > > > But I have to say again that not all vegans are like that. You just
seem to have met up with a bad lot, unfortunately. (And the bad lots are
usually the ones that make the most noise.)
> > > > > > A person has to choose where they feel there's a point to
arguing and where there isn't. Maybe the vegans who hang out here simply
think that going beyond meat vs. veggie is quibbling and not worth the
effort.
> > > > > You really do fail to see the hypocrisy in that, don't you? It's
their 'ethic', it's their moral code. Why concern themselves with those of
others, without fully reflecting on their own contributions to animal death
and suffering?
> > > > That isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is what we were talking about just
above, not practicing what you preach, focusing solely on the lifestyles of
others instead of really looking at your own. This is different. A vegan
> > might want to never even discuss veganism at all.. with anyone! That
doesn't make him or her a hypocrite. It's the mismatch of words and deeds
that make a hypocrite, not debating style.
> > > Nope. "quibbling" about only meat vs veggie, when you fail to take in
the different choices you have, is hypocritical. That is talking about
someone else's choices without doing what you could to improve yours.
> > Quoting m-w.com again...
> > Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
> > Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
> > Function: noun
> > Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
> > Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin
> > hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage,
> > hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo-
> +
> > krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
> > Date: 13th century
> > 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not;
> > especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or
> religion
> > So, put simply, a person who is not a vegan but who pretends to be a
vegan is a hypocrite.
> As is the person who claims to be a veg*n, yet fails to live in that
manner, therefore only pretending to be a veg*n.
==============================
True, but neither of those is the sort of person we were talking about.
> > How does either choosing not to take part in certain debates or choosing
to ignore those debates make someone not a vegan? All they have to do to be
a vegan is fulfill the generally-accepted definition (not your personal
definition). Debating with people is not a part of that definition.
> LOL Your reading comprehension problems creeping in again, eh? I
> didn't say they were hypocrites for not debating. I said they were
> hypocrites for debating the effects of someone elses diet while failing
> to do all they could to fix their own.
===========================
Not exactly. You've said that in the past, but that isn't what you said
here. I said "Maybe the vegans who hang out here simply think that going
beyond meat vs. veggie is quibbling and not worth the effort." You said
that *that* was hypocrisy.
> Again, I'm not using 'my'definition of vegan, I'm using the one that the
guy who made up
...
read more »
|
