What are meat eaters doing ...

4 views
Skip to first unread message

dh...@nomail.com

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 11:40:17 PM6/22/03
to
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:

>... in a vegan NG?

Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
along who cares about the fact. There's also the fact that eating
meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
contribute to anything for farm animals.

>Despite trolling.
>
>Nothing?

No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
for animals should NOT become vegans, and that fact should
certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups. But who
is going to do it? Vegans? We know very well that they won't
do it, and also that they are opposed to anyone else doing it.
So it's left up to non-vegans to do it, which means that meat
eaters are likely to be the ones who do it.

>Ok, I forgot x-posting to several groups.

Good suggestion. Let's encourage as many people to
keep these things in mind a we can. The idea that veganism
helps or saves animals is absurd, so let's try to prevent more
people from developing the false impression that it does.

>Get a life then :-))

Think harder about your life choices maybe? :-)

>cojote aka becky

dustbird

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:25:18 AM6/23/03
to
There's also the fact that eating
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
>
> . Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
> for animals should NOT become vegans

A diet of meat is the source of animal abuse and animal slaughter by
callous commercial enterprises. The mass slaughter of cows, chickens, and
hogs is hideous and revolting.
Do human beings need meat in their diet? Some day it is part of our
evolutionary metabolism, that primitive men were hunters. However, primitive
man would eat nuts, fruits, seeds, and high-fiber foods most of the time.
After a hunt, he would gorge, and be full for a few days. Maybe then we are
so constituted as not to have to eat meat.
Later men cultivated crops and began to eat vegetables and foods
higher in carbohydrates, such as bread. Isn't there some question as to
whether the human body is adapted to this Johnny-come-lately diet?
But assume people need meat occasionally. Then they could own their
own cow, chicken, or pig, and slaughter one, perhaps for special occasions.
Not so long ago people used to do just that.If they lived in a town, perhaps
they could form a co-op to buy the meat from a rancher, or, for that matter,
the dairy and egg products.
So, on that assumption, or on the assumption that people do not need
meat in that diet, and all slaughter was legally prohibited, what would
happen to the animals? They couldn't be slaughtered, and it would not be
profitable for ranchers to feed them and care for them, so breeding would
have to be drastically reduced, so that there were only a relatively few
food animals.and . The most humane solution would be to continue to care for
the animals, but to stop breeding until the population was reduced or even
eliminated. But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a species, so some sort
of reversionary or evolutionary breeding might take place that would fit the
surviving animals to live independently in their natural habitats. And to
ensure there are natural habitats, it would make sense to breed the human
population down to much smaller numbers. This could probably be done
humanely withsome sort of combination of advanced birth control medication
and social legislation that would apply to the rich as well as to the poor.
So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:00:47 AM6/23/03
to
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>
>
>>... in a vegan NG?
>
>
> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> along who cares about the fact.

But then, the intelligent and *honest* pro-meat posters
point out that the *typical* vegetarian diet involves
much LESS death than the typical meat-including diet.

> There's also the fact that eating
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,

There's also the fact that your "fact" has no ethical
meaning. "Contributing to life for animals" does not
earn you any ethical credits. You are not considered
to have done an ethical good deed by causing any
animals to "get to experience life".

> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> who cares about that.

Anyone who intends to eat meat should be encouraged to
select types of meat that come from animals who were
well treated while alive, and humanely slaughtered. NO
ONE should be encouraged to include meat in their diet,
merely to cause animals to "get to experience life".

> Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> contribute to anything for farm animals.

No, it is a MORALLY flawed attempt to eliminate animal
suffering. It will, however, almost certainly lead to
*reduced* animal suffering.

>
>
>>Despite trolling.
>>
>>Nothing?
>
>
> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> nothing to improve life for animals,

It does do something to reduce animal suffering. It
doesn't reduce it as much as its proponents say it
does, but it does reduce it.

> promote longer lives for animals,

It doesn't claim to do that.

> and least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals.

It shouldn't attempt to do that. "Contributing to the
experience of life for animals" is not a morally good deed.

Thanks for the added ammunition, though. As I have
said all along, Fuckwit, you think that causing animals
to live _per se_ is a good thing. You're a morally
bankrupt fuckwit.

> People who want to contribute to decent lives
> for animals should NOT become vegans,

Non sequitur.

> and that fact should
> certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.

No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.


Ray

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 2:08:04 PM6/23/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF71721...@whitehouse.not...

> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>... in a vegan NG?
> >
> >
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
>
> But then, the intelligent and *honest* pro-meat posters
> point out that the *typical* vegetarian diet involves
> much LESS death than the typical meat-including die


>

I wonder if "Rick Etter" would care to comment on some of the above points?
I doubt it.
>
>


Laurie

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 5:49:52 PM6/23/03
to

<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...

> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> along who cares about the fact.
You may, indeed, "point out" your groundless pro-cowboy propaganda, but
you can NOT provide ANY scientific evidence to support your hollow claims.
Have you forgotten that I have challenged you for SEVERAL YEARS to present
some credible data, on an equitable basis, to support your empty meatarian
propagandist claims, but you can NOT?
Since you know you can not support this claim, and you persist in
posting it, the only conclusion possible is that you are intentionally
lying. Another noBalls, perhaps? Somewhat more civilized, but still a
lying propagandist.
You also repeatedly cross-post to totally irrelevant ngs, thus showing
your utter contempt for ng protocol, and lack of ethical integrity.

> ... and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, ...
Decent lives??
All domestic animals are genetic mutants created by humans for their
selfish economic purposes; most could not survive in the wild.
Your cattle brethren are tortured with red hot irons to brand them and
burn out their horns; they have their testicles cut off. They are so sick
that they are loaded with antibiotics and other chemicals and drugs just too
keep them alive long enough to kill. And how about those growth hormones?
Many are kept in filthy feed lots, wallowing in their own shit - no exercise
or freedom of movement. Calves are caged and kept immobile to produce veal.
Dairy cows are generally caged and get no fresh air, sunshine, or
xercise -- and they are kept pregnant constantly until they die. Chickens
are debeaked to keep them from killing each other due to the tortuous
population density they are forced to endure. Domestic animals are fed
totally-unnatural diets.
IF someone forced YOU to endure these tortures, would you say: Thanks
for the "decent life"?

> It does nothing to improve life for animals, ...
Torturing them as farm animals, killing, and eating them DOES? How does
cutting off a bull's balls improve his life? By making him more like
noBalls?

> ... least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals.
Torturing farm animals for human profit certainly does NOT contribute
anything positive to their lives.

> So it's left up to non-vegans to do it, which means that meat
> eaters are likely to be the ones who do it.

Meat-eaters have NO interest in the welfare of the animals they cause to
be born, tortured, killed, and eaten.

> Good suggestion. Let's encourage as many people to
> keep these things in mind a we can.

No, let's be good Internet citizens and respect off-topic conventions.

> The idea that veganism
> helps or saves animals is absurd, ...
It certainly reduces the number of animals that are forced to be born
tortured, brutalized, killed, and eaten. Eating aninmals neither "helps or
saves animals".

Laurie


JonahTDB

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 7:53:31 PM6/23/03
to
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...

I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.

Cole Smith

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 8:39:38 PM6/23/03
to
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>
> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> along who cares about the fact.

Can you give me an example of such a vegetable? And I hope in doing so
you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.

> There's also the fact that eating
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> who cares about that.

That's a rather odd ideology you've got there. Couldn't it also be
said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
brought into the world?

> Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> contribute to anything for farm animals.

I disagree. I don't think that the goal of veganism is to simply
contribute to the well-being of farm animals. Rather, it seems more
likely that vegans wish to eliminate the entire concept of farm
animals. I don't know about you, but to me it seems pointess to
contribute to a system in which you are opposed to.


> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals.

I don't understand. Can you explain why veganism does nothing to
improve the lives of animals?

rick etter

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 9:07:01 PM6/23/03
to

"Cole Smith" <co...@earthdome.com> wrote in message
news:94faf4a5.0306...@posting.google.com...

> dh...@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
wrote:
> >
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
>
> Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
----------------------
the vegan delite of all delights, tofu. vegans will go to great lenghts to
make it look and taste just like meat. Problem is, the production and
processing of the soy into tofu causes far more death and suffering than
eationg grass fed beef or game. I get 100s of 1000s of calories from the
death of one cow. How many animals do you suppose died to produce 100s of
a1000s of calories of tofu substitute? far more than one, killer. Besides,
it's the vegan loon claim that their diet causes no/less/fewer amounts of
animal death and suffering. A claim that you, not any other vegan has ever
proven.


And I hope in doing so
> you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.

=====================
Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters. that
they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That neither
you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets that
cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and delusions,
but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.

rick etter

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 9:14:09 PM6/23/03
to

"Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote in message
news:vfetfvl...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
> You may, indeed, "point out" your groundless pro-cowboy propaganda,
but
> you can NOT provide ANY scientific evidence to support your hollow claims.
======================
Really? How many animals died for many meals from one deer? Come on, take
a guess. You cannot claim less than one for any monoculture crop you care
to mention.

your crops use pesticides
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm

the processing, transportation and storage of you crops all use energy. You
can get all the grass fed beef you need locally. The same cannot be said
for a variety of veggies that you import from around the world. Importation
that causes environmental damage and animal deaths. Imports that you buy
just for your own selfish convenience and pleasure.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html


> Have you forgotten that I have challenged you for SEVERAL YEARS to present
> some credible data, on an equitable basis, to support your empty meatarian
> propagandist claims, but you can NOT?

==================
Same as you have presented, eh hypocrite?


> Since you know you can not support this claim, and you persist in
> posting it, the only conclusion possible is that you are intentionally
> lying. Another noBalls, perhaps? Somewhat more civilized, but still a
> lying propagandist.

=================
LOL You should know about that, oh master of the ignorant [propaganda
spew...

rest of spew snipped...


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:47:24 AM6/24/03
to

Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
"veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.

You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
my attack on it is 100% honest. It is a ridiculous
rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
ethics behind "veganism".

My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
of "veganism" itself.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:36:13 AM6/24/03
to
Cole Smith wrote:
> dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
>
>>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>>
>> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
>>deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
>>along who cares about the fact.
>
>
> Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?

Rice.

> And I hope in doing so
> you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.

No, it isn't. But the *typical* "vegan" doesn't know
the methods by which his righteous vegetables are
produced. In truth...HE DOESN'T CARE.

"vegans" follow a binary rule that has nothing to do
with ethics: Don't Eat Meat. But that rule does not
take into consideration the animals killed in the
course of producing vegetables. In point of fact,
"vegans" simply have no answer to the problem of
collateral animal deaths in agriculture, except to
dodge, weave and lie.

>
>
>>There's also the fact that eating
>>meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>>and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
>>farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
>>who cares about that.
>
>
> That's a rather odd ideology you've got there.

It sure as hell is, and no responsible opponent of
"animal rights"/"veganism" follows it. You're talking,
above, to David Fuckwit Harrison, a loon.

> Couldn't it also be
> said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
> somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
> brought into the world?

Fuckwit's answer: "that's a different subject".

>
>
>>Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
>>contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
>
> I disagree. I don't think that the goal of veganism is to simply
> contribute to the well-being of farm animals.

It isn't, and "vegans" don't pretend it is. Fuckwit
pretends that "vegans" think it is. Fuckwit is not
representative of the informed opponent of "ar"/"veganism".

> Rather, it seems more
> likely that vegans wish to eliminate the entire concept of farm
> animals.

Right. Fuckwit thinks that's bad. Fuckwit thinks that
"vegan" are doing something evil by wanting to
eliminate farm animals.

> I don't know about you, but to me it seems pointess to
> contribute to a system in which you are opposed to.

Right. No responsible opponent of "ar"/"veganism"
suggests that vegetarians "ought" to eat meat. Fuckwit
is not a responsible person.

>
>
>
>> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
>>nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
>>for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
>>life for animals.
>
>
> I don't understand. Can you explain why veganism does nothing to
> improve the lives of animals?

Oh, come on! You aleady addressed it, implicitly, when
you acknowledged that "vegans" want to eliminate farm
animals.

Ray

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 8:53:23 AM6/24/03
to

"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:EuNJa.4173$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...


Do you level the term 'Vegan Loon' at ~~Jonnie~~. In his post June 23rd.
16:00, he made similar comments. In fact the honesty of some of ~~Jonnies~~
post was remarkable.

Difficult Eh Rick? You have to either back down or state that ~~Jonnie~~ is
spreading 'lys' and delusions.

Do I detect a split in the camp?

JonahTDB

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 10:52:53 AM6/24/03
to
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF7D8D7...@whitehouse.not>...

> JonahTDB wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> >
> >>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
<SNIP>

> > I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
> > except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>
> Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
> honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
> because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
> David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
> "veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
> FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
>

Your problem, Ball-boy, is that you can't tell the difference between
a real argument and an ad-hominem attack. Your claims that these
views are fundamentally dishonest completely disregards and
disrespects those who feel differently. By not even stopping to
consider that perhaps someone has an honest claim to make, you have
removed all chances of you ever listening to them, and therefore, ever
convincing them of their "incorrectness"

> You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
> my attack on it is 100% honest.

Your attack is dishonest, cruel, mean, and filled with little more
than insults. I came to this newsgroup looking for someone to
honestly defend meat eating. I failed miserably.

> It is a ridiculous
> rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
> ethics behind "veganism".

A claim that again loses sight of the beliefs of your adversary. You
have no ground to stand on when you assume things about zir beliefs.

>
> My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
> away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
> opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
> of "veganism" itself.

BB... Why do you even bother to argue with people when all you do is
insult and criticize them? You don't hope to grow through mutual
understanding. You hope to shove your beliefs down other people's
throats and then expect them to listen. If you have any goal in this
newsgroup other than acting like an asshole, you really ought to
change your methods.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 11:20:37 AM6/24/03
to
JonahTDB wrote:
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF7D8D7...@whitehouse.not>...
>
>>JonahTDB wrote:
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>>
> <SNIP>
>
>>>I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>>>except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>>
>>Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
>>honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
>>because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
>>David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
>>"veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
>>FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
>>
>
>
> Your problem, Ball-boy, is that you can't tell the difference between
> a real argument and an ad-hominem attack.

False.

> Your claims that these
> views are fundamentally dishonest completely disregards and
> disrespects those who feel differently.

You don't feel "differently". You are a typical
"vegan", believing all the sanctimonious rubbish that's
part and parcel of it.

> By not even stopping to
> consider that perhaps someone has an honest claim to make,

What? That your diet is "death free"? That eating so
much as a microgram of animal parts somehow negates the
whole ritual?

Sorry. Those are not honest claims.

> you have removed all chances of you ever listening to them, and therefore,
> ever convincing them of their "incorrectness"

I have listened to them more than enough. They all
sing the same wrong, bitter tune.

>
>
>>You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
>>my attack on it is 100% honest.
>
>
> Your attack is dishonest, cruel, mean, and filled with little more
> than insults.

It isn't. You're just a crybaby.

> I came to this newsgroup looking for someone to
> honestly defend meat eating. I failed miserably.

It doesn't *need* a defense, because the attack on it
from "vegans" is so utterly bankrupt. "vegans" are not
in the moral position they pretend to occupy. The
"vegan" attack on meat consumption is morally incoherent.

>
>
>>It is a ridiculous
>>rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
>>ethics behind "veganism".
>
>
> A claim that again loses sight of the beliefs of your adversary.

No, I have the beliefs firmly in sight. Not even
beliefs; belief, singular: "vegans" believe that they
are more virtuous than everyone else, merely for not
eating meat. That is false. Everything else can be
dismissed on that alone.

> You have no ground to stand on when you assume things about zir beliefs.

I am on solid rock.

>
>
>>My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
>>away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
>>opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
>>of "veganism" itself.
>
>
> BB... Why do you even bother to argue with people when all you do is
> insult and criticize them?

I don't "only" insult them. That's a bonus service.

> You don't hope to grow through mutual understanding.

"vegans" by and large are incapable of growth. These
are people who think they have found The Answer, and
they have embraced it with true-believer religious
zealotry. "veganism" is religion, and for the most
part, "vegans" are immune to reason, as are almost all
zealous religious fundamentalists.

> You hope to shove your beliefs down other people's
> throats and then expect them to listen.

No, little boy, and that's where you make your biggest
mistake. It is "vegans" who want to shove their
beliefs down others throats. That is the nature of
fundamentalist religious zealotry: the believers think
they've seen the light, are more virtuous than others,
and are thereby entitled to force their beliefs on
others.

All I and the other calm, rational opponents of
"ar"/"veganism" are doing is letting you know: you're
not going to do what you want to do, because we see
that your position is bankrupt, and that you are
totalitarians at heart. We will resist.

> If you have any goal in this
> newsgroup other than acting like an asshole, you really ought to
> change your methods.

My goal is to marginalize "vegan" totalitarians:
socially, politically, intellectually and morally. My
goal is to make you feel small and isolated. I believe
my methods are successful.

dh...@nomail.com

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:53:57 PM6/24/03
to
On 23 Jun 2003 16:53:31 -0700, Jona...@hotmail.com (JonahTDB) wrote:

>Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
>> dh...@nomail.com wrote:

[...]


>> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
>> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>>
>> > and that fact should
>> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>>
>> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>
>I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,

Like what?

>except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.

That's my name.

dh...@nomail.com

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:57:08 PM6/24/03
to
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:25:18 -0700, "dustbird" <dust...@cross.wind> wrote:

> There's also the fact that eating
>> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
>> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
>> who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
>> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>>
>>
>> . Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
>> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
>> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
>> life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
>> for animals should NOT become vegans
>
> A diet of meat is the source of animal abuse and animal slaughter by
>callous commercial enterprises. The mass slaughter of cows, chickens, and
>hogs is hideous and revolting.

How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
only live because they are raised by humans?

> Do human beings need meat in their diet?

We know that they don't. Do animals need to be raised so we
can eat them in order for those billions of animals to live? We know
that they do. We also know that no animals are raised so that
people can eat vegetables.

>Some day it is part of our
>evolutionary metabolism, that primitive men were hunters. However, primitive
>man would eat nuts, fruits, seeds, and high-fiber foods most of the time.
>After a hunt, he would gorge, and be full for a few days. Maybe then we are
>so constituted as not to have to eat meat.
> Later men cultivated crops and began to eat vegetables and foods
>higher in carbohydrates, such as bread. Isn't there some question as to
>whether the human body is adapted to this Johnny-come-lately diet?
> But assume people need meat occasionally. Then they could own their
>own cow, chicken, or pig, and slaughter one, perhaps for special occasions.
>Not so long ago people used to do just that.If they lived in a town, perhaps
>they could form a co-op to buy the meat from a rancher, or, for that matter,
>the dairy and egg products.

People can go to local farmers today and buy animal products from
animals they feel have decent lives. That way they could contribute
to decent lives for farm animals. They can't do it by being veg*n. By
eating grass raised beef, people contribute to less deaths than by
eating tofu. By drinking grass raised milk, people contribute to less
deaths than by drinking soy or rice milk.

> So, on that assumption, or on the assumption that people do not need
>meat in that diet, and all slaughter was legally prohibited, what would
>happen to the animals? They couldn't be slaughtered, and it would not be
>profitable for ranchers to feed them and care for them, so breeding would
>have to be drastically reduced, so that there were only a relatively few
>food animals.and . The most humane solution would be to continue to care for
>the animals, but to stop breeding until the population was reduced or even
>eliminated.

PeTA kills more dogs and cats than they find homes for. What makes
you think livestock would be cared for when "ARAs" already kill pets?
The animals are already being cared for, and having *much* more
life than they would if they had none at all. So far your extinction plan
doesn't show any benefit for animals.

>But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a species, so some sort
>of reversionary or evolutionary breeding might take place that would fit the
>surviving animals to live independently in their natural habitats.

What's the point in that? Billions of animals are already living because
humans raise them for food. Some of them have good lives, some have
decent lives, some have terrible lives, just as is true in natural habitats.
Most wild animals don't live to maturity. At least the ones that humans
raise usually don't suffer from starvation, disease or nonhuman predators.
How long do you think an animal would have to live in order for its
life to be worth living? Or do you think that if an animal is killed by a
human, that automatically means that its life was not worth living?
Or what?

>And to
>ensure there are natural habitats, it would make sense to breed the human
>population down to much smaller numbers. This could probably be done
>humanely withsome sort of combination of advanced birth control medication
>and social legislation that would apply to the rich as well as to the poor.

Something will probably have to be done in that regard at some point.
Let's hope that it's not too late when they do it.

> So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
>big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.

Many animals on ranches have decent lives imo, and that is worth
more consideration than the fact that they are killed.

dh...@nomail.com

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:59:33 PM6/24/03
to
On 23 Jun 2003 17:39:38 -0700, co...@earthdome.com (Cole Smith) wrote:

>dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>>
>> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
>> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
>> along who cares about the fact.
>
>Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?

Soy beans, corn, rice, wheat.

>And I hope in doing so
>you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
>agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.

Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Paints,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ


>> There's also the fact that eating
>> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
>> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
>> who cares about that.
>
>That's a rather odd ideology you've got there. Couldn't it also be
>said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
>somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
>brought into the world?

Not imo. In that case the objective of the rapist is to have sex
with a person who does not want to have sex with him. What
makes most people consider it to be wrong is that the person
being raped doesn't want to have sex, and she gains nothing
from the experience unless she happens to love the child that
results. Even then she didn't want it to begin with, and according
to some people that makes the child's life not worth living. But
then according to others life has never been a benefit for anything
anyway, even to the most loved and wanted children who have
had wonderful lives.
In the case of eating meat the objective is to eat meat. Some
people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
than they would have if they never lived, so as yet the fact that
they are "killed" is outweighed by the fact that they live imo, so
then it comes down to whether or not their life is of a quality
that would make it worth living.

>> Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
>> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
>I disagree. I don't think that the goal of veganism is to simply
>contribute to the well-being of farm animals.

No it sure is not. It is to contribute to *nothing* for farm
animals--to contribute to *no* farm animals.

>Rather, it seems more
>likely that vegans wish to eliminate the entire concept of farm
>animals.

Right.

>I don't know about you, but to me it seems pointess to
>contribute to a system in which you are opposed to.

That's why I said: "People who want to contribute to decent
lives for animals should NOT become vegans, and that fact

should certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups."

>> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does

>> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
>> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
>> life for animals.
>
>I don't understand. Can you explain why veganism does nothing to
>improve the lives of animals?

You already did. How could it improve the lives of animals,
when it doesn't contribute to the lives of animals? You're
trying to take credit for something that you not only don't
deserve to take credit for, you're trying to take credit for
something you want to see abolished.

Cole Smith

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 3:00:09 PM6/24/03
to
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:<EuNJa.4173$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net>...
> "Cole Smith" <co...@earthdome.com> wrote in message
> news:94faf4a5.0306...@posting.google.com...
> > dh...@nomail.com wrote in message
> news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > > along who cares about the fact.
> >
> > Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
> ----------------------
> the vegan delite of all delights, tofu. vegans will go to great lenghts to
> make it look and taste just like meat. Problem is, the production and
> processing of the soy into tofu causes far more death and suffering than
> eationg grass fed beef or game. I get 100s of 1000s of calories from the
> death of one cow. How many animals do you suppose died to produce 100s of
> a1000s of calories of tofu substitute? far more than one, killer. Besides,
> it's the vegan loon claim that their diet causes no/less/fewer amounts of
> animal death and suffering. A claim that you, not any other vegan has ever
> proven.

There's a problem with this though, which I attempted to address in my
previous post. You're talking as if eating tofu is an inevitable
aspect of being a vegan. This is not true. There is a growing group of
vegans (i'm specifically refering to raw foodists-
www.living-foods.com) who do not eat tofu (or rice) and in fact speak
out against it. A "vegan" is simply somebody who does not eat, use, or
purchase animal products. The term "vegan" has nothing to do with
tofu. You shouldn't have to add these other factors (eating tofu) to
veganism in order for your claim to be accurate.

Also, here are some other baseless assumptions you make in your
message:

1. That I am a vegan
2. That I eat tofu
3. That all tofu is produced in a way that harms animals. I have a
family member who used to grow soy beans and produce small amounts of
tofu at her home. If you claim that the production of tofu causes more
animal deaths than killed by the beef industry (which I find hard to
believe anyway- do you have any factual evidence in support of this?),
then this would have to be inherently true for ALL production of tofu-
since, as my personal example has shown, there are ways of acquiring
tofu which doesn't involve large-scale industrial production.
4. That I am somehow a "killer", as you put it.

> And I hope in doing so
> > you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> > agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> =====================
> Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters. that
> they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That neither
> you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets that
> cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
> closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and delusions,
> but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.

I don't have a problem with your criticisms of tofu or people who eat
it. The problem I have is when you declare that vegans cause a certain
amount of animal deaths because vegans eat tofu. As I explained
earlier, veganism simply means not eating animal products. The
consumption of tofu is an added factor to the term "vegan" that isn't
an inherent aspect of the diet. For example; Stephen Arlin, who is a
co-founder of Nature's First Law, claims to only eat food that he
organically grew himself or that he gathered from the wild. You would
agree that Stephen Arlin is a vegan since he doesn't eat animal
products, correct? So how would this diet of his be causing more
deaths to animals than eating meat does?

K D B

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 7:32:04 PM6/24/03
to
dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<f14hfv45f86p05v5d...@4ax.com>...

> On 23 Jun 2003 16:53:31 -0700, Jona...@hotmail.com (JonahTDB) wrote:
>
> >Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> >> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> [...]
> >> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> >> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
> >>
> >> Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> > and that fact should
> >> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
> >>
> >> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
> >
> >I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>
> Like what?

Are you really too fucking stupid to figure it out?


>
> >except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>
> That's my name.

No, your name is Jethro Fuckwit. If that's not the name on your
birth certificate, it should be. Now, explain why you think never
being born is a moral loss. You have to believe it, it's a necessary
condition of your "life is a benefit" bullshit. Do you understand
"necessary condition"? I'll put it another way: Life is a benefit 'if
and only if' never being born is a loss. Can you comprehend that? Now
explain your stupid-ass beliefs.

Kevin

rick etter

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 8:23:02 PM6/24/03
to

"Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:bd9hk3$ff0$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
==========
The only thing too difficult is apparently any ability on your part for
comprehension.

snips...

rick etter

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 8:39:03 PM6/24/03
to

"Cole Smith" <co...@earthdome.com> wrote in message
news:94faf4a5.03062...@posting.google.com...
=====================
You missed the point. Tofu was just one example. Substitute it with any
crop you want. They all involve death and suffering, and I say more than
the one death invovled in grass fed beef or game. Then when you start
ading all the fruits and veggies that you cannot grow in an area you live
in, the importation costs to the environment and animals increases even
more.


You shouldn't have to add these other factors (eating tofu) to
> veganism in order for your claim to be accurate.
>
> Also, here are some other baseless assumptions you make in your
> message:
>
> 1. That I am a vegan

================
You defend the religion, I'll say it like I see it.


> 2. That I eat tofu

==============
Again, just an example.


> 3. That all tofu is produced in a way that harms animals. I have a
> family member who used to grow soy beans and produce small amounts of
> tofu at her home. If you claim that the production of tofu causes more
> animal deaths than killed by the beef industry (which I find hard to
> believe anyway- do you have any factual evidence in support of this?),

====================
I love it. You chastise me for 'assuming' that all soy is grown the same
and that all tofu is processed the same, and then you turn around and make
general statements about the entire 'meat industry'. What a hoot!


> then this would have to be inherently true for ALL production of tofu-
> since, as my personal example has shown, there are ways of acquiring
> tofu which doesn't involve large-scale industrial production.

==============
Yet it still required the growing of crops which destroyed an indiginous
eco-system and replaced it with your monoculture crops. No such conversion
of land takes place for game.


> 4. That I am somehow a "killer", as you put it.

=================
Yes, you are. I am, we all are. It's just that vegans like to pretend that
they are somehow above thedeath and suffering because they substitute the
deaths of animals they do not see with for the deaths of meat animals they
'save'.


>
> > And I hope in doing so
> > > you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> > > agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> > =====================
> > Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters.
that
> > they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That
neither
> > you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets
that
> > cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
> > closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and
delusions,
> > but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.
>
> I don't have a problem with your criticisms of tofu or people who eat
> it. The problem I have is when you declare that vegans cause a certain
> amount of animal deaths because vegans eat tofu.

======================
No, I claim vegans cause death and suffering because they eat, period. It
makes no difference what they eat. Again, substitute the tofu for anything
you want. It was just an example because so many veg*ns go to such lengths
to make it look, feel, taste just like a substance they claim to despise.

As I explained
> earlier, veganism simply means not eating animal products. The
> consumption of tofu is an added factor to the term "vegan" that isn't
> an inherent aspect of the diet. For example; Stephen Arlin, who is a
> co-founder of Nature's First Law, claims to only eat food that he
> organically grew himself or that he gathered from the wild. You would
> agree that Stephen Arlin is a vegan since he doesn't eat animal
> products, correct? So how would this diet of his be causing more
> deaths to animals than eating meat does?

====================
Again, vegan is not a diet, but a supposed way of living to cause the least
amount of death and suffering to animals. But, I'll see your Steve and
raise you a Eustace Conway. Does Stevie live without electric? Without
gas? Eating what he finds and/or grows also, including dead animals. I
doubt that Stevie is in the same league, since he obviously lives in and
enjoys the fruits of the modern consumer driven lifestyle. Having his own
website indicates that truly doing 'all he can' to save animals is just lip
service to his own selfish convenience and entertainment.

JonahTDB

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 9:21:49 PM6/24/03
to
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF86D48...@whitehouse.not>...

> JonahTDB wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF7D8D7...@whitehouse.not>...
> >
> >>JonahTDB wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> >>>
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >>>I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
> >>>except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
> >>
> >>Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
> >>honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
> >>because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
> >>David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
> >>"veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
> >>FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Your problem, Ball-boy, is that you can't tell the difference between
> > a real argument and an ad-hominem attack.
>
> False.

True.

>
> > Your claims that these
> > views are fundamentally dishonest completely disregards and
> > disrespects those who feel differently.
>
> You don't feel "differently". You are a typical
> "vegan", believing all the sanctimonious rubbish that's
> part and parcel of it.

False.

>
> > By not even stopping to
> > consider that perhaps someone has an honest claim to make,
>
> What? That your diet is "death free"? That eating so
> much as a microgram of animal parts somehow negates the
> whole ritual?

Who makes such arguments? I certainly have never heard them.

>
> Sorry. Those are not honest claims.

Again with your assumptions. You really need to learn respect.

>
> > you have removed all chances of you ever listening to them, and therefore,
> > ever convincing them of their "incorrectness"
>
> I have listened to them more than enough. They all
> sing the same wrong, bitter tune.
>
> >
> >
> >>You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
> >>my attack on it is 100% honest.
> >
> >
> > Your attack is dishonest, cruel, mean, and filled with little more
> > than insults.
>
> It isn't. You're just a crybaby.
>
> > I came to this newsgroup looking for someone to
> > honestly defend meat eating. I failed miserably.
>
> It doesn't *need* a defense, because the attack on it
> from "vegans" is so utterly bankrupt. "vegans" are not
> in the moral position they pretend to occupy. The
> "vegan" attack on meat consumption is morally incoherent.

Not from this perspective. Especially considering that the best
arguments against veganism, online, have come from you, and you're
completely bankrupt when it comes to argumentation.

>
> >
> >
> >>It is a ridiculous
> >>rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
> >>ethics behind "veganism".
> >
> >
> > A claim that again loses sight of the beliefs of your adversary.
>
> No, I have the beliefs firmly in sight. Not even
> beliefs; belief, singular: "vegans" believe that they
> are more virtuous than everyone else, merely for not
> eating meat. That is false. Everything else can be
> dismissed on that alone.

You are basing your beliefs/arguments on a false assumption... or
even better, a false stereotype of the group you are attacking.

>
> > You have no ground to stand on when you assume things about zir beliefs.
>
> I am on solid rock.

Yeah, if your definition of solid rock is "absolutely nothing."

>
> >
> >
> >>My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
> >>away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
> >>opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
> >>of "veganism" itself.
> >
> >
> > BB... Why do you even bother to argue with people when all you do is
> > insult and criticize them?
>
> I don't "only" insult them. That's a bonus service.

No... That's about all you do, really.

>
> > You don't hope to grow through mutual understanding.
>
> "vegans" by and large are incapable of growth. These
> are people who think they have found The Answer, and
> they have embraced it with true-believer religious
> zealotry. "veganism" is religion, and for the most
> part, "vegans" are immune to reason, as are almost all
> zealous religious fundamentalists.

Not so much unlike yourself...

>
> > You hope to shove your beliefs down other people's
> > throats and then expect them to listen.
>
> No, little boy, and that's where you make your biggest
> mistake. It is "vegans" who want to shove their
> beliefs down others throats. That is the nature of
> fundamentalist religious zealotry: the believers think
> they've seen the light, are more virtuous than others,
> and are thereby entitled to force their beliefs on
> others.

The only people I've seen shoving anything down anyone's throat is
you... You should really reevaluate your position.

>
> All I and the other calm, rational opponents of

WAIT WAIT WAIT... You think you're calm and rational!?? *delay long
period of time while I laugh*

> "ar"/"veganism" are doing is letting you know: you're
> not going to do what you want to do, because we see
> that your position is bankrupt, and that you are
> totalitarians at heart. We will resist.

Your blind religious-like belief about the evil of vegans is
astounding. You could teach fundamentalists a thing or two.

>
> > If you have any goal in this
> > newsgroup other than acting like an asshole, you really ought to
> > change your methods.
>
> My goal is to marginalize "vegan" totalitarians:
> socially, politically, intellectually and morally. My
> goal is to make you feel small and isolated. I believe
> my methods are successful.

This statement right here proves me correct. All you care about is
insulting people. And since that seems like all I'm doing to you
right now, this is my last post doing so in this thread.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 2:29:58 AM6/25/03
to
JonahTDB wrote:
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF86D48...@whitehouse.not>...
>

>>>>Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
>>>>honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
>>>>because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
>>>>David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
>>>>"veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
>>>>FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Your problem, Ball-boy, is that you can't tell the difference between
>>>a real argument and an ad-hominem attack.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> True.

No, true, kid. I do not engage in ad hominem. You
don't know the difference. There is a very bright line
between my arguments and my insults. You're too blind
to see it.

>
>
>>>Your claims that these
>>>views are fundamentally dishonest completely disregards and
>>>disrespects those who feel differently.
>>
>>You don't feel "differently". You are a typical
>>"vegan", believing all the sanctimonious rubbish that's
>>part and parcel of it.
>
>
> False.

No, true. True, more than anything has been true in
your empty little shitstained life.

>
>
>>>By not even stopping to
>>>consider that perhaps someone has an honest claim to make,
>>
>>What? That your diet is "death free"? That eating so
>>much as a microgram of animal parts somehow negates the
>>whole ritual?
>
>
> Who makes such arguments? I certainly have never heard them.

You make them.

>
>
>>Sorry. Those are not honest claims.
>
>
> Again with your assumptions. You really need to learn respect.

No, I don't. I already know respect. You are not
worthy of any. You're a liar and a gutless coward.
Either is enough to merit contempt, but you had to pile
it on and do both.

>
>
>>>you have removed all chances of you ever listening to them, and therefore,
>>>ever convincing them of their "incorrectness"
>>
>>I have listened to them more than enough. They all
>>sing the same wrong, bitter tune.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
>>>>my attack on it is 100% honest.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your attack is dishonest, cruel, mean, and filled with little more
>>>than insults.
>>
>>It isn't. You're just a crybaby.

You're just a crybaby.

>>
>>
>>>I came to this newsgroup looking for someone to
>>>honestly defend meat eating. I failed miserably.
>>
>>It doesn't *need* a defense, because the attack on it
>>from "vegans" is so utterly bankrupt. "vegans" are not
>>in the moral position they pretend to occupy. The
>>"vegan" attack on meat consumption is morally incoherent.
>
>
> Not from this perspective.

Your perspective is a lie.

> Especially considering that the best
> arguments against veganism, online, have come from you, and you're
> completely bankrupt when it comes to argumentation.

Nope. That's why you don't even try.


>>>>It is a ridiculous
>>>>rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
>>>>ethics behind "veganism".
>>>
>>>
>>>A claim that again loses sight of the beliefs of your adversary.
>>
>>No, I have the beliefs firmly in sight. Not even
>>beliefs; belief, singular: "vegans" believe that they
>>are more virtuous than everyone else, merely for not
>>eating meat. That is false. Everything else can be
>>dismissed on that alone.
>
>
> You are basing your beliefs/arguments on a false assumption...

No. I am basing my argument very precisely on the
assumption "vegans" make: all of them.

> or even better, a false stereotype of the group you are attacking.

Nope. "vegans", being an extremely, neurotically
conformist subculture, very assiduously *strive* to
conform to a very well defined stereotype.

>
>
>>>You have no ground to stand on when you assume things about zir beliefs.
>>
>>I am on solid rock.
>
>
> Yeah, if your definition of solid rock is "absolutely nothing."

No, my definition is a very substantial "something":
the truth.

>
>
>>>
>>>>My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
>>>>away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
>>>>opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
>>>>of "veganism" itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>BB... Why do you even bother to argue with people when all you do is
>>>insult and criticize them?
>>
>>I don't "only" insult them. That's a bonus service.
>
>
> No... That's about all you do, really.

False.

However, all *you* do is mouth, "am not; did not; no I
don't; waaaaaahhhhhh!" You have never offered ONE
original bit of insight; not a single one.

>
>
>>>You don't hope to grow through mutual understanding.
>>
>>"vegans" by and large are incapable of growth. These
>>are people who think they have found The Answer, and
>>they have embraced it with true-believer religious
>>zealotry. "veganism" is religion, and for the most
>>part, "vegans" are immune to reason, as are almost all
>>zealous religious fundamentalists.
>
>
> Not so much unlike yourself...

The antithesis of myself.

>
>
>>>You hope to shove your beliefs down other people's
>>>throats and then expect them to listen.
>>
>>No, little boy, and that's where you make your biggest
>>mistake. It is "vegans" who want to shove their
>>beliefs down others throats. That is the nature of
>>fundamentalist religious zealotry: the believers think
>>they've seen the light, are more virtuous than others,
>>and are thereby entitled to force their beliefs on
>>others.
>
>
> The only people I've seen shoving anything down anyone's throat is
> you...

Nope. I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. I
forcefully reject the totalitarian attempts of "vegans"
to shove their morally bankrupt values down my throat,
and the throats of all true lovers of freedom.
"veganism" is intrinsically fascist, and we're not
going to be caught napping.

> You should really reevaluate your position.

No. I very carefully evaluated the components of my
position before adopting it.

YOU need to reevaluate the moral basis of your embrace
of "veganism". When you do, if you do it honestly,
you'll find there *is* no moral basis. None.

>
>
>>All I and the other calm, rational opponents of

>>"ar"/"veganism" are doing is letting you know: you're
>>not going to do what you want to do, because we see
>>that your position is bankrupt, and that you are
>>totalitarians at heart. We will resist.
>
>
> Your blind religious-like belief about the evil of vegans is
> astounding. You could teach fundamentalists a thing or two.

Apparently not: YOU are the fundamentalists, and you
are immune to learning.

>
>
>>>If you have any goal in this
>>>newsgroup other than acting like an asshole, you really ought to
>>>change your methods.
>>
>>My goal is to marginalize "vegan" totalitarians:
>>socially, politically, intellectually and morally. My
>>goal is to make you feel small and isolated. I believe
>>my methods are successful.
>
>
> This statement right here proves me correct.

Nope.

> All you care about is insulting people.

Nope. As I said earlier, that's simply a bonus.

> And since that seems like all I'm doing to you
> right now, this is my last post doing so in this thread.

We'll see. I think your raging, sanctimonious ego will
get the better of you.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 2:38:32 AM6/25/03
to

You're name is Fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit, and you
are such a terrible fuckwit, it's become your name:
Fuckwit.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 2:39:26 AM6/25/03
to

Your name is Fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit, and you are

Ray

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 9:02:43 AM6/25/03
to

"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:kX5Ka.4222$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...

-------------

Come on Rick, you know that is a weak attempt to avoid the issue.
It is not *my* views you dispute, the post was ~~Jonnies~~. Our side have
been posting the same opinions for years and you have come back with your
stock phrases, now your own gaffer leaves you out in the cold. Remember, I
said he would! I don't see him giving you any back-up.

Neither can I see him retracting some of the views he made in support of AR
issues.

Perhaps a little e-mail to ~~Jonnie~~ may help.
>
>
>
>
>
> snips...
>
>
>
>
>


rick etter

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 5:04:52 PM6/25/03
to

"Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:bdc6hj$mih$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
================
I never ask him to, and he has no need to. That you quote him still does
not prove your case and better than when you quote lys, dreck, or anyone
else on usenet. Too bad you can't really discuss the issue, since you have
nothing to offer, eh killer?

dh...@nomail.com

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 6:23:24 PM6/25/03
to
On 24 Jun 2003 16:32:04 -0700, kand...@excite.com (K D B) wrote:

>dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<f14hfv45f86p05v5d...@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Jun 2003 16:53:31 -0700, Jona...@hotmail.com (JonahTDB) wrote:
>>
>> >Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
>> >> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
>> >> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
>> >>
>> >> Non sequitur.
>> >>
>> >> > and that fact should
>> >> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>> >>
>> >> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>> >
>> >I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>>
>> Like what?
>
> Are you really too fucking stupid to figure it out?
>>
>> >except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>>
>> That's my name.
>
> No, your name is Jethro Fuckwit.

That's a lie Brandumbass.

>If that's not the name on your
>birth certificate, it should be.
>
>Now, explain why you think never
>being born is a moral loss. You have to believe it, it's a necessary
>condition of your "life is a benefit" bullshit. Do you understand
>"necessary condition"? I'll put it another way: Life is a benefit 'if
>and only if' never being born is a loss. Can you comprehend that?

No. Explain the stupid idea if you can, but you can't because
it's just another lie.

>Now
>explain your stupid-ass beliefs.
>
> Kevin

That if life is not the benefit which makes all others possible,
then animals can continue to benefit from things after they are
no longer alive, and other things that are not alive can benefit
as well.

JonahTDB

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 7:41:02 PM6/25/03
to
> On 23 Jun 2003 16:53:31 -0700, Jona...@hotmail.com (JonahTDB) wrote:
>
> >Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> >> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> [...]
> >> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> >> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
> >>
> >> Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> > and that fact should
> >> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
> >>
> >> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
> >
> >I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>
> Like what?

Well, As you know I disagree with your position, but hardly find your
position laughable or ridiculous like Ball-boy does. Here's a repost
of his post and my thoughts on it:

Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> dh...@nomail.com wrote:

> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>... in a vegan NG?
> >
> >
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
>
> But then, the intelligent and *honest* pro-meat posters
> point out that the *typical* vegetarian diet involves
> much LESS death than the typical meat-including diet.

I agree that the typical vegetarian diet involves much less death than
the typical meat-including diet.

>
> > There's also the fact that eating
> > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>
> There's also the fact that your "fact" has no ethical
> meaning. "Contributing to life for animals" does not
> earn you any ethical credits. You are not considered
> to have done an ethical good deed by causing any
> animals to "get to experience life".

I agree with Ball-boy's statement, but not his attitude. Though I
find your idea of farming *giving* animals life interesting, I still
disagree with it.

>
> > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> > who cares about that.
>
> Anyone who intends to eat meat should be encouraged to
> select types of meat that come from animals who were
> well treated while alive, and humanely slaughtered. NO
> ONE should be encouraged to include meat in their diet,
> merely to cause animals to "get to experience life".

I completely agree with this statement here.

>
> > Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> > contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
> No, it is a MORALLY flawed attempt to eliminate animal
> suffering. It will, however, almost certainly lead to
> *reduced* animal suffering.

Again, I agree that it leads to reduced animal suffering, but disagree
with Ball-boy's attitude.

>
> >
> >
> >>Despite trolling.
> >>
> >>Nothing?
> >
> >
> > No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> > nothing to improve life for animals,
>
> It does do something to reduce animal suffering. It
> doesn't reduce it as much as its proponents say it
> does, but it does reduce it.

Again, I agree that it leads to reduced animal suffering, but disagree
with Ball-boy's attitude.

>
> > promote longer lives for animals,
>
> It doesn't claim to do that.
>
> > and least of all contribute to the experience of
> > life for animals.
>
> It shouldn't attempt to do that. "Contributing to the
> experience of life for animals" is not a morally good deed.

I agree, but I think it has merit as a good idea.

>
> Thanks for the added ammunition, though. As I have
> said all along, Fuckwit, you think that causing animals
> to live _per se_ is a good thing. You're a morally
> bankrupt fuckwit.

Obviously, Ball-boy is acting like an asshole again, and thus leaves
my level of agreement.

>
> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> > and that fact should
> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>
> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.

Sigh. I've never seen someone so opposed to the expression and
sharing of attempts to find the truth. have you ever met anyone like
Ball-boy?

>
> >except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>
> That's my name.

Okay. I couldn't quite remember.

Dutch

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 9:15:40 PM6/25/03
to
"JonahTDB" <Jona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4824e919.0306...@posting.google.com...

> dh...@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<f14hfv45f86p05v5d...@4ax.com>...
> > On 23 Jun 2003 16:53:31 -0700, Jona...@hotmail.com (JonahTDB) wrote:
> >
> > >Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> > >> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> > >> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
> > >>
> > >> Non sequitur.
> > >>
> > >> > and that fact should
> > >> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
> > >>
> > >> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
> > >
> > >I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Well, As you know I disagree with your position, but hardly find your
> position laughable or ridiculous like Ball-boy does.

What *is* your position on it then? You don't know, because you're a
confused chump.

> Here's a repost
> of his post and my thoughts on it:

I can hardly wait...

By the way, if you don't like being insulted close this message now, because
I've had my fill of your empty posturing.

>
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> > dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>... in a vegan NG?
> > >
> > >
> > > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > > along who cares about the fact.
> >
> > But then, the intelligent and *honest* pro-meat posters
> > point out that the *typical* vegetarian diet involves
> > much LESS death than the typical meat-including diet.
>
> I agree that the typical vegetarian diet involves much less death than
> the typical meat-including diet.

Of course "you agree", supports your vegan agenda, that's the only reason.

> > > There's also the fact that eating
> > > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their
deaths,
> >
> > There's also the fact that your "fact" has no ethical
> > meaning. "Contributing to life for animals" does not
> > earn you any ethical credits. You are not considered
> > to have done an ethical good deed by causing any
> > animals to "get to experience life".
>
> I agree with Ball-boy's statement, but not his attitude.

There's no "attitude" in that paragraph, you're a moron.

Though I
> find your idea of farming *giving* animals life interesting, I still
> disagree with it.

Whoopee shit, what does that mean?

> > > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > > farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> > > who cares about that.
> >
> > Anyone who intends to eat meat should be encouraged to
> > select types of meat that come from animals who were
> > well treated while alive, and humanely slaughtered. NO
> > ONE should be encouraged to include meat in their diet,
> > merely to cause animals to "get to experience life".
>
> I completely agree with this statement here.

Why?

> > > Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> > > contribute to anything for farm animals.
> >
> > No, it is a MORALLY flawed attempt to eliminate animal
> > suffering. It will, however, almost certainly lead to
> > *reduced* animal suffering.
>
> Again, I agree that it leads to reduced animal suffering, but disagree
> with Ball-boy's attitude.

What attitude, he's not displaying an attitude, you are. What makes you
think anybody gives a Rat's ass what you think of his "attitude" anyway? You
can barely form sentences, much less coherent philosophical opinions.

>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Despite trolling.
> > >>
> > >>Nothing?
> > >
> > >
> > > No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> > > nothing to improve life for animals,
> >
> > It does do something to reduce animal suffering. It
> > doesn't reduce it as much as its proponents say it
> > does, but it does reduce it.
>
> Again, I agree that it leads to reduced animal suffering, but disagree
> with Ball-boy's attitude.

I disagree with your attitude, the attitude that you believe that you are
capable of saying anything meaningful, you aren't.

>
> >
> > > promote longer lives for animals,
> >
> > It doesn't claim to do that.
> >
> > > and least of all contribute to the experience of
> > > life for animals.
> >
> > It shouldn't attempt to do that. "Contributing to the
> > experience of life for animals" is not a morally good deed.
>
> I agree, but I think it has merit as a good idea.

Really? In what way?


>
> >
> > Thanks for the added ammunition, though. As I have
> > said all along, Fuckwit, you think that causing animals
> > to live _per se_ is a good thing. You're a morally
> > bankrupt fuckwit.
>
> Obviously, Ball-boy is acting like an asshole again, and thus leaves
> my level of agreement.

blah blah blah


>
> >
> > > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> > > for animals should NOT become vegans,
> >
> > Non sequitur.
> >
> > > and that fact should
> > > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
> >
> > No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>
> Sigh. I've never seen someone so opposed to the expression and
> sharing of attempts to find the truth. have you ever met anyone like
> Ball-boy?

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit your fucking dick off.

> > >except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
> >
> > That's my name.
>
> Okay. I couldn't quite remember.

You aren't too bright are you?


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 11:50:49 PM6/25/03
to
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2003 16:32:04 -0700, kand...@excite.com (K D B) wrote:
>
>

>>
>>>>except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>>>
>>> That's my name.
>>
>> No, your name is Jethro Fuckwit.
>
>
> That's a lie Brandumbass.

No. That's how most people here know you.

>
>
>>If that's not the name on your
>>birth certificate, it should be.
>>
>>Now, explain why you think never
>>being born is a moral loss. You have to believe it, it's a necessary
>>condition of your "life is a benefit" bullshit. Do you understand
>>"necessary condition"? I'll put it another way: Life is a benefit 'if
>>and only if' never being born is a loss. Can you comprehend that?
>
>
> No. Explain the stupid idea if you can, but you can't because
> it's just another lie.

It isn't a lie. You're too stupid to understand "if
and only if". You're too stupid to understand anything
except a call to dinner.

>
>
>>Now
>>explain your stupid-ass beliefs.
>>
>> Kevin
>
>
> That if life is not the benefit which makes all others possible,

Life per se is not a benefit.

A benefit is something that moves an existing entity
from a less well off state to a better off state.
There is no existing entity to be in the less well off
state. You, of course, being an irrational fuck, think
the animals exist in some kind of "pre-born" state, but
that's just you.

> then animals can continue to benefit from things after they are
> no longer alive, and other things that are not alive can benefit
> as well.

The second part of that is what you believe. The
animals who "get to experience life" are not alive when
the absurd "benefit of life" is conferred on them, but
you nonetheless think they benefit from the conferral.
That's what's absurd about your fuckwitted belief.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 12:00:35 AM6/26/03
to
JonahTDB wrote:
> dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<f14hfv45f86p05v5d...@4ax.com>...
>

>>>>Non sequitur.


>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and that fact should
>>>>>certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>>>>
>>>>No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>>>
>>>I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>>
>> Like what?
>
>
> Well, As you know I disagree with your position, but hardly find your
> position laughable or ridiculous like Ball-boy does.

Fuckwit's position is both laughable *and* ridiculous;
not "or". Fuckwit's position NECESSARILY requires that
animals exist in some kind of "pre-born" state, in
which they can experience benefit and loss. It is
absolutely absurd.


>>>and that fact should
>>>certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>>
>>No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>
>
> Sigh. I've never seen someone so opposed to the expression and
> sharing of attempts to find the truth.

Fuckwit is not trying to find "the truth". Like you,
Fuckwit is trying to impose his black-hearted religious
beliefs on others.

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 12:26:08 AM6/26/03
to
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:EuNJa.4173$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...

> Problem is, the production and processing of the soy into tofu causes far


more death and suffering than
> eationg grass fed beef or game.

This is an interesting claim. Could you provide some more specifics?
Maybe some examples, evidence, that sort of thing.


Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 12:32:28 AM6/26/03
to
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...

> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,

> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets,

This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly humane
way.

However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never met
anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!

I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
produced meat.

> The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,

Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
reasoning here.


Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 12:36:53 AM6/26/03
to
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:o14hfv8u56t4grfpr...@4ax.com...

> How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
> only live because they are raised by humans?

What about it?

For one thing, these lives are not, in most cases, very pleasant.

For another, I could use an identical argument for raising humans for food -
after all, if we did not do so, those humans would not exist.

And, finally, are you saying that if we did not raise cows, chickens, etc.
the space currently devoted to raising them - including the raising of
feed - would be desert, devoid of life?

> By eating grass raised beef, people contribute to less deaths than by
> eating tofu. By drinking grass raised milk, people contribute to less
> deaths than by drinking soy or rice milk.

Uh, how do you arrive at this? To quote many of my math teachers, "show
your work".


Cheers
M


Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 12:47:37 AM6/26/03
to
"dustbird" <dust...@cross.wind> wrote in message
news:bd6v1e$p...@library2.airnews.net...

> So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
> big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.

My fellow vegetarians frequently piss me off, often by saying things like
the above.

What the corporation-hating people do not realize is that corporations
consist of people. When a corporation goes broke, people are out of work -
often an unpleasant experience.

In effect, you are saying is that you just don't care if people end up
unemployed - which makes you sound like an asshole.

What also pisses me off is that the debate itself is ridiculous.

There is no prospect of people suddenly giving up meat en masse. So far the
process has been gradual, and that is likely to continue.

Increasingly, the same company that sell animal products are also getting
into selling soy milk, tofu dogs, etc. - which makes perfect business sense.
If the consumption of meat continues to go down, fewer people will be
employed in its production - and more in production of tofu and other
products. I do not see this causing a problem.

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 12:53:51 AM6/26/03
to
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...

> Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> _________________________________________________________
> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,

What is the point you are trying to make?

For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).

For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral failing.
If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no way
for me to no use tires.

> people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
> they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
> than they would have if they never lived,

You seem to be treating "not existing" as a form of harm. Unless I
misunderstood you, this seems... well... absurd.


Derek

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 1:10:23 AM6/26/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EFA6E92...@whitehouse.not...

> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > On 24 Jun 2003 16:32:04 -0700, kand...@excite.com (K D B) wrote:

> > That if life is not the benefit which makes all others possible,
>
> Life per se is not a benefit.
>

You don't believe that. You believe life IS a benefit.


Dutch

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 3:23:18 AM6/26/03
to
"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
>
> > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > farm animals with their diets,
>
> This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly
humane
> way.
>
> However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
> way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
> vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never
met
> anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!

Yet all agriculture results in massive harm to animals, wildlife like birds,
mice etc.. so the vegan still exacts a toll in death and suffering.

> I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
> humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> produced meat.

What that fact illustrates is that raising animals meat is not categorically
inhumane/unethical as vegans claim.

> > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
>
> Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> reasoning here.

He means that they would never have been born but for the demand for meat.


Derek

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 4:16:29 AM6/26/03
to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:GbxKa.315277$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...

> "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
> >
[..]

> > > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
> >
> > Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I
> > follow your reasoning here.
>
> He means that they would never have been born but for the
> demand for meat.
>
All meatarians seem to believe that animals should
be born, because preventing them from experiencing
life is morally bad. The billions of livestock animals
that do get to experience life are a direct result from
this illogical thinking, and although meatarians believe
animals benefit from this experience, they cannot offer
any possible reason how. I contend, that if animals
benefit from being born it would mean they must've
suffered a loss prior to being born, so their reasoning
is illogical because we cannot experience anything prior
to being born. Here are some examples to show you
that there IS evidence which supports this observation.

Meatarians believe that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
David Harrison - 12/09/1999

They believe they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
David Harrison - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
David Harrison - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
David Harrison - 10/19/1999

They believe that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
David Harrison - 09/04/1999

All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
David Harrison - 12/11/1999

Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
David Harrison - 04/12/2002

But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
David Harrison - 04/20/2002

They believe that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
David Harrison - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
David Harrison - 01/08/2002

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
David Harrison - 07/30/1999

Here's some off-Usenet evidence too, to show that
David Harrison is merely expressing a common
view.

[This raises an additional problem with Davis's
argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe
we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or
preference-satisfaction in the world not only by
increasing the happiness of existing animals, but
also by increasing the total population of happy
animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993).
A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal,
it is better to have two happy animals than one.

*In the past, this view has been used to justify the
consumption of meat, since farmed animals would
not exist if not for meat production.*

This argument, sometimes called "The Logic of the
Larder" (Stephen 1896), is rebutted by recognizing
that while a particular animal may have a life worth
living, he or she may harm a number of other animals
and/or prevent other animals from existing. In such
cases, it may be better if that particular animal had
not existed (Gruzalski 1989).] *my emphasis*
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/leastharm.htm

This proves my point in that meatarians do hold the
irrational belief that animals benefit from being born,
and that society must continue to eat animals to
provide that initial life. It's the same irration idea
your helmsman Harrison believes in and promotes:
The Logic of the Larder.

Here's some more evidence:
"What do they do which is cruel? They pen up animals
which should be roaming free. This sounds much like
all stock farming. When you farm cattle, you don't want
them straying. As for the "should", well, *these animals
wouldn't exist were it not for the fur farm,* surely, so
who says what these animals "should" be doing? The
reply is that fur farming is evil." *my emphasis*
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/opinion/furfarm.html

and

"If so, the consequence to others of buying that meat
in the grocery store, rather than asparagus, is good;
*you create farm animals whose lives are worth living.*
And thus the consequence of buying asparagus rather
than meat is, by comparison, bad. So if you, like me,
think your actions are more moral when you do more
good for others, you should agree with me that meat is
moral, and veggies are immoral." *my emphasis*
http://hanson.gmu.edu/meat.html

K D B

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 5:18:39 AM6/26/03
to
"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<z%uKa.30463$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> > products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> > Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>
> What is the point you are trying to make?
>
> For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).
>
> For others, one has to compromise -

To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.

I do not see that as a moral failing.
> If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no way
> for me to no use tires.

Walk. Problem solved.


>
> > people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
> > they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
> > than they would have if they never lived,
>
> You seem to be treating "not existing" as a form of harm.

That is EXACTLY what he is doing and it has been pointed out to him
countless times over the past 4+ years. The idiot posting as dh_ld,
better known as 'Jethro Fuckwit' believes that life, in and of itself,
is a "benefit" to farm animals. He has been told that for this to be
true, then never being born MUST be a loss. He argues against this
although it is simply the logical implication of his dumbass "life is
a benefit" claim. Rather than defend his fuckwitted beliefs, the moron
resorts to the only 'argument' he has: accusing all his detractors of
being ARAs. The idiot regularly accuses me of being an ARA although I
raise and slaughter my own livestock and poultry, eat meat regularly,
and hunt and/or fish a minimum of 300 days per year.

Unless I
> misunderstood you, this seems... well... absurd.

Congratulations, you have joined a long list of people who have
tried to point out the absurdity of Jethro Fuckwit's irrational
belief.

Kevin

rick etter

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 6:17:08 AM6/26/03
to

"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ABuKa.30038$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
====================
Whta kind would you like?


The use of pesticides?
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
f

power generation and distribution?
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html


You can look up some for yourself. Like the millions of animals that are
killed deliberately at storage and processing facilities just to keep your
veggies clean and cheap. Try thinking for a change instead of knee-jerking
your way through life.

Now, care to really compare that to say, a deer? Didn't thing so.

rick etter

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 6:18:05 AM6/26/03
to

"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z%uKa.30463$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> > products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> > Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>
> What is the point you are trying to make?
>
> For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).
>
> For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral failing.
> If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no
way
> for me to no use tires.
=================
Really? Nice claim. Care to offer some proof? Didn't think so....

rick etter

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 6:22:10 AM6/26/03
to

"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
>
> > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > farm animals with their diets,
>
> This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly
humane
> way.
>
> However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
> way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
> vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never
met
> anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!
=================
Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or game.
These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die for
the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.


>
> I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
> humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> produced meat.
>
> > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
>
> Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> reasoning here.

====================
It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid. It does nothing for the many
more animals you may kill to replace those calories.


>
>
>
>


Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 7:56:41 AM6/26/03
to
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:GbxKa.315277$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...

> Yet all agriculture results in massive harm to animals, wildlife like


birds,
> mice etc.. so the vegan still exacts a toll in death and suffering.

Is there a point associated with this statement?

> > I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise
meat
> > humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> > produced meat.
>
> What that fact illustrates is that raising animals meat is not
categorically
> inhumane/unethical as vegans claim.

All vegans claim this? Prof. Peter Singer, in "Animal Liberation" - a book
which is a major influence on ethical veganism/vegetarianism discusses the
possibility of humanely produced meat - and goes on to say that vast
majority of meat is not humanely produced. He suggests that maybe the
question should not be so much "Is it unethical to eat meat?" but rather "Is
it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
knowledge, a vegan.

> > Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> > reasoning here.
>
> He means that they would never have been born but for the demand for meat.

I do not see how causing someone or something to be born "saves" them. It
sounds "non-existence in the first place" sound like a variety of harm -
which is ridiculous.


Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 7:58:18 AM6/26/03
to
"K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...

> > For others, one has to compromise -
>
> To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.

I did not even know that there was a single, immutable vegan ideology. I am
sure this will be news to many vegans as well.


Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 8:02:06 AM6/26/03
to
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:4LzKa.4293$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...

> > For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral
failing.
> > If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> > suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no
> > way for me to no use tires.

> Really? Nice claim. Care to offer some proof? Didn't think so....

Proof of what? That there is no realistic way to avoid tire use? Or that
not eating meat prevents death and suffering of animals?

What would you consider acceptable proof? (i.e. What would have to be true
about the world for your beliefs on this to be false.)


Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 8:00:31 AM6/26/03
to
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:cKzKa.4292$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...

> > This is an interesting claim. Could you provide some more specifics?
> > Maybe some examples, evidence, that sort of thing.
> ====================
> Whta kind would you like?
>
>
> The use of pesticides?
> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
>
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
f

I see a bunch of random URLs, that is all. That is not evidence.

I fail to see an actual point here.

> You can look up some for yourself. Like the millions of animals that are
> killed deliberately at storage and processing facilities just to keep your
> veggies clean and cheap. Try thinking for a change instead of
knee-jerking
> your way through life.

Just one question.

What!?

> Now, care to really compare that to say, a deer? Didn't thing so.

Pronouns are much more effective if they have a referent.


Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 8:03:44 AM6/26/03
to
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:VOzKa.4294$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...

> Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or game.

Good for them.

> These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die
for
> the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
> diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.

Erm, what are you talking about?

> It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid.

Brilliant, logical argument there.


Derek

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 8:33:08 AM6/26/03
to

"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Kevin is lying, as usual. He and Jonathan Ball have
invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
argument with a false premise in the hope that it
will weaken the vegan's position.

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented
position, then conclude that the original position
has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails
to deal with the actual arguments that have been
made.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman

It's a well known tactic that we're all aware of here
on a.a.e.v.


dustbird

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 11:14:05 AM6/26/03
to

They shouldn't have chosen to be in those businesses to begin with. If
somebody whose business is to wring the heads off live chickens on a
production line is unemployed because people have chosen not to eat meat, or
the same for someone working in a slaughterhouse, or hog farm, or even for
anyone involved in just the book-keeping, or executive work, do I care?
Nope. They probably desderve an "unpleasant experience."
A lot of people gave up cigarettes because they thought it did them harm,
and because the price went sky-high. The same might work for meat.
And the companies who are involved in meat products but also go into tofu
or something because there is a market - well, if the market for tofu
ceased, wouldn't they go back into meat 100%? That is just amoral
expediency.


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 11:03:10 AM6/26/03
to
Derek wrote:
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:GbxKa.315277$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>>"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>>><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>
> [..]
>
>>>>The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
>>>
>>>Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I
>>>follow your reasoning here.
>>
>>He means that they would never have been born but for the
>>demand for meat.
>>
>
> All meatarians seem to believe that animals should
> be born,

No. First, there is no such word as "meatarian". It
is an artificial swear word coined by angry, defensive
vegetarians.

Second, almost no consumers of meat believe that.

USual sUSpect

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 11:34:00 AM6/26/03
<