collateral damage of organic rice

You ignored my basic point in this. Try again: my
attack on "veganism" does not rely on an attack on
others' motives. My attack on "veganism" and "aras"
PRECEDES my conclusion about your motives. My
conclusion about your motives is based on your
pigheadedness in defending your adoption of a pose,
when that pose is based on a fatally flawed
pseudo-philosophy; and it is based on catching you in
obviously premeditated lies.

Rat & Swan wrote:

> Saerah wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> i guess, but you sure arent going to convince anyone of the obvous
>> flaws in
>> their arguments by using the most offensive (to them at least)
>> rhetoric you
>> can.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> One major problem with jon's rhetoric (among others) is that it
> relies on attacks on others' motives.

No, it doesn't rely on that at all, and you know it.
You get so much else wrong, it is unsurprising you get
the direction of causation wrong as well.

I observe three things, and from them I infer,
CORRECTLY, you motive. The correct inference comes as
a result of a prior analysis. What I look at are:

- the fundamental, fatal flaw in the "vegan"/"ara" yarn
- your insistence that the flaw isn't there, when it
irrefutably is
- your laughably obvious sophistry in defense of the yarn

From your insistence you are right, which can only be
described as conscious stubbornness, and from the
risibly dishonest sophistry you use to try to preserve
the yarn, I THEN conclude that you are a lying,
hypocritical, sanctimonious cunt. I am right.

> As you see, he cares nothing
> for the ethics of the argument,

No, she and you can't see that at all, because it is a
blatantly false statement. Since you are KNOWN to be a
lying sophist, we know that the lie is deliberate.

I do care about the ethics of the argument, as is plain
to any honest observer. Among other things, I believe
it is important to be honest and open minded, and a
dispassionate observation of your behavior reveals you
are neither. You have a deep-seated belief in a
pernicious political dogma, and it leads you to commit
evil.


> I have been vegetarian for close to 25 years, vegan for a number of
> those years. I believe strongly that subject-of-a-life animals (to
> use Regan's term) do have a moral standing which makes it unethical
> for us to use them as objects

This belief is something you have never been able to
support; not even close.

> I would not eat meat, even "grass-fed" beef, because of this.

But you *claim* to be following some kind of least-harm
diet in your "veganism", and that is plainly seen to be
a lie.

[snip remaining excruciating blarney]

The modification of the thread subject is very apt.
The collateral damage of your reflexive dishonesty is
that your entire position is demolished. You have no
credibility.

rick etter wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" <labrat.DeleteThis@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
> news:bu9dah$r6g$1@reader2.nmix.net...
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rat & Swan wrote:
>>
>>>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
>>>>>>use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
>>>>>>the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
>>>>>>believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
>>>>>>why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
>>
>>>>>...YOU
>>>>>already don't think that animals should be granted rights because
>>>>>they are "like" us.
>>
>>>>What leads you to that conclusion? I actually do.
>>
>>>...You believe they are entitled to right because they are..."subject of
>
> a
>
>>>life". They may be "like" us in that regard, but most animals are very
>>>much UNLIKE us in most other pertinent regards.
>>
>>I think the similarity to us in being "subject-of-a-life" is what is
>>significant and pertinent. Of course, each individual and each
>>species is different, but it is the ability to have interests, to have
>>awareness of oneself as an individual, which is basic to the concept of
>>moral standing as an individual. A rock or a tree may be _given_ a
>>moral value by moral agents (as a work of art, a plant in one's garden,
>>a part of a loved landscape or healthy ecology, etc.), but the value
>>does not lie within the capacities of the individual itself; the
>>individual tree or rock does not have the basic qualities of personhood.
>
>
>
>>Many animals do, as most humans do; therefore they should, I believe,
>>be seen as having certain basically similar rights.
>
> =============================
> But you prove with each inane post that you don't believe this. either
> that, or you are the most incredibe hypocrite the world has ever seen,
> killer.
> If *you* really believed this you wouldn't be waiting for the rest of us to
> finally afford these animals their 'rights'. Instead, you would already be
> living your life so that you are supporting, defending, and upholding the
> rights you claim they have. You don't. You don't even come close.

Worse than that. She POINT BLANK REFUSES to make any
meaningful changes, and dismisses any suggestions as
"mere tactics". Instead of meaningful, concrete
changes, she mouths some predictable platitudes about
buying "locally produced organic" produce, which is as
disingenuous a dodge as I've ever heard.

She is a hypocrite beyond what I thought it possible to be.

> You live off them, and you entertain yourself with their
death and suffering.
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>
>