"vegan" = NOT better

Karen Winter, liar and hypocrite, lied:

> Dave wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> The moral premise is that it is wrong to treat animals as
>> commodities rather than right holding sentient beings.
>
>
> ...
>
> That is one way of expressing the basic premise,

It also is absolutist in formulation, just as is every
other formulation of the wrong belief.


>
>> In practise this is usually true as most vegans consume
>> products whose production has involved the *deliberate*
>> and systematic violation of animal rights (eg death by
>> poisoning). These violations are often overlooked by
>> the AR movement.
>
>
> That is, unfortunately, true, but the same is true of
> violations of human rights in the production of consumer
> goods.

No. That is NOT true of human rights, Karen. There is
no good or service you know of produced in a way such
that workers are killed and left to rot in fields, and
no consequence ensues.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146615288.614441.54680@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

snippage...

> Yeah, I know. I personally don't think people should be driven
> out of
> their parish for expressing opinions on usenet. But I suppose
> that's a
> matter to take up with her priest.
>
> I also don't see any good reason why people should be demonized
> for
> expressing the view that zoophilia and paedophilia are
> sometimes
> permissible. People hold all sorts of crazy views: for example,
> a lot
> of people on this board think nonhumans have no moral status
> whatsoever, and Rick says he doesn't even believe in human
> rights.
==============================
You just can't help yourself, can you fool? When did I make that
declaration, killer?
As usual, I have made no claims, yet you have some need to ly
about what is written.
Why is that, hypocrite? You know your own claims are bogus, so
you have to make some up about others?
You reaaly are just too willfully ignorant for words, fool.



Leif
> thinks a child can give morally validating consent to working
> in a
> factory to support his family, so it'd be interesting to see
> how he
> defends the view that a child can never give morally validating
> consent
> to sexual relations.
>
> Anyway, this still doesn't explain to me why you care if she's
> Karen
> now. She says she has no interest in discussing those issues
> now. So
> why does it matter?
>
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On 1 May 2006, Goo tried to slink away from his own beliefs:

>dh pointed out:

>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>animals." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
[...]
>>In the above quotes you gave very specific reasons why
>>YOU feel that people SHOULD be vegans.
>
>No

Yes you did Goo. If you want to disagree with yourself, now
is the time. Since you can't, we can agree that you agree with
all of "their" arguments that YOU present. This for example:

"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives", - Goo

We know for a FACT that you DO believe that Goober:

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

continuing:

"then logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in
the first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

So Goobernicus, by your own claim YOU: "MUST conclude
that not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior
choice." It has now been shown beyond any possible doubt
that you agree with yourself--and also with "aras"--Goober.

We're not quite done though Goo. We have a bit more
proof of what you actually believe, and in fact you cried
because I left out part of it...a part which shows that you
agree with "them". While you were explaining in Goobal
detail why YOU: "don't want people to consider contributing
to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective",
one of the reasons you gave for not wanting them to is
amusingly because I haven't addressed what YOU agree
are "real" complaints:

"3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
of "vegans" regarding human use of animals" - Goo

and one of the things that YOU agree is a "real" complaint,
is the belief that:

" b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

We can very clearly see that you agree with "aras" Goober,
and that you suggest people become vegan. But Goo, what
--if anything??--do you disagree with them about? Also Goob,
if you no longer suggest that people become vegan:

"as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

why no longer? And above all: WTF do you NOW suggest
that people DO? Goo??? WHAT?!?!?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Glorfindel wrote:


Since you have agreed that I am not Karen Winter, I assume you are
not associating me with her former opinions.

I (Glorfindel) can assure you that I hate and despise all pedophiles,
and believe that, whether or not they have actually caused any harm
to anyone, they should be whipped through the streets, publicly
castrated in the town square, and allowed to bleed to death while
self-appointed vigilantes like you rip them to bits and eat the
pieces raw before the pedophile's dying eyes.* I also assure you
that I never, ever, *ever* talk to anyone, out of fear that he
might possibly, conceivably, be revealed at some future date to be
a secret pedophile, so I have no social life whatever, which I why
I post to this newsgroup....

I trust this will demonstrate that I am politically and ethically
pure enough to be allowed to participate on this newsgroup.

..........................................................


*Or, since you claim to be a vegetarian, perhaps you can merely
stamp them to bloody fragments under your jackboots.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Leif Erikson wrote:


>> Dave wrote:

...
>>> In practise this is usually true as most vegans consume
>>> products whose production has involved the *deliberate*
>>> and systematic violation of animal rights (eg death by
>>> poisoning). These violations are often overlooked by
>>> the AR movement.

Glorfindel wrote:

>> That is, unfortunately, true, but the same is true of
>> violations of human rights in the production of consumer
>> goods.

> No. That is NOT true of human rights.

There is not a single supporter of human rights who agrees with you.

> There is no good or
> service you know of produced in a way such that workers are killed and
> left to rot in fields, and no consequence ensues.

So may we assume that the only action you believe is a
violation of human rights is to kill people and leave them
to rot in a field? That is an...er...interesting point of
view.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Glorfindel wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > In "Taking Animals Seriously", David DeGrazia advocates the rule "Don't
> > kill sentient animals unnecessarily." He does not specify in detail
> > what counts as an unnecessary killing. In "Speciesism", Joan Dunayer
> > elaborates a number of exceptions to the rule against killing:
>
> Are these book available from Amazon? I'd like to find a copy and
> read them.
>

Yes, they both appear to be available on Amazon. I really like
DeGrazia's book. He covers a lot of interesting issues.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Karen Winter blabbered:

>
> Karen Winter, promoter of pedophiles and pedophilia, lied:
>
>
> Since you have agreed that I am not Karen Winter,

He was being cleverly sarcastic, unlike your leaden,
ham-handed attempt.


> I assume you are
> not associating me with her former opinions.

He does - correctly so.


>
> I (Glorfindel)

No - Karen Winter.


> can assure you that I hate and despise all pedophiles,
> and believe that, [snip remaining sophomoric sarcasm]

You don't, Karen. You promote them and their deviancy.
It's all of a piece with your anti-social self
marginalization, which we have elaborated on at length
much earlier.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Karen Winter, asshole, wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>> Dave wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>>>> In practise this is usually true as most vegans consume
>>>> products whose production has involved the *deliberate*
>>>> and systematic violation of animal rights (eg death by
>>>> poisoning). These violations are often overlooked by
>>>> the AR movement.
>
>
> Karen Winter, defender of criminal pedophiles, lied:
>
>>> That is, unfortunately, true, but the same is true of
>>> violations of human rights in the production of consumer
>>> goods.
>
>
>> No. That is NOT true of human rights.
>
>
> There is not a single supporter of human rights who agrees with you.

Prove it.


>> There is no good or service you know of produced in a way such that
>> workers are killed and left to rot in fields, and no consequence ensues.
>
>
> So may we assume that the only action you believe is a
> violation of human rights is to kill people and leave them
> to rot in a field?

No, but we certainly know that *does* happen, regularly
and in mind-boggling number, with animals. More
numerous and much worse violations of the alleged
"rights" of animals occurs on a daily basis than ever
occurs with humans.

What we want to show, and it is established, is that
you do *not* respect animal "rights", by the fact of your

- active
- voluntary
- ongoing
- fully aware

participation in processes that simply slaughter animals.

Most of what you call violations of human rights are
not. You have a warped, leftwing extremist's view of
what constitutes human "rights".
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Leif Erikson wrote:

>>>> Dave wrote:

>>>>> In practise this is usually true as most vegans consume
>>>>> products whose production has involved the *deliberate*
>>>>> and systematic violation of animal rights (eg death by
>>>>> poisoning). These violations are often overlooked by
>>>>> the AR movement.

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>> That is, unfortunately, true, but the same is true of
>>>> violations of human rights in the production of consumer
>>>> goods.

.....

>>> There is no good or service you know of produced in a way such that
>>> workers are killed and left to rot in fields, and no consequence ensues.

>> So may we assume that the only action you believe is a
>> violation of human rights is to kill people and leave them
>> to rot in a field?

> No, but we certainly know that *does* happen, regularly and in
> mind-boggling number, with animals.

No, "we" don't. We have exaggerated and self-serving claims
on your part, but little concrete evidence. All products
also are not produced in the same way, and products which
are better with respect to their effect on animals can be
selected in the marketplace.

> More numerous and much worse
> violations of the alleged "rights" of animals occurs on a daily basis
> than ever occurs with humans.

That is certainly true. That does not excuse those violations
of human rights which do take place in the production of
consumer goods in areas like China and parts of Africa.

> What we want to show, and it is established, is that you do *not*
> respect animal "rights", by the fact of your

> - active
> - voluntary
> - ongoing
> - fully aware

> participation in processes that simply slaughter animals.

We have agreed with you that far too many violations of
animal rights take place. Reducing and eliminating such
violations are a major goal of ethical vegetarians and
supported by the principle behind ethical vegetarianism.
The goal must be, as Rupert put it, to make all
*reasonable* efforts to avoid contributing to such
violations. One effort along this line is to reduce one's
negative effect on animal rights and welfare by avoiding
the products of factory farming, and the use of animal
products in general. It is not an absolute, any more than
in the case of human rights. Especially today, avoiding
all products which are produced in ways which violate
either human or animals rights is very difficult, probably
impossible. All that is required is a good-faith effort
to make a reasonable attempt. "Reasonable" must be a
matter of individual judgment and individual circumstances.

....

> Most of what you call violations of human rights are not.

What have I called violations of human rights? Please be
specific here.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Leif, please stop cross-posting. This subject is completely
off-topic on a religious group and is spam. You are
merely annoying the readers there...which may be your goal,
I suppose, but is impolite at the least.

....
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Karen Winter lied:
>
> >>There's no evidence anywhere that Karen actually had any contact
> >>with young children, especially in any official capacity. I'm
> >>*quite* sure she would avoid any contact with them after you
> >>started harassing her.
>
> > And yet, Father Murphy *still* kicked Karen

I wrote "YOU", Karen. I didn't write, "...*still* kicked Karen out" -
I wrote "...*still* kicked you out.."

> >out of St. Bede's.
>
> I Googled it,

No, you didn't, Karen. You REMEMBER it. YOU are the one to whom it
happened, and who wrote the post.


> and, no -- Karen

YOU

> said he didn't. You
> can Google it as well and confirm that.

Yes, I know YOU said that he didn't kick you out. And yet, he
presented YOU, Karen Winter, with a situation in which YOU, Karen
Winter, felt compelled to leave. I'd say you were kicked out. At a
minimum, Karen, Father Murphy presented the stance of the church in
such a way that you felt unwelcome. That's good.


>
> I wouldn't be surprised if she left.

YOU did leave St. Bede's, Karen.


> After the horrible
> accusations of *potential* threat Derek sent in E-mail
> (none of which involved any actual wrongdoing on her part, before
> or during her time at St. Bede's) I wouldn't expect anyone to
> stay where she would always be under suspicion, even if she
> hadn't done anything.
>
> I also found a post where Derek apologized for his action, and
> expressed great surprise and thanks that Karen

YOU


> forgave him.
> He knew what he did was wrong, even if he seems to have
> conveniently forgotten that later.

You also are aware of another post in which Derek correctly accused you
of false forgiveness, Karen.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>There's no evidence anywhere that Karen actually had any contact
>>with young children, especially in any official capacity. I'm
>>*quite* sure she would avoid any contact with them after you
>>started harassing her.

> And yet, Father Murphy *still* kicked Karen out of St. Bede's.

I Googled it, and, no -- Karen said he didn't. You
can Google it as well and confirm that.

I wouldn't be surprised if she left. After the horrible
accusations of *potential* threat Derek sent in E-mail
(none of which involved any actual wrongdoing on her part, before
or during her time at St. Bede's) I wouldn't expect anyone to
stay where she would always be under suspicion, even if she
hadn't done anything.

I also found a post where Derek apologized for his action, and
expressed great surprise and thanks that Karen forgave him.
He knew what he did was wrong, even if he seems to have
conveniently forgotten that later.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> davie "pesco-vegan" blabbered:
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > sector_four DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Give it a rest.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > sector-four
> > >
> > > I suppose here is as good a place as any to make the following
> > > observation. In the course of our conversation, I revealed to Leif that
> > > I had had psychotic episodes in the past. He then proceeded to taunt me
> > > for this.
> >
> > That is so typical of Leif.
>
> No, and it isn't true.

[snip more inappropriate taunts]
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better