"vegan" = NOT better

Leif Erikson wrote:

....
>>> The exceptions are utter capitulations on the principle,
....

Glorfindel wrote:

>>What principle would that be?

> The principle that it is wrong to kill animals.

Which I have stated I do not support as an absolute.

Do you support as an absolute principle that it is wrong to
kill humans in all circumstances?

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

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>>What principle would that be?

>>>The principle that it is wrong to kill animals.

>>Which I have stated I do not support as an absolute.

> But you're lying. I have *proved* that you do


Since Leif has now retreated into total fantasy, I
shall simply leave him there, and await some rational
topic to discuss, if he ever returns to reality.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Karen Winter, unethical sleaze, lied:
>
>
>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Karen Winter, unethical sleaze, lied:
>>>
>>
>>...
>>
>>>>I ( Karen Winter) actually haven't defined any specific exceptions,
>>>>but indeed I do believe there are some, as I have said.
>>>>If there are valid exceptions to the rule, then it cannot be
>>>>absolute, and you have conceded my point.
>>>
>>>There aren't.
>>
>>You yourself stated there were.
>
>
> See below, Karen.
>
>
>
>>> The exceptions are utter capitulations on the principle,
>>
>>...
>>
>>What principle would that be?
>
>
> The principle that it is wrong to kill animals, Karen.
>
>
>
>>The one you claimed I supported,
>>I do not,
>
>
> You do. You support it and claim it ABSOLUTELY, too: in any situation
> in which you consider it wrong to kill animals, you don't consider it
> "kind of" wrong; you consider it ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>
> You keep snipping a key point, Karen. Why does your shitty "ar" ethics
> allow the Eskimo to kill and eat a seal if he's stuck on the ice floe,
> but not another Eskimo? Why are you unethically snipping that out,
> Karen?
>

who cares!
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Rupert wrote:

....
> What does it matter, anyway? Why do you care if she's Karen?

....

I have no idea why either Derek or Leif cares, but I am not
interested in fighting old battles that Leif or Derek may
have had with Karen Winter. I am interested only is talking
about opinions I have posted recently as Glorfindel. Look
what he does to Pearl. She constantly has to argue about
what she may or may not have said long ago. Look at
the way Leif has treated you by taunting you about things
you let slip which have nothing to do with your opinions
on the subject of this newsgroup.

Leif is just mad because I argued him to a standstill
yesterday. :)

If Leif or Derek want to discuss theory and practice of
ethical vegetarianism or animal rights, I'm quite
willing. If they want to talk about supposed opinions
Karen Winter expressed here long ago, I don't intend to
respond. Leif has shown dismal success in arguing
against the alleged basis of ethical vegetarian ethics,
so it is probably no mystery why he wants to divert
attention from his failures.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Glorfindel wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> What does it matter, anyway? Why do you care if she's Karen?
>
>
> ...
>
> I have no idea why either Derek or Leif cares, but I am not
> interested in fighting old battles that Leif or Derek may
> have had with Karen Winter.

You are Karen Winter. I guess your comment means you
no longer wish to defend your promotion of and support
for bestiality and pedophiles.


> I am interested only is talking
> about opinions I have posted recently as Glorfindel.

So...as 'glorfindel', you don't intend to support
bestiality and pedophiles?


> Look what he does to Pearl. She constantly has to argue about
> what she may or may not have said long ago.

Her irrationality and status as a whack-job are
established by the bizarre things she has said over the
years. She is not to be taken seriously, and that list
of bizarre beliefs and claims is a good, concise way of
showing why not.


> Leif is just mad because I argued him to a standstill
> yesterday. :)

No, you didn't, Karen. That's as bad, and as absurd,
as rupie saying he is smarter than I am and "wiping the
floor with" me. You didn't do anything of the kind,
and you know it. You did not show that you and the
psychotic rupie are "better" for having decided not to
eat meat.


> If Leif or Derek want to discuss theory and practice of
> ethical vegetarianism or animal rights, I'm quite
> willing.

Not much point - there is no "theory", and you can't
defend your belief that you're "better" any more
adequately today than you could over five years ago
when you did your Ash Wednesday melt-down.


> If they want to talk about supposed opinions
> Karen Winter expressed here long ago, I don't intend to
> respond. Leif has shown dismal success in arguing
> against the alleged basis of ethical vegetarian ethics,

No, I've had *great* success, Karen. I've shown you
and rupie to be utter hypocrites, concerned only with
exalting yourselves in a vile, ethically invalid
comparison with others.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Tue, 02 May 2006 06:49:52 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven.DeleteThis@all.com> wrote:

>If Leif or Derek want to discuss theory and practice of
>ethical vegetarianism or animal rights, I'm quite
>willing.

From the top, then, and right in your area of special understanding
and experience, Glorfindel, in your view can the proposition of
animal rights be reconciled with zoophilia?

>If they want to talk about supposed opinions
>Karen Winter expressed here long ago, I don't intend to
>respond.

Of course not. After all, how could you; you're not Karen?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Tue, 2 May 2006 15:26:00 +0100, "pearl" <tea.RemoveThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>"Jeez, Derek.. you know what he's like,..". *That's* why
>some people adopt different nyms. ... Unsuccessfully.

Yeah, but anyway, why doesn't she just use 'Mis An Drist' and then stick with it?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Leif Erikson corssposted to 3 relevant newsgroups and spammed a 4th:

> "veganism" - the refraining from consuming animal parts
> - does not make the adherent "better", either than
> others who don't subscribe to the screwy belief system,
> or than the adherents themselves before they became
> "vegan".
>
> The screwy moral premise behind "veganism" is that it
> is wrong to kill animals.

The moral premise is that it is wrong to treat animals as
commodities rather than right holding sentient beings.

> But if that is so, then it
> is wrong to kill them regardless of the disposition of
> the corpses. "veganism" is *only* about the wrongness
> of consuming the animal parts. If a "vegan" gets every
> last microgram of animal parts out of his consumption,
> she feels she has attained "clear" status. But animals
> still die in the course of producing those things the
> "vegan" does consume, so the supposed ethical principle
> behind "veganism" is still being violated.

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.

> One either adheres to a moral principle, or one
> doesn't; there is no middle ground. If one's primus
> inter pares moral principle is that it is wrong to kill
> animals, and if one is still participating - actively,
> knowingly, voluntarily - in processes that cause
> animals to die, unnecessarily and casually and without
> consequence, then one is not adhering to the principle;
> such a person is a hypocrite.
>
> Virtue is *never* relative: you do not establish your
> virtue by saying you are doing "better" than someone
> else. Virtue is shown only in adhering to correct
> moral principles. But "veganism" is predicated solely
> on a comparison, an exceptionally vile comparison:
> that one is not killing as many animals as omnivores.
> Thus, "veganism" fails the first ethical test.

Not necessarily. Your "moral principle" could
be that it is wrong to "kill" more animals then one can
reasonably be expected to avoid killing. Obviously
what is "reasonable" is a question of judgement.

If by becoming vegan one "kills" fewer animals than
one would do if one wasn't vegan than one can
hardly be blaimed for making that step. Of course, it
is easier to avoid being a hypocrite if one does not
have any morals to live up to. Veganism is not
complete ethical purity and it is probably inferior to
some less clearly defined forms of selective
consumerism but this doesn't necessarily mean it
is invalid.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

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. Usual Suspect is just as bad. He won't
apologise. His ethics seem to encourage him to be spiteful to his
opponents. BTW he also spammed a completely irrelevant newsgroup.
Next time you reply to one of his threads it might be worth checking
for it and removing the group, if you remember. I usually forget.

>Since I regard this as the most despicable behaviour imagin
> and believe that such a person is not worthy of my conversation, I
> stopped replying to him. Leif knows that he can resume the conversation
> any time he wants to by apologizing for his descpicable, foul behaviour
> and undertaking not to do it again. But instead he prefers to post
> comments directed at me, safe in the knowledge that I won't reply. He
> thereby reveals himself to be an abject coward. Thank you for listening.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

sector_four.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>
> 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. Since I regard this as the most despicable behaviour imagine
> and believe that such a person is not worthy of my conversation, I
> stopped replying to him. Leif knows that he can resume the conversation
>
> any time he wants to by apologizing for his descpicable, foul behaviour
>
> and undertaking not to do it again. But instead he prefers to post
> comments directed at me, safe in the knowledge that I won't reply. He
> thereby reveals himself to be an abject coward. Thank you for
> listening.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ya' see, one can never expect anything but the worst from a person such
> as Leify,
> an individual who fantasizes about his next ad hominem attack.
>
> Not only will Leify attempt to assasinate someone such as Rupert, Leif
> is also a reverse-racist. Not to mention a virulent abuser of animals.

What is a "reverse racist"?
>
> sector-four
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

> No, it is not. It is just the nature of morality,
> Karen. Things either are right or they aren't.

According to absolutist crackpots, maybe. Pragmatists recognize
shades of grey and degrees of wrongness.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 06:49:52 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven.DeleteThis@all.com> wrote:
>
> >If Leif or Derek want to discuss theory and practice of
> >ethical vegetarianism or animal rights, I'm quite
> >willing.
>
> From the top, then, and right in your area of special understanding
> and experience, Glorfindel, in your view can the proposition of
> animal rights be reconciled with zoophilia?

Why not?
>
> >If they want to talk about supposed opinions
> >Karen Winter expressed here long ago, I don't intend to
> >respond.
>
> Of course not. After all, how could you; you're not Karen?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

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, and it
is the one used by Francione in particular in his
books like _Introduction to Animal Rights_ and _Rain
Without Thunder_. His view, which I think is correct,
is that as long as animals remain property, their
interests can never be given equal consideration in any
conflict with humans, who are property owners. As he
says, "property cannot have rights" of *any* kind, and
humans cannot owe property any direct duties. It exists only
as means to an end for humans. As long as any abuse is
seen as *necessary* for animals to fulfill their function
as property, it will be allowed. Only what is seen as*unnecessary*
neglect or cruelty will be prohibited. That is why
barbaric cruelties which would get the perpetrator sent
to jail if they were inflicted on a "pet" or "stray" dog,
who is (basically) an economic liability or economically
useless (so that the cruelty is "unnecessary"), will be
tolerated in the case of animals raised for food in factory
farms, or used in medical research, or even hunted for food
or sport.

There are other writers who put the basic principle differently.
For example, Peter Singer doesn't believe anyone, human or
animal, has rights, and he talks instead of giving animals
equal consideration in circumstances where their interests are
equal or nearly equal. Tom Regan put the principle in terms of
rights which animals have because they have inherent value,
and therefore can never be treated *only* as means to an end.
Both of those ideas can also be carried out by ending the
status of animals as property.

Obviously, none of these ways of expressing the basic principle
behind ethical vegetarianism means simply that "it is wrong to
kill animals" under any circumstances, any more than the same
principle applied to people means it is wrong to kill humans
under any circumstances.

....

> 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.

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