"vegan" = NOT better

rick wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146633802.842721.281040@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@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?
> >
> > I asked if you believed in human rights and you refused to
> > answer. Then
> > you argued that I did not believe in, support, or defend animal
> > rights,
> > and I argued that by the same logic you had used to reach that
> > conclusion, we should conclude that you do not believe in,
> > support, or
> > defend human rights. You replied "Who said I did?"
> >
> > I apologize if there has been a misunderstanding, but I think
> > you're
> > not being very forthcoming about what you actually do believe.
> ================================
> As far as this NG goes, I have. Animals do not have rights.
> Never will. And, you continue to prove that point for me.

Delusion. If you want to prove that point, you'll have to come up with
an argument on the subject.

> Especially now with your new 'idea'. All you've managed to do
> is readily admit that you are hypocritical in your massive
> 'consumption' of products coated with the blood of millions upon
> millions of animals. Thanks for the admission, fool.
>

I have never denied that I financially support processes which harm
animals. What I have denied is that this entails that I am not living
up to my moral beliefs.

>
>
> If you
> > believe in human rights, I think you should say so and explain
> > how you
> > can consistently claim that my actions show I do not believe in
> > animal
> > rights, yet yours do not show that you do not believe in human
> > rights.
> ==========================
> There is no comparison to be made here. There are NO systematic,
> deliberate, and routine deaths and suffering like there is with
> animals in the production of every product you consume, killer.

You do not make every possible effort to ensure that you are not buying
products which were produced in ways that violate human rights. If you
think this is morally acceptable, then you must concede that someone
might believe that nonhuman animals have rights yet still believe it is
morally acceptable not to make every possible effort to ensure that
they are not buying products produced in ways that violate those
rights. Then you would have to say something about how far they should
go out of their way to avoid buying such products, in order to be
consistent with their moral beliefs. You haven't done this yet.

> Your lack of integrety and honesty is all you have left to go
> with your simple rule for your simple mind, hypocrite.
>

If you want to claim that I lack integrity and honesty and you don't,
you'll have to argue the point. Tell me what you believe the rules are
for how far you should go out of your way to avoid buying products and
services which were produced in ways that violate rights. Then
demonstrate that you are following those rules and I am not.

>
> As you can see, my posting time is down considerably. I'm
> working on 2 old cars at the moment, and only have this break
> waiting for paint to dry. It's a toss up which is more boring,
> watching paint dry, or you wallow around in ignorance...
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> 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 2 May 2006 17:02:15 -0700, "Leif Erikson" <notgenxagain.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> 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. rupie is *still* a psycho whack-job. The meds
>only allow him to function without scrambling up a university tower and
>opening up with a high-powered rifle. Being a whack-job, he still gets
>most things fundamentally wrong.

LOL! That describes you beautifully Goo. In fact in this particular
thread you're demonstrating you're so screwed up that you can't
even explain how you think you disagree with yourself regarding
what YOU consider to be: "the real complaints of "vegans" regarding
human use of animals". One of your/"their" complaints about decent
AW being you belief that: "no matter how "decent" the conditions are,
the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
> On 2 May 2006 17:02:15 -0700, "Leif Erikson" <notgenxagain.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>davie "pesco-vegan" blabbered:
>>
>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>sector_four@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. rupie is *still* a psycho whack-job. The meds
>>only allow him to function without scrambling up a university tower and
>>opening up with a high-powered rifle. Being a whack-job, he still gets
>>most things fundamentally wrong.
>
>
> LOL!

Why are you laughing at mental illness, Fuckwit?


> That describes you beautifully Leif.

No. It doesn't describe me at all, Fuckwit. It does
describe you too, though. You get everything
fundamentally wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Sat, 06 May 2006, Goo hysterically wailed:
>
>dh laughed at the Goober:
>> On 2 May 2006 Goo wrote:
>
>>>No, and it isn't true. rupie is *still* a psycho whack-job. The meds
>>>only allow him to function without scrambling up a university tower and
>>>opening up with a high-powered rifle. Being a whack-job, he still gets
>>>most things fundamentally wrong.
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>
>Why are you laughing at mental illness

Your mental illness and resulting absurdity would not be
funny in every case Goo, but you're such an ass that it's
funny to see YOU afflicted with such.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:

> On Sat, 06 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On 2 May 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>>>No, and it isn't true. rupie is *still* a psycho whack-job. The meds
>>>>only allow him to function without scrambling up a university tower and
>>>>opening up with a high-powered rifle. Being a whack-job, he still gets
>>>>most things fundamentally wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>>Why are you laughing at mental illness, Fuckwit?
>
>
> Your mental illness

None. Why are you laughing at rupie's mental illness,
Fuckwit?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On 5 May 2006 17:33:24 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>rick wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > I apologize if there has been a misunderstanding, but I think
>> > you're
>> > not being very forthcoming about what you actually do believe.
>> ================================
>> As far as this NG goes, I have. Animals do not have rights.
>> Never will. And, you continue to prove that point for me.
>
>Delusion. If you want to prove that point, you'll have to come up with
>an argument on the subject.

They don't have rights now, that's apparent. If there "is" any
right to life, we have already discussed the fact that you DO
violate it in regards to wildlife just as everyone else does, but
you do NOT promote it for livestock. So. Now we're trying to
find the supposed ethical superiority of your livestock elimination
objective.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> whiny davie "pesco-vegan" whined:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > davie "pesco-vegan" blabbered:
> > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > sector_four.TakeThisOut@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 stuff I can't deal with]
>
> Right, davie.

You were just accused of taunting Rupert about his previous mental
illness. I said this was typical of you. You denied it and then
proceded
to taunt him some more. I wonder if you even see the irony.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

whiny davie "pesco-vegan" whined:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>whiny davie "pesco-vegan" whined:
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>>davie "pesco-vegan" blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>sector_four@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 stuff I can't deal with]
>>
>>Right, davie.
>
>
> You were just accused of taunting Rupert about his previous mental
> illness. I said this was typical of you. You denied it and then
> proceded to taunt him some more. I wonder if you even see the irony.

It's no wonder that you don't know what irony means.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On 7 May 2006 16:52:01 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 5 May 2006 17:33:24 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >rick wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > I apologize if there has been a misunderstanding, but I think
>> >> > you're
>> >> > not being very forthcoming about what you actually do believe.
>> >> ================================
>> >> As far as this NG goes, I have. Animals do not have rights.
>> >> Never will. And, you continue to prove that point for me.
>> >
>> >Delusion. If you want to prove that point, you'll have to come up with
>> >an argument on the subject.
>>
>> They don't have rights now, that's apparent. If there "is" any
>> right to life, we have already discussed the fact that you DO
>> violate it in regards to wildlife just as everyone else does, but
>> you do NOT promote it for livestock. So. Now we're trying to
>> find the supposed ethical superiority of your livestock elimination
>> objective.
>
>Yes, I do financially support violations of the rights of wildlife. I
>do promote rights for livestock. I do not want to eliminate livestock,
>I just want their rights to be respected. If, as a result of that, no
>more livestock are brought into existence, I don't see a problem with
>that.

Why are you afraid to admit that you want to see no more livestock?
If that's what you're in favor of--and it clearly is--what makes you
ashamed to just say so?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

In article <1147535711.442456.220110 DeleteThis @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"Dave" <prplbn DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> What you need to understand is that the difference between livestock
> and wildlife is simply their relationship to humans. Animals that are
> currently
> livestock can become wildlife and vice versa. Eliminating livestock
> just
> means not raising animals for food. It does not mean that those animals
> or completely different animals can not live natural lives.
>

I disagree. What would happen to the vast majority of cows, chickens,
goats, sheep and pigs if they were released into the wild? They'd starve
to death, get hit by cars or find some other miserable way to die. A few
would survive, but what would they do to an ecosytem that is not
expecting them? They'd become pests, and probaby drive out some other
species from their habitat, like starlings.

I'm a vegetarian, but I'm also realistic. If we were to cease raising
animals for food, the only humane thing to do would be to destroy all
the remaining animals and start over in a world without them. Not
exactly practical, but nor is releasing them. (Not that I am advocating
either choice)
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

> In article <1147535711.442456.220110 RemoveThis @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dave" <prplbn RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>>What you need to understand is that the difference between livestock
>>and wildlife is simply their relationship to humans. Animals that are
>>currently
>>livestock can become wildlife and vice versa. Eliminating livestock
>>just
>>means not raising animals for food. It does not mean that those animals
>>or completely different animals can not live natural lives.

> I disagree. What would happen to the vast majority of cows, chickens,
> goats, sheep and pigs if they were released into the wild? They'd starve
> to death, get hit by cars or find some other miserable way to die.

That's undoubtedly true of *existing* livestock, but I doubt anyone
would suggest releasing existing wildlife into the wild.

> A few
> would survive, but what would they do to an ecosytem that is not
> expecting them? They'd become pests, and probaby drive out some other
> species from their habitat, like starlings.

That has happened in areas where the ex-livestock species had no
appropriate habitat and predators, as with feral goats or pigs.

> I'm a vegetarian, but I'm also realistic. If we were to cease raising
> animals for food, the only humane thing to do would be to destroy all
> the remaining animals and start over in a world without them. Not
> exactly practical, but nor is releasing them. (Not that I am advocating
> either choice)

The thing is that existing animals would not have to be destroyed. We
would simply not breed more generations of them. Some domestic species
adapt very well to living as ferals -- the aforesaid goats and pigs, or
donkeys, horses, rabbits, and cats, being good examples. The difficulty
is finding habitats where they would not threaten native species and
where there would be some natural check on their populations. But then,
as long as the individual animals' welfare was respected, the loss
of some domestic species would not necessarily be a bad thing in itself.
The loss of wild species is always bad, because it indicates that the
environment is being degraded and destroyed. But if we didn't need
vast numbers of domestic animals for food, we could provide preserves
for, for example, reasonable numbers of feral cattle, as we do now for
buffalo, and preserve the species.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Sun, 14 May 2006 23:33:56 GMT, Rusty Shackleford <rustyshaq RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <1147535711.442456.220110 RemoveThis @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dave" <prplbn RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What you need to understand is that the difference between livestock
>> and wildlife is simply their relationship to humans. Animals that are
>> currently
>> livestock can become wildlife and vice versa. Eliminating livestock
>> just
>> means not raising animals for food. It does not mean that those animals
>> or completely different animals can not live natural lives.
>>
>
>I disagree. What would happen to the vast majority of cows, chickens,
>goats, sheep and pigs if they were released into the wild? They'd starve
>to death, get hit by cars or find some other miserable way to die. A few
>would survive, but what would they do to an ecosytem that is not
>expecting them? They'd become pests, and probaby drive out some other
>species from their habitat, like starlings.

That would be the "best" that the dishonest and absurd "ar" pipe
dream could accomplish, if people are stupid enough to try it.

>I'm a vegetarian, but I'm also realistic.

That's a first, if so.

>If we were to cease raising
>animals for food, the only humane thing to do would be to destroy all
>the remaining animals and start over in a world without them.

True. Why do you think most "aras" are ashamed to admit that
they feel the same way?

>Not
>exactly practical, but nor is releasing them. (Not that I am advocating
>either choice)

Neither could help animals raised for food of course. So peope who
want to do something to promote decent lives for farm animals with their
lifestyle need to do it by becoming more conscientious consumers of
animal products, because they can't do it by becoming vegans.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Rupert wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>> On 7 May 2006 16:52:01 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On 5 May 2006 17:33:24 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rick wrote:
>>>>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> I apologize if there has been a misunderstanding, but I think
>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>> not being very forthcoming about what you actually do believe.
>>>>>> ================================
>>>>>> As far as this NG goes, I have. Animals do not have rights.
>>>>>> Never will. And, you continue to prove that point for me.
>>>>> Delusion. If you want to prove that point, you'll have to come up with
>>>>> an argument on the subject.
>>>> They don't have rights now, that's apparent. If there "is" any
>>>> right to life, we have already discussed the fact that you DO
>>>> violate it in regards to wildlife just as everyone else does, but
>>>> you do NOT promote it for livestock. So. Now we're trying to
>>>> find the supposed ethical superiority of your livestock elimination
>>>> objective.
>>> Yes, I do financially support violations of the rights of wildlife. I
>>> do promote rights for livestock. I do not want to eliminate livestock,
>>> I just want their rights to be respected. If, as a result of that, no
>>> more livestock are brought into existence, I don't see a problem with
>>> that.
>> Why are you afraid to admit that you want to see no more livestock?
>> If that's what you're in favor of--and it clearly is--what makes you
>> ashamed to just say so?
>
> As I've explained patiently a number of times, what I want is for us to
> stop violating the rights of livestock. I'm not in any way ashamed of
> my position, I'm being completely upfront about it.

I'm eating a steak sandwich and reading
alt.religion.christian.episcopal. I don't happen to believe that
animals have rights and I don't care to engage anyone on the subject.

How about trimming the uninvolved newsgroups?

Dave Heil
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better