"usual suspect" <no.RemoveThis@foot.rub> wrote in message news:Tk18b.2047$z32.1744@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Bull Corn wrote:
> >>
> >>"veganism" is always associated with extreme leftism.
> >>Not all leftists are "vegans", but all "vegans" are
> >>extreme leftists. They're not dangerous...as long as
> >>we keep an eye on them.
> >
> > I'm a vegan but am not a leftist at all... I'm a libertarian.
>
> The two are incongruent. I don't believe you.
>
> > You shouldn't make generalizations, vegans are a
> > varied group of people from all parts of the political
> > spectrum...
>
> No, you're harboring a delusion.
Then why did you earlier criticise Jon for stereotyping
vegans, and complain that such a trait suggests an
immature World view?
[You know not what you speak. Probably why they
kicked you out of UCLA: stereotyping as you do
suggests an immature worldview and a strong
tendency towards bigotry (after all, you lump all in the
same boat -- disgusting hypocrites, leftists, etc, none
of which I am -- regardless of knowing individuals).
usual suspect Date: 2002-05-22
> Vegans are extreme leftists.
Then why did you write, again to Jon,
[*You* lied. You said all vegans are leftwingers.
And your incoherent views on "axiomatic/dogmatic"
views of any group are valid only of monoliths.
Vegans are not a monolithic community (though
trolls seem to be).
usual suspect Date: 2002-05-10
You keep swapping from one foot to the other, and
when asked for an explanation for these ad hoc
changes in stance, you always fail to respond. I even
wrote a new post outlining a few of your changes a
while ago, but you failed to respond to that as well.
Maybe you missed it, so here it is again (below).
Since self-confessed vegan, USuspect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.
DENYING THE ANTECEDENT
"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09
From that, only a year ago, USuspect clearly believed
his vegan lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely
that "no animal must die for his nourishment or
enjoyment," so why does he now insist that my vegan
lifestyle kills animals while his doesn't?
Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he
accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's
CD argument with nothing but a whimper.
[Jonathan Ball]
> Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
> If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
> I don't eat meat.
> Therefore, no animals died for my diet.
[usual suspect]
That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing
the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not
true.
[end]
But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical
reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is
valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency?
ANIMAL RIGHTS
He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be
given rights, must be protected as human children
are, and not be killed for our own benefit;
"I personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-11
But, if he onced beleived animals should to be given
protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply
to minors, why does he advocate animal research and
testing on them? Also while holding such beliefs, why
does he criticise others when protesting against how
these fellow *minors* are being treated? This very day
he wrote;
"When was the last time you visited a family or
factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you
observed. Did they have someone roaming around,
willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the
animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?"
usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08
What sort of "protection under the law (same as used
to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows
the eating and use of them for research?
This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing
as it was written by someone who refutes the idea
of animal rights;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09
What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit,
unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit
cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal? USuspect
is a closet ARA. Either that or a troublemaking liar.
>> Stay informed about: "veganism" is a marker (signal) for extreme leftism 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
