Some Hard Truths for Ethical Vegetarians

--

http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html

Animals do not die to feed vegetarians. They die to help
increase profits for farmers..Vegatables can be and are
grown without causing any deaths at all.

> Unfortunately, this is
> rarely if ever true. Anyone who eats food that is grown
> using mechanical plows and harvesting machines must
> accept partial responsibility for the large numbers (no
> hard figures are available)

Then why did you claim the numbers are "large"? They
may be very small.

> of animals who die beneath or
> within these machines, or who die from pesticide and
> chemical fertilizer poisoning.

So you keep saying, but you've never explained why,
despite my asking you several times now. Why do you
claim to believe animals have rights while at the same
time knowingly being responsible for and causal to the
mass violations of these rights? For example, if I knew
without any doubt that my actions were responsible for
violating the rights of animals or humans, I would be
morally bound to stop whatever I was doing that causes
that harm. You apparently refuse to stop causing these
harms, even though you claim to believe your victims
have a right not to be intentionally harmed by you for
personal gains, so why don't you explain this hypocrisy?
After all, if you're insisting we're all as hypocritical as
you are, the polite thing to do is to explain why.

Now, if you were to take your own advice and begin
your claim by saying, " I believe.....", or, "I understand
that....", then your wild assertion that everyone must
adopt your philosophy and accept responsibility for
these deaths caused by farmers might be taken a little
more seriously.

Yes, they do.

Partially non sequitur. Not all animal casualties in agriculture are
immediately connected to machinery, etc. When land is cleared, for
instance during harvesting, cover is removed so predators can more
easily spot prey.

Yet you remain a very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out produce on
the basis of price rather than humane practices. Produce grown humanely
is available from farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your
own humane produce. You choose to ignore and avoid the more expensive
(in money or your personal time) humane alternatives. You're the reason
the farmers whose produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical
corners. Your stance is meaningless in the face of what you do; you are
a poseur, and a rank hypocrite.

Davis admits he doesn't really know how many animals are lost
each year to agriculture, but he suspects it runs in the
millions. Not many farmers do a before-and-after survey, so the
best data are really just estimates
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DyeHard/dyehard020501.html

Liar. You've been repeatedly shown what alternatives exist to your
indiscriminate and bloodthirsty consumption yet you dismiss those
options and weakly attempt to pass the buck. You are a poseur, you are a
despicable and loathsome hypocrite.

Stop acting so defensive, you fat hypocrite.

You don't take "these deaths" seriously at all, as attested by your lazy
purchasing habits. Your actions don't match your supposed concern for
animals. You are a fat, despicable, slothful hypocrite.

Shut up twit. I'm after what Michael has to say on this issue,
not what some little prat such as yourself who lies to defend
his position has to say. Bitten the heads off any snakes lately?

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

Make me, you filthy fat moron.

I'm after you to defend the reality of your indiscriminate consumption
in light of your pro-AR rhetoric.

What lies are contained in my response which you evaded?

It's been a while, asshole, but I'll let you know if I catch another one.

"I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and watch it every time
the wife goes shopping."
-- Dreck, 2003-09-19
http://tinyurl.com/tfwu

Jane is my wife, Belinda, and she proved that, but what have
your double standards to say about Jonathan Ball's gender
bending attempts, eh?
>
From: elv...@rapanan.net
Reply-To: t...@signguestbook.ie
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: Facts we should *not* consider.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <YLBib.9477$dn6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:01:28 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.164.62.83
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From: sil...@onairos.com
Reply-To: camco...@ntlworld.com, camco...@btconnect.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: PETA Calls On Siegfried And Roy To Retire Animals
References: <bm0o35$r53$1...@kermit.esat.net> <vo8e4dq...@news.supernews.com>
In-Reply-To: <vo8e4dq...@news.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <L_Xgb.3206$dn6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:40:59 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.164.64.200
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net 1065634859 68.164.64.200 (Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:40:59 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:40:59 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: Peta's e-mail address
References: <WIe1b.611$qJ6.4...@monger.newsread.com> <vkb814t...@news.supernews.com>
<Z%n1b.1616$L15...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net> <vkcmik6...@news.supernews.com>
In-Reply-To: <vkcmik6...@news.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <R_s1b.3415$lw4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:08:49 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.164.52.139

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a pair of lying wankers you two are.

>
>"usual suspect" <w...@where.how> aka the poison, fat, dwarf slugshit J Ball wrote in message news:botpb.23252$W84...@twister.austin.rr.com...

You wouldn't kick the shit out of a four eyed, cross gender, poison
dwarf anyway, would you?

'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard bastard when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

She didn't prove anything. *You* posted using her name. I really doubt
your longsuffering wife is as boring and stupid as you are, and those
"Jane" posts were.

Heh! Then why do you keep replying, douchebag?

Prove it, queer.

You and about 4 others, all at the same time. Most of them
use sock puppets and will even reply to their own posts in
the hope it'll gain support for their argument. Have you learned
to cook yet, or are you waiting for a nice vegan girlfriend to
come along and take the place of your ex? :-)

Very true,

But to get back to Michael's original posting.

It is impossible to live without causing CDs in one form or another. That
unfortunately is *fact*.
Furthermore you now wish to add Michael to your list of 'hypocrites'.

What's your game Derek are you trying to prove that *you* are the only
ethical guy on the Newsgroups.
>
>

Yes, they do. You've lost this.

He didn't. He accepted the obvious, you fat moron.

Correctly.

No I',m trying to find the logic in you posting Nash. There is none!
What the hell is the matter with you?
>
>

Try firsto...@btopenworld.com instead.

I'm doing what I do best; attacking those who support
vivisection. And, as you've found to your own cost, I
also attack those who try to claim such supporters are
ARA's. Zakhar and Larry have both fucked your arse
good-n-proper this time.

I'm just about to leave work and you are certainly not worth the overtime.

I'll have a 'blood drenched meal' watch a bit of TV and then I just 'may'
respond.

That will give you around 3 hrs to think up an explanation to the
following:-

How can you justify surjury using medication *You Know* to have been tested
on animals?

You may also like to answer my original question:- How is it possible to
exist without causing CDs?
>
>

Meals not ready,

Given my wife a slap, kicked the cats so I though I would add one further
question to my list

Zakhar, Larry, me, and now Michael, according to you we are *all*
hypocrites, steady on, you are running out of people. Is there anyone on
these NGs who is genuine?

Hey, you fat loon, do you talk to yourself all the time or just in these
newsgroups?

You're truly a class of idiot all your own.

Try blowing yourself.

Derek has so few friends he has to correspond with his alter egos.

Don't you understand why he's angry with the rest of you?

Zakhar claims to be in support for animal rights
and against the use of animals for research in labs,
but this pose is a lie and is easily shown by his own
comments;

"for example if one rabbit would save 1000
humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
should die."
Zakhar 2003-02-02

And

"The real life case of a 19 year old with vCJD
being experimented on without his consent, is
a form of vivisection. Most of us can accept
that it was the right thing to do, in this sad case.
We can take the same decision making process,
independent of species."
Zakhar 2003-09-28

From that, as well as his other example, he has
unwittingly shown that he does support vivisection.
He believes that "most of us can accept that it's the
right thing to do", and that "we can take the same
decision making process, independent of species."

And

"There can be cases for animal experimentation
as there can be for human experiments. It would
make sense to test a new antibiotic for guinea
pigs on guinea pigs rather than humans, don't
you think?"
Zakhar 2003-02-17

Larry is just as big a liar as Zakhar, and this can
be easily shown by his comment;

"I support using animals for experimentation but
a committee should oversee such endeavors to
make sure the minimal harm is done for the
maximal good."
Larry 2003-10-27

You support and defend Zakhar by proclaiming
him to be "valuable defender of all animal rights
issues" in spite of the evidence against him, and
this fucks you because you've now set yourself
up as a defender of those who support vivisection.

Now lets look at Cerkowski's claims on animal
rights and position it alongside his other claim
where he insists he and we are all responsible for
the collateral deaths caused by farmers. If he truly
believes he is responsible for and causal to these
deaths, why does he continue to cause them? He
certainly wouldn't continue harming members of
his own family in the same way, so the only two
answers available for his continued intentional
harms to animals are;

1) he doesn't hold a belief that animals have any
rights against his continued cruelty toward them.
or
2) he doesn't honestly believe he is responsible for
and causal to their deaths.

Either way, Michael Cerkowski is a liar and has
no grounds to insist other ARAs must accept his
philosophy on accepting the blame for animal
cruelty while it's clearly obvious that his stated
beliefs on animal rights and moral responsibility
are false.

No, they don't. Vegetables can be grown without
causing any harms to animals, and Michael knows
this.

".... responsibility for the *** large numbers*** ".
You can't stop yourself from lying for even a single
post these last few years, Ball. You're a mess.

He was beaten into the ground and submitted to
your lies, Ball. That's all. All he's done for the last
two years since being broken is produce his little
monthly's telling everyone how to behave and what
to believe, and then chokes off with a, "You get the
last word on this" when asked to support his position.
He does it every single time.

There's an obvious goalpost move there, from what "does" happen, to what
"can" happen. Your assertion "Animals do not die to feed vegetarians." uses
"do" not "can", therefore it's not supported by "Vegetables can be grown
without causing any harms to animals", which incidentally is also false in
it's own right, even cultivating a backyard garden kills animals, you just
have chosen to ignore animals too small to be significant to you. Explain
why your sizeism is more moral than my speciesism.