Re: Karen Winter's evil hypocrisy and evasion

"Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Your rotten explanation for your appalling
> inconsistency stinks.
>
> Killing animals for meat, and thoughtlessly killing
> them collaterally in the course of vegetable
> production, *both* reflect a failure or refusal to
> recognize what you claim is their intrinsic worth.
> Your adoption of a strictly vegetarian diet does
> nothing to change the societal view of animals; it is a
> symbolic gesture *only*, and is plainly seen as such.
> Likewise, working assiduously to ensure that you
> consumed only CD-free vegetables *also* would be *only*
> a symbolic gesture, and would correctly be seen as
> such.  Why do you engage in one purely symbolic,
> utterly ineffectual gesture, but not the other?
>
> Your answer to date is unacceptable.  I asked earlier
> what distinguishes the two gestures:
>
>     Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
>     CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
>     gestures.  What distinguishes them?
>
> You answered:
>
>     What distinguishes them is that buying meat and other
>     animal products supports a system which represents
> a view
>     of animals which is philosophically opposed to AR: that
>     animals are property, that they have a moral
> standing which
>     allows us to use them in unjust ways, raise and
> delibrately kill
>     them without consideration of their intrinsic worth.
>
>
> That answer is wrong, because collateral deaths in
> vegetable production *also* occur due to societal
> failure to give "consideration of their intrinsic
> worth."  In fact, you have ADMITTED as much, in your
> sleazy rationalization for why you refuse to make the
> more difficult and costly symbolic gesture, preferring
> instead to continue to cause CDs:
>
>     I am convinced that veganism is a more ethical
>     position, since it rejects such animal deaths in
>     principle, and if the vegan position is accepted,
>     collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the
> awareness
>     of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as
>     a whole until a moral stance against the intentional
>     deaths of animals in production of food and other
>     products is seen as unacceptable.  Then society can
>     and will advance to the consideration of
>     unintentional deaths as well.
>
>
> So, your claim about what the distinction is is FALSE.
>   What IS the distinction, then?
>
> The distinction is:  cost and ease.  Being "vegan" is
> cheap and easy, relative to refraining from eating
> CD-causing vegetables.  BOTH are merely symbolic, but
> one is much more costly than the other.
>
> Your engagement in one symbolic gesture, but not the
> other, clearly is NOT based on any legitimate
> principle, because the principle - recognition of the
> intrinsic moral worth of animals - should dictate BOTH.
>
> Thus, we see that you are a thorough-going liar, three
> times:
>
> 1.  why you're "vegan":  it is not based on principle
> 2.  why you don't abstain from CD-causing produce:  it
>      *is* based on cost and convenience, and on making
>      your adherence to principle contingent on others'
>      acceptance of your views
> 3.  what you have said about your dirty rationalization
>      of #2
>
> You LIED when you claimed you didn't base your refusal
> to abstain from CD-causing produce on others' views and
> behavior.  It is *exactly* what you do:
>
>     > You claim that your inaction - your continued
>     > participation in the collateral slaughter of
>     > animals you don't eat - continues only because the
>     > slaughter of animals that are eaten continues.
>
>     I have never claimed any such thing.
>
> You are a liar.  You do it above:
>
>     ...if the vegan position is accepted, collateral
>     deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
>     of farmers.
>
> YOU could stop participating in CDs today, but you
> won't, because others won't.  You are waiting for CDs
> to go away by virtue of *others'* changes in attitudes
> and behavior.
>
> Calling you a liar is not a "personal attack".  You
> throw that out there as if it invalidates the analysis
> of the appalling inconsistency in your behavior, but
> you are wrong.  The analysis of your shoddy moral pose
> is correct.  Your lying doesn't begin until you react
> to the correct analysis, and the labeling of you as a
> liar follows that.  You ARE a liar, Karen.

Get a life you sad dwarf.
>