While many vegans and ARAs do not believe in higher powers, this does not stop them from praying for things such as, the swine flu a millions of deaths from it. Right, I imagine you’re thinking the same thing as me, but this opens up to a broader topic, the death of meat eaters as a whole.
Many people are shaking they’re heads right now in disgust or confusion, and you should be, the fact that radical vegans and ARAs would like humans to die is not something they hide, it’s something they regularly state.
Lets focus on the swine flu in this article, we’ll focus on it because it’s a virus that many vegans are blaming on our use of animal products, and the radicals hope will wipe meat eaters out believing that they have immunity to the virus simply because they are vegan.
In an article posted at Vegan School 101 in an article titled “Corpse-munchers are ruining everything: Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus Update”, we can clearly see what I’ve described above, however when we reach the comments article we see this…
-This is so awesome! I can hardly wait for flu season to actually get here! 
This recent article, and the comment that sparked the creation of this article.
Now lets go to Negotiation is Over (a blatant copy of Negotiation is Done), and see what they have up. Here’s a full list of quotes…
-Those who support the holocaust and savor the mutilated body parts of crucified miserable pigs deserve their karmic reward — swine flu death (and a slow one at that).
– I won’t shed a tear when thinking of the dead corpse-munchers…
-Poor little pigs. Our society is so depraved. Payback’s a bitch!
-…the death toll from this factory-farm-generated disease my be staggering.
I can only hope.
-…here’s hoping you already have cjd and swine flu is right around the corner.
-…it’s amusing that the death toll is starting to rise.
So what do you think now? You can find many more quotes on the blogs if you take a few moments to look around.
These types of people want people to die, they encourage killing for the animals sake.
Yet what they don’t seem to understand about swine flu is that being vegan does not make them immune, karma won’t save them from the virus, it’s a virus it doesn’t care if you’re vegan or not.
Wishing death on others because they don’t think as you do is pure fucking stupidity and arrogence. So much for their percieved moral superiority. I notice that the usual buzzwords are in play.
The fact is that anyone can catch swine flu. Let’s say a vegan sits next to someone on the bus that was exposed to swine flu in Mexico (simmilar situations, is how many people here were exposed.) and the person sneezes. Guess what, Mr Vegan?. Youre infected. No pork involved.
It’s laughabe to think that swine flu is caused by pig farming or is transmitted by eating pork. If that was the case, we would have a full blown epidemic on our hands? So where is it?
The swine fu virus is a perfect example of evolution. It is a mutation of previously existing viruses like human and avian, both of which can be transmitted to pigs. All of this info is available from the CDC.
Can humans catch swine flu?
“Swine flu viruses do not normally infect humans. However, sporadic human infections with swine flu have occurred. Most commonly, these cases occur in persons with direct exposure to pigs (e.g. children near pigs at a fair or workers in the swine industry). In addition, there have been documented cases of one person spreading swine flu to others. For example, an outbreak of apparent swine flu infection in pigs in Wisconsin in 1988 resulted in multiple human infections, and, although no community outbreak resulted, there was antibody evidence of virus transmission from the patient to health care workers who had close contact with the patient.
How common is swine flu infection in humans?
In the past, CDC received reports of approximately one human swine influenza virus infection every one to two years in the U.S., but from December 2005 through February 2009, 12 cases of human infection with swine influenza have been reported. For information on the number of probable and confirmed cases of novel H1N1 flu in humans see Novel H1N1 Flu Situation.”
That number has grown, but is nowhere near pandemic or epidemic proportions.
This does not support the idea that The Invisible Man in The Sky or some other “higher power” is punnishing us for eating his sacred pigs.
BRING ON THE RIBS AND PORK CHOPS!
…again, it’s not about making a claim that vegans are immune. It’s about the fact that we live in a culture that horrifies us. We wish people would listen. They rarely do, because they’re bound and determined to go right on doing whatever they’re ALREADY doing; I can’t say that whatever somebody ELSE is doing is more or less effective at reaching people, because I really don’t know. I don’t know that anyone does.
But if it gets someone to rethink their assumptions…
I get that you are trying to get people to listen to your message. But using abusive lanquage and wishing an infectious disease upon people just turns people off and gets them angry. The idea that eating pork causes swine fu is not grounded in reality, so why would any educated person listen to such nonsense?
Here’s the thing: it looks like Connor’s whole blog is a vendetta against Warwak and Marino. That’s fine; as I’ve said elsewhere, it’s *his* blog, and he can do what he likes with it. But in the end, it’s just words on a screen. It’s just electrons.
Outside of the vegan circles Warwak travels in and/or the anti-AR circles the peta-sucks crowd travels in, *nobody* cares.
No one save the committed on either side is paying *any* attention to this. Fine, fine: warn the world that a few angry vegans exist. The world is likely to respond with a resounding yawn and go back to beer and porn.
Babble is so damned reasonable! I love you Babble.
You should have been at the conference. We were hanging out in the hotel room watching planes go by and, naturally, they’re full of corpse-munchers. We were trying to will them out of the sky and make them crash.
I love Dave! He just gets me!
The authors of this insipid blog fail to realize something… so let me clarify my position… vegan numbers are tiny compared to the holocaust-happy population.
If a few vegans have to die to take millions of you parasites with us, IT WOULD BE AN HONOR! I would feel like I truly accomplished something.
What could be better than ridding the world of you lecherous aberrations?
Maybe if you keeled over?
You know – wishing death on humans who eat meat puts you at the same level if not LOWER than those who slaughter animals for food.
Wishing people would crash in planes makes me feel you’re as low as the terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001.
Look, you don’t like people eating meat – fine. Just look in the mirror before you go and bash the people you hate – you’re becoming just like you perceive them, if not already there or worse.
Thankfully there are people such as Babble who – while I may disagree with him at points of his side – a. speaks with logic and is CIVIL to people and b. I have NEVER heard him or others who speak in a similar vein ever wish death on people just because they eat meat.
(Oh, and Camille – you don’t have grounds to stand on in regard to having people use names with quotes when you have blatantly altered comments of bloggers who disagree with you to make it look as though they’re suicidal).
Would you guys mind putting our names with our quotes? I can’t tell who said some of these and I think I’d like to add some of them to my important quotes page on the real NegotiationIsOver: http://negotiationisover.com/?page_id=324
-This is so awesome! I can hardly wait for flu season to actually get here!
– Definitely Me
-Those who support the holocaust and savor the mutilated body parts of crucified miserable pigs deserve their karmic reward — swine flu death (and a slow one at that). – Definitely Me
– I won’t shed a tear when thinking of the dead corpse-munchers… – Definitely Dave
-Poor little pigs. Our society is so depraved. Payback’s a bitch! – Dave (?)
-…the death toll from this factory-farm-generated disease my be staggering. – Looks like Me (?)
I can only hope. – Which would make this Dave (?)
-…here’s hoping you already have cjd and swine flu is right around the corner. – Me
-…it’s amusing that the death toll is starting to rise. Dave (?)
BTW – do you guys even really understand biology and viruses? – anyone can get them – the H1N1 virus (let’s call it what it REALLY IS – not the swine flu) is a combination of SWINE, BIRD and HUMAN viruses.
What does this mean? – it is a virus that, unlike the (rightly named) swine flu is, CAN be transmitted thanks to the DNA in the human virus part. That’s why such an increase in cases.
Also, most, but not ALL of the cases of this particular flu have been mild or people have recovered from them. Most of the current deaths have been from the flu that we are currently immunized for.
Anyone is susceptible to this virus, and anyone can and possibly will get it – vegans aren’t immune whether or not they wish to admit it.
You and Mr. Warwak and ignorant if you think that you aren’t at risk. I know I’m not, but I do what I can to keep my system healthy and less at risk for catching the bug. How do I do that? – by eating a balanced diet, getting exercise, never smoking and very rarely enjoying a drink (I literally have ONE drink ONE time a month). I am a proper weight for my height (nice and trim) and have an excellence cholesterol level.
Sorry Camille and other outspoken extreme vegans – this is one case you can’t say you’re superior on – viruses don’t look at what you do: They’re not sentient enough to determine if you’re a vegan or omnivore – they’ll attack you no matter what.
Camille
I like me too. It probably would help if Connor attributed; I mean, it’s hardly as if either one are really trying to hide any of this. It does, however, make these sorts of efforts to “expose” it seem a little…anticlimactic, maybe.
Is that what this blog was doing.. exposing us?
I thought it was a fan club!
Well, I think it’s kind of silly; it’s hardly as if either one of you go to any length at all to hide any of your stuff. Again, it’s Connor’s blog, and he’s going to do as he likes. It just seems like it’s the Dave & Camille show for the most part.
If it keeps one busy and entertained, though…
You know, Camille for all your bulshit about “taking corpse munchers with us” and similar assinine quotes, youre a paper tiger. Put your money where your mouth is. You and Warwackjob go light some fires at some factory farms or vandelize some fast food joints. How about harrasing someone eating a hot dog on the street? Come on what are you waiting for? At least you will be doing something tangeble, not bullshitting yourselves that you are making some kind of difference for animals.
Vegans are healthier than corpse-munchers and can fight it off; where as, you blood-sucking child-rapist mother-fuckers will contract Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus and die. For each dead corpse-muncher, thousands of animals are spared.
http://veganschool101.blogspot.com/2009/05/smithfields-swine-flu-virus-could.html
http://veganschool101.blogspot.com/2009/05/who-is-full-of-shit.html
Realy? Youre heathier? Thats funny. I saw the photos that Camille posted from the animal rights confrence. Jerry Vlasack looks like a heroin addict, Will Potter looks like a good breeze could knock him over, and Jason Miller has that glassy eyed deer-caught-in head lights-look. Give him some B12. Most vegans I have met were a bunch of Kate Moss sized little pussies.
Can’t you come up with some new insults These are getting old. Youre a fucking joke. Keep deluding yourself that your rhetoric actually does something to help animals.
I am an omnivore who has NOT been ill since I was in seventh grade. This has been over 17 years. Also, I have a normal blood pressure that has NEVER needed medication, and am a healthy weight for my height and build.
How may I ask does this happen? – I eat a balanced meal (I don’t eat lots of red meat, but I do eat fish, eggs and dairy), I exercise, get as much sleep as I can, don’t smoke and enjoy only one drink a month.
Too many factors come into play as far as getting ill and other health issues – diet, exercise, smoking, age, drinking, stress, family history, potential recurring health issues (asthma, HIV/AIDS, diabetes – which BTW, there is a GENETIC one as well as the dietary one, etc.), that determine risk.
Meaning – you can be vegan or omnivore, but if you are overly tired and stressed out, your immune system is weakened enough that you’ll catch a bug.
Mr. Warwak, you are truly ignorant of the true facts of life – doesn’t matter what you eat, you’re just as susceptible to viruses as we all are. And, one day we all die – doesn’t matter what we do here.
Come on mel, you know that real science does not matter to these people.
What counts as “these people?” Any or all ARAs?
I look at this as proof that Camille and Warwak are monsters that use the animal rights as a receptacle for their unreasoning hatred of humankind. You can’t be compassionate by wishing death upon others, regardless of their dietary habits (AKA us “corpsemunchers”.) Moreover, I’ve come to believe they are both exploiting the “suffering” of others to to massage their inflated sense of self-righteousness and your egos. That makes them worse than the ones responsible for said suffering in many respects.
So answer me this Camille and Dave: what are you willing to sacrifice for your revolution? Compassion is looking for others needs ahead of your own desires, and sorry, posting incoherent tirades on a blog doesn’t count. Would you be willing to sacrifice your freedom (or even your live) to plan and carry out a raid on a farm to free the animals that you claim are oppressed. Surely that risk should be acceptable if it helps your so-called revolution…
But somehow I doubt you would. Camille and Dave are far too cowardly to carry such an action. Hence, you circumvent parental authority by trying to manipulate children to your cause, or screech about it on a blog where only your gaggle of sycophants will notice you.
Oh, and thanks for the entertainment Camille. I burst out in laughter when I read your entries. It reminds me of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QG5_RrdROA
Good question, Ben, but you are wasting your breath. Babble could probably anwser your question, but Camille won’t.
I pretty much know that, but it was something that was on my mind for a while now. Best to get it out in the open.
‘Sides, that dog is a lot like Camille. Though I bet the canine edges her out in intelligence.
It’s an interesting question, if a bit hopelessly hypothetical. Would I be willing to die if it would turn large numbers of people vegan? You may or may not believe this, but *probably*. The problem is: what in the world would my death do to make folks change their minds?
It’s not about convincing others to switch over to veganism, it’s about taking action against “animal suffering”.
We would be fools to play the game by your rules Ben.
Convicing others to go Vegan would actually be more effective than what you would consider “direct action”. Every meatless meal I have is one less animal that has to die. Simple economics occurs: Less demand leads to less supply causing producers to increase prices to maintain profit, the price gouging leads to still less demand, production become economically non-viable, the industry collapses and we win. Fiendish in its simplicty, is it noy
I think Ben is asking *something* of a fair question; I just think he may be misunderstanding Dave or Camille’s underlying motives. As I read them, they’re using strong language to try to shake people out of their complacency, to get them to consider veganism in light of the suffering and death eating animals causes – not just to the animals we kill and eat, but also in light of the *human problems* animal agriculture causes.
Even if you only consider veganism for purely selfish reasons, at least you’re considering veganism.
Where he sees them posting rants instead of doing direct action, I see them doing a version of what I’m doing: advocating veganism.
Steve, the only fallacy with your argument is that you don’t consume one animal when you purchase a pound of beef – one animal feeds several people, and someone else will pick up the slack.
It would take something massive in order for people to turn away in masses from meat to decrease the demand enough for them to start going strictly vegan. And, the only way that’ll happen would be something such as a massive virus or cataclysmic scenario that wipes out a majority of the animal population.
Babble, there is a huge difference between your arguments and what we’re reading from Camille and Warwak. I rarely if ever see them actually touting the virtues of veganism, but instead stoop to damn near terrorist thoughts with their comments.
You and others who are on your blog for the most part (as you said, you can’t control people’s comments), are level-headed and actually have good ideas at times on how to promote your views. Of course, this is all one can do – it’s up to the person who is on the receiving side to accept or reject your views.
Camille and Warwak, however, when I read their posts, I feel as though they wish the death of people just because they don’t agree with them. I rarely read any true advocacy or promoting the GOOD in veganism in their posts – if at all.
We’ve seen the hatred spewed in these posts before toward those who disagree with them in action. This case it was Americans in general, and it lead to the bombing of the WTC in 1993, the plane attacks on the towers in 2001, and other bombings such as the USS Cole.
I am an omnivore because I cannot be strictly vegan and be healthy. That is my biology – and before anyone proseltyzes that that’s bullshit, let me say that you don’t know my physiology anymore than I know yours. That said, I respect people’s views and opinions on the issue – as well as their choice to eat that way – as long as they don’t shove it down my throat. This is where I do thank you for – you at least respect that, even if you disagree with my choice.
Farm raids are just tactically impossible, unfortunately, separate and apart from any other question.
The problem with most direct action (the MDA crowd will inevitably beat me with sticks for being ‘too pacifist’) is that in the present circumstance it simply *can’t* work. Other than symbolic action, lab liberations don’t stop vivisection, in the least. I wish they did. Right now, given where we are, they can’t.
Right *now* the only effective thing I think we – by we I mean fellow AR people, not the p-s contingent – can do is try to get folks to go vegan. (I’m more than aware that the p-s crowd that’s posting here isn’t going to do that.)
Well to be blunt Babble, I don’t believe you’ll be able to convince that many people to change to a vegan diet. Partially because there is a wide spectrum of opinions, and a good many people would respectfully disagree with you, myself included (and I’m not a part of P-S). It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try and I wish you luck on that. Unfortunately, Camille and Dave’s crude appeals to emotion (as opposed to logic) is far more detrimental to your cause because it’s going to alienate others or generate hostility against vegans.
I know that you see it that way, Ben, and I’m not really debating that. The point is that even if I *was* doing MDA it would be idiotic of me to say so on a public blog, not out of self-interest, but because getting arrested and imprisoned prevents me from doing further liberations. How should Camille or Dave or I answer that question? If we say *yes* we’d do *x* we’re going to be investigated. (I have an FBI file after ACT UP, years ago. This isn’t a hypothetical.)
Like I said earlier, I honestly don’t think the vast majority gives a damn about anything we’re saying. They’re not listening. This only gets paid any attention by the committed pro-AR / anti-AR camps. The majority of people don’t know about it, and don’t care.
Sorry if I put you on the spot back there then.
I’m just trying to say: think about it. I have no information one way or the other, but there again, I wouldn’t assume someone like Camille *wasn’t* involved in direct action. It would be in my interest to appear to be a paper tiger.
Anyone who thinks I haven’t sacrificed anything and/or that I don’t do direct action obviously doesn’t know my story. Would you give up your job for animals? Would you be strong enough to openly tell children the truth knowing the backlash is great? So in other words Ben, do some research and go vegan or choke on a chicken bone and die mother-fucker
Wow. I am actualy reading the words of a real life martyr. You deserved what you got, toolbox.
Warwak, you didn’t give up your job – you were fired. I have read your story, unless Camille’s comments are wrong and you really did quit.
Unfortunately, you are blessed with the fact that hirings and firings of educational employees are closed records, meaning no one can do a Freedom of Information Act request on you and find out the real story about what happened. This means you can tout whatever you wish people to hear, knowing damn well that they can’t find out the whole truth about it.
…I wasn’t trying to make a specific claim about anything anybody else is or isn’t doing, if it needs to be said. Is vegan advocacy – all vegan advocacy, “strong language” or not, doing nothing? It’s doing something – granted, that something isn’t something you like hearing, or agree with, but it *is* something. Is anybody listening? It’s difficult to tell. Most people – the overwhelming majority of people – ignore the message *no matter how it’s phrased.*
If you’re strongly opposed to AR, coming here and telling folks that what they’re saying, or how they’re saying it “harms” our cause is really neither here, nor there. You have no interest in the cause being *successful* in the first place. Worrying about your assessment of the success of any given approach is a distraction at best.
Oh, one other bit: many vegans don’t believe in a higher power? Really?
I dunno that veganism has anything to do with it.
I *personally* know vegan atheists and agnostics. I also know vegan Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
I said many of the radical vegans and ARAs, not vegans in general.
I don’t even think it’s an especially good point about radicals, Connor. (There are more *radical* vegans in the world than Warwak and Marino…)
I agree that there is, however a large amount of them do not have faith in a god/higher power and while I don’t really care if they do or not, there seem to be a large amount of radical vegans who are faithless.
Oh, brother. Hehe. Based on reading Dave and Camille’s blog, you’ve arrived at this conclusion, have you? (Dave – for the record – do you identify as an atheist?)
Me religious? Damn fucking straight. WTF is it to you anyways?
I get down on my hands and knees and pray every night to the Great Lizard King that you corpse-munching mother-fuckers each have a date penciled in to choke on a chicken bone and die in exchange for the all-consuming swath of money you disconnected mother-fucking corpse-munching enablers fork over to hit-men to maintain a steady stream of cadavers—courtesy of the multitude of innocent beings you never had the time or pleasure of meeting while alive—all for your cold-hearted gluttonous corpse-holes. Shame on you.
And if I see a fat fucking 400 lb corpse-muncher choking on a piece of butchered corpse in my vicinity, don’t expect me to perform the Heimlich maneuver in this lifetime.
Clap for the wolfman.
Yeah, religious
Warwak – have you actually been to farms, factories and slaughterhouses? Besides, while some people do break the laws in the slaughter of animals (I wouldn’t say that there aren’t cases or people such as you, Camille and PETA wouldn’t be touting the issue), NOT ALL DO.
And – I’ve seen fat vegans and thin omnivores – again proving the fact that there are several factors in human physiology and demeanor that affect weight and health of humans. So – shame on you for being so ignorant of the facts of life.
(BTW, I have seen the above three places, and truth be told? – I know what goes on in the production of meat start to finish. Those places also respect the animal to ensure that they are raised properly and have a quick death when they’re slaughtered. NOT ALL groups are like the ones that are “outed” by PETA and people such as you.)
Oh, goodness, I suppose I should have seen that coming.
(I think Connor’s on a “vegans are atheists and going to hell!” kick, but I can’t be sure…)
If it’s remotely relevant: I’m a nonpracticing Krishna devotee, Connor. I’m also an agnostic. I’m not settled for or against on the absolute question of a Deity, but I’m comfortable with spiritual *practice* nevertheless. I think oodles of vegans are religious; I think oodles of vegans are nonreligious.
I don’t think veganism (or political radicalism) has anything to do with atheism, necessarily. One is no more – or less – likely to be an atheist simply because one is a “Radical ARA.”
well mell, i just received notifications that you made a few comments… but for some reason i don’t see them here.
let me start off with this nugget:
melvin said: “Sorry Camille and other outspoken extreme vegans – this is one case you can’t say you’re superior on – viruses don’t look at what you do: They’re not sentient enough to determine if you’re a vegan or omnivore – they’ll attack you no matter what.”
CAMILLE SAYS: CLEARLY YOU DIDN’T READ MY FREAKING COMMENTS. AND THANK YOU FOR ILLUSTRATING THAT “THE DEBATE IS OVER”… I DON’T DEBATE WHERE NO ONE IS LISTENING.
melvin said: “Thankfully there are people such as Babble who – while I may disagree with him at points of his side – a. speaks with logic and is CIVIL to people and b. I have NEVER heard him or others who speak in a similar vein ever wish death on people just because they eat meat.”
CAMILLE SAYS: I COMPLETELY RESPECT BABBLE AND COUNT HIM AMONG MY FRIENDS. BUT, MAKE NO MISTAKES — OUR PHILOSOPHIES DIVERGE CONSIDERABLY WHERE THE INSOLENT ARE INVOLVED.
IF YOU PAID ANY ATTENTION AT ALL TO WHAT BABBLE’S BEEN SAYING, HE IS NOT OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT NO ONE IS HEARING THIS OUTSIDE OF ENEMY LINES.
I BELIEVE WE’D BE BETTER OFF EXTERMINATING PARASITIC HUMANS. YOU SERVE ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE ON THIS PLANET EXCEPT TO CONTRIBUTE TO IT’S DESTRUCTION AND JUSTIFY YOUR SLOVENLY SELFISH BEHAVIORS.
I CAN LOOK IN THE MIRROR, MEL. THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO SUGAR-COAT OR RATIONALIZE ANYTHING ON MY PART. I LOVE THE VICTIMS — BE THEY INNOCENT HUMANS OR NONHUMANS. AND MAKE NO MISTAKES, THERE ARE INNOCENT HUMANS THAT ARE VICTIMIZED BY YOUR ABHORRENT HORRIFIC CULTURE.
WHAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND IS HOW I’M EXPECTED TO LOVE THE TORMENTORS AND PLACATE THE COMPLICIT WITH NICITIES.
MAYBE I OUGHTA START PUBLISHING OBITUARIES OF CORPSE-MUNCHING BASTARDS. SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT…
AND I’LL BE SURE TO TELL YOU WHERE TO SEND FLOWERS, MELVIN.
Camille – My name is MEL, not Melvin. If you do not address me by my proper name, I will be altering your name. You have been warned – show respect to me as I have you.
Your diatribe is full of bullshit and arrogance and naivety – You said clearly that you wish the death of people who eat meat and hope they get the virus. Your quote:
*Those who support the holocaust and savor the mutilated body parts of crucified miserable pigs deserve their karmic reward — swine flu death (and a slow one at that). – Definitely Me*
Don’t fuck with me and say you didn’t say this – I am clearly pointing out that YOU TOO are just as susceptible to said virus. You my dear are the one who is ignorant enough to think that it won’t happen to you.
I listened and responded – You my dear don’t give a shit and want to declare a point that you haven’t even won. Seriously – read your own comments – I sure did.
As far as the rest of it – that’s your typical rant when you realize that a non-vegan has a point that you can’t counter. You agree with Babble simply because he’s a vegan – he has said some points at times that would surprise your opinions my dear.
Humans are NOT parasitic because they eat meat. Parasites are those that infect animals and other human beings and cause disease. Parasites would be stuch as trichnosis (the worms in pork muscle), tape worms, pin worms, ring worms, ticks, fleas, crab lice, lice, etc. At least get your definitions right.
Humans and animals are victimized by many things in life – not just slaughter. I personally respect life from cradle to grave – even yours, though I do grow disgusted with comments such as the ones you spew.
By the way, in response to: YOU SERVE ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE ON THIS PLANET EXCEPT TO CONTRIBUTE TO IT’S DESTRUCTION AND JUSTIFY YOUR SLOVENLY SELFISH BEHAVIORS.
Sorry my dear – that is all humans all walks of life. We all have a footprint on this earth, and that does include some destruction. Please – seriously, never use this argument again because it’s utter fricking bullshit.
Since my post hasn’t posted, I’m just going to sum up my comments here in case they do pop up:
1. Camille, My name is MEL, and it’s NOT Melvin. If you call me this again, your name will be altered when I respond to you. You have been warned.
2. Your posting clearly shows a typical response from you when an omnivore has a point that you can’t counter – you rant and rave and attack the responder.
Well, can’t counter or refuse to counter because you wish to not be humiliated again.
3. You said clearly: Those who support the holocaust and savor the mutilated body parts of crucified miserable pigs deserve their karmic reward — swine flu death (and a slow one at that). – Definitely Me.
This means you in fact wished this flu and death to people who eat meat. I didn’t miss your point at all – I read them.
You wish to not debate becuase you know that I can counter your viewpoints quite clearly. This was shown when I said that it doesn’t matter what diet you have – you still can catch the virus. Unless you wish to debate with me how this is not true, just concede defeat and move on (In fact, if you rant to me and call me names for this, I will see it as a concession of defeat on your part because you can’t counter it).
Eating nonhuman individuals doesn’t only make you fat and stupid, it makes you a heartless mother fucker.
I appears a vegan diet does the same if you and Dave are any indication.
Hmm… 11th out of my class with over a 95 average, 3.45 out of a 4.0 in college, member of an honors society in college…
Proper weight for my height and build, normal BP that has NEVER HAD TO BE TREATED WITH MEDICINE, normal cholesterol…
… and all as an omnivore.
Get real Canofworms – too many factors come into play as far as diet. You can be a vegetarian and die young and be an omnivore and live to be over 100.
Heartless? – no, far from it. Blunt? – yes.
“I have NEVER heard him or others who speak in a similar vein ever wish death on people…”
Hey Mel,
Oh, I’ll cop to the odd bit of “we’re just going to have to wait for the current generation to get old and die” here and there. Sometimes it seems like attitudes are far too entrenched to really reach people, and the only possible thing we *can* do is wait for the current generation of folks to die off, and the generation that follows (and the one after that, and the one after that) will see things a bit differently.
I don’t *wish* for anyone to die – but I understand the frustration at people who won’t really listen, just the same.
There’s a difference between frustration and flat out wishing – that’s one reason I respect your opinions over others here on the board.
Frankly, I just don’t see humans going the way of total vegans. Maybe they’ll be pescarians (eat fish in addition to vegetables, or the ovo/lactate vegans who add eggs and dairy to their diets, but I don’t think – at least in any of the current human lives on this earth, it’ll be total vegan.
(since people will try the milk issue going on – I see this as a case where they did too well, and made the supply greater than the demand. I can see there be a slide down for a bit and it’ll straighten itself out again to a more reasonable balance. I don’t think it’s a case of people going vegan).
Now, does this mean I’m right? – absolutely not, no one can predict the future. But right now the outlook appears to be that it still will stay this way – some people are vegans, others omnivores and a few are strict carnivores/fast food junkies who are so unhealthy it’s a miracle they’re even alive. “Supersize Me” was an excellent documentary of what could happen if you ate fast food all the time instead of eating a balanced diet. Creeped me out enough that I only eat out once a week if that.
Hey Mel,
I don’t think it’s really a question of *some* people being fast-food junkies; at least in the US, I think there’s a great case to be made that massive, huge piles of us are.
As for the whole of the world going vegan: who knows? I can’t predict absolutely what will happen any more than anybody else can, but it doesn’t really matter. I’m trying to do what I think is right on behalf of nonhumans who *can’t* meaningfully object to what we’re doing to them.
It doesn’t matter how long it takes, or if it ever really happens. I still think it’s the right thing to do.
Quoting Camille:
OUR PHILOSOPHIES DIVERGE CONSIDERABLY WHERE THE INSOLENT ARE INVOLVED.
…that’s one of the things that’s always amused me coming from the anti-AR camp. They seem to assume we all speak monolithically about *everything*; that couldn’t possibly be further from the truth. I’m just not going to waste time telling Dave or Camille what to do, because they a) didn’t ask for my permission in the first place, and don’t need it and b) there are bigger tofu-fish-equivalents to fry.
Melvin said: Your posting clearly shows a typical response from you when an omnivore has a point that you can’t counter – you rant and rave and attack the responder.
Well, can’t counter or refuse to counter because you wish to not be humiliated again.
YES, MELVIN — LIKE I SAID DUDE… I COWER IN YOUR PRESENCE. I FEAR THE REBUTTAL OF THE ALMIGHTY MELVIN.
KISS MY VEGAN ASS!
AND, BTW, IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CONFINEMENT, RAPE, MUTILATION & MURDER OF HUMAN INDIVIDUALS, WOULD WE STILL BE EXPECTING CIVIL DEBATE.
YOU’RE A MURDERER OR, AT THE VERY LEAST, A COWARD WHO’S PAYS OTHERS TO MURDER FOR YOU… MELVIN!
OK, let’s see Canofworms (I warned you – either Mel or this will be your permanent monkier from me), let’s be honest here:
I would have a civil debate about all the issues you mention, and here we go:
Confinement – confinement in jail for crimes I agree with. All other forms of confinement are illegal and I would fully expect to see those perpetrators be brought to justice and penalized to the fullest extent of the law.
Animals – I agree there are crowded conditions in some feedlots, so much so they become filthy and unhealthy for both animal and men. I would like to see those scenarios rectified ASAP (some cases they have had success). That said, again, not all places are that way.
Additionally, I have seen the devastation from what can happen when animals are allowed to roam free – miles and miles of deer that were hit by cars and left to rot alongside the roads. So, having boundaries for animals for their safety is a good thing – again for animal and human. The argument here is really catch-22 on both sides.
Rape – I’m assuming you mean artificial insemination – which is something humans do as well to themselves to have a child. There’s no point for debate here. Now, bestiality is a crime, and I would say those people would need to go to justice. Same goes with actual rape of a human.
Mutilation – I’m assuming you mean castration. Again, we have humans who do this all the time (tying off the vas deferens in men, women having a hysterectomy or rare case their tubes). Both are done in order to avoid having offspring as well in some cases to reduce the anger levels in beast and human (A non-castrated animal has more anger issues than a castrated one).
Murder of humans in any way is a crime – end of argument.
Killing animals illegally through starvation, beatings, whippings and such is a crime – and yes, when an animal is killed or treated this way I expect the fullest extent of law and punishment thrown at the perpertrators.
However, slaughtering an animal for foodwith a stun gun (rendering them unconscious) and then hit in the head with a bolt gun is NOT illegal.
************************
I have seen the slaughter of animals – both via road kill and actual death in a slaughterhouse. I have also done dissections in high school. Does this mean I like it? – not really, and I nearly fainted when some nitwit shoved an eviscerated frog in my face.
That said, I ain’t the coward in regard to the issue – you are when you call people names that are not their own.
Now – as I said, you clearly have shown you can’t or refuse to debate me because you are the coward and can’t handle people being able to easily counter your arguments.
BTW – murder is a crime, slaughtering animals for food is not a crime. Please learn to differentiate between the two terms. Thank you.
And your veggies are fertilized with the blood of animals, but you probably think it’s an acceptable loss.
Mel,
The thing is, nothing I’m saying, nothing Camille is saying, nothing ANY of us are saying is necessarily directed at you individually. There are always more eyeballs reading than fingers responding in *any* of these things.
If someone opens their eyes because somebody like Camille says, “Would we still be expecting civility if we were doing these things to humans?” I *cannot* say that’s a flawed approach.
(In actual point of fact, I know it isn’t – this kind of thing is exactly what convinced me that continuing to eat a lacto-vegetarian diet wasn’t ethically justifiable.)
The issue here though babble is that one can be civil in arguments – both animal and human cases. Unfortunately, the extremists such as Camille and Warwak use shock tactics that inadvertently put more HARM to their cause than benefits.
Example, even if people say that the war is unjustified, they still get bristled up when they hear Osama bin Laden tout views that would be seen in a similar light to the two stronger opinionated commentors above – a hatred for humans (or in the case of bin Laden, Americans).
Unfortunately, like with bin Laden, there are extremists who side with that issue and – if left unchecked – would do whatever they could to eradicate the entire group whom they disagree with, much like Hitler nearly did to the Jews in the Holocaust.
I can’t deny that a vegetarian diet or the variations are not decent options for those who can do it (I am of the biology that I cannot), but the point is not everyone can yet you have those who force their opinions upon others and call people every name in the book simply becuase they disagree.
There is a way to discuss all these issues with civility – as I made above in response to the person above’s “Kiss my ass” response. When you don’t, you look like the bigger fool than the person whom you’re protesting against. If the more liberal duo would realize this, they may actually have people listen to them instead of take them as a couple of feckless individuals who are all aroma, but no tofu.
I need to clarify one thing…
I am unequivocally speaking personally to Melvin, Connor, Ratsnake, who tf ever else, and every single apathethic selfish parasite who wants to perpetuate a holocaust yet justify their barbarity.
Must suck to be caught with your fat greasy fingers tearing apart corpses!
Please tell me how eating some animals for food is considered a holocaust.
The definition of a holocaust is – according to Mirriam-Webster:
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire
3 aoften capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the b: a mass slaughter of people ; especially : genocide
————————————-
Notice – the definition CLEARLY says “HUMAN,” not animal.
Nor is the slaughter of some animals for food leading to total eradication of the species. It is when said species is overharvested or killed that leads to a true holocaust – massive loss of life. Examples of this – the near extinction of buffalo because they were hunted strictly for their pelts.
Look – Canofworms, let’s really look at the true definition of words instead of proseltyzing that there is a holocaust going on as far as animals. It’s far from the truth.
(And, I will not change your moniker until you show a modicum of respect and return my name to MEL).
Melvin – THANK YOU – Finally, someone has put this in terms I can wrap my brain around.
And it’s not speciesism at all…
Let’s confine, mutilate, rape and murder nonhuman individuals as part of an organized holocaust that ensures unimaginable horror and misery for the innocent…
Otherwise a deer might get hit by a car.
Thank you Melvin. I see the light.
KILL MY VEGAN ASS!
Canofworms – you really do not know how to debate do you?
Your comment above is a MASSIVE FAILURE on your part.
You clearly do not discern what reality is from your rather speciest if not bigotist opinion of the human race.
Nor will you take a non-vegan’s comments seriously. I have the respect to at least debate your comments in a polite tone (save your name, which as I have said I will not change until you call me by my proper nym), at least ATTEMPT to do so.
Otherwise, you know what? – you constantly prove to us what people see in groups such as PETA – a bunch of feckless individuals who can’t debate the tough issues when they’re challenged and resort to childish name calling when they are countered effectively.
I’m sorry – if you can’t debate rationally, then you really have lost touch with touting your beliefs.
Quoting Mel:
“That said, again, not all places are that way…”
The problem is that while there *is* a segment of the market producing things that *I* would legitimately call happy meat (wholly aside from the ethics of eating it), that market segment is very, very small, and the animals it produces for consumption are very exorbitantly priced.
The deeper problem is that much of what gets *labelled* “humanely raised” is only different in very *small* degrees from the typical factory farm (c.f. California’s Prop 2, hailed as a great leap forward for animals, which has yet to implement a single one of its claimed victories, and *if* implemented – which is a begging question, honestly – will only result in incredibly minor changes.) Will this reduce animal suffering in any meaningful way? I say no.
It will make people think something is being done, however, which is what these measures are *really* about, the vast majority of the time.
On the separate issue (quoting Mel again):
“When you don’t, you look like the bigger fool than the person whom you’re protesting against. ”
Here again, I’d make a claim that someone with a strongly anti-AR bent – I’m not saying anything about you individually one way or the other, here – doesn’t actually wish for the success of the movement. Why should I (or Dave, or Camille, etc.) really worry about that criticism, in that event?
If you’d be willing to say you think animal rights is a bunch of hooey – a view you’re free to hold, and I won’t waste your time or mine debating it – why would you worry that Camille is hurting the movement? Wouldn’t that serve your overall interest in seeing AR fail in the larger sphere of ideas?
I have to say, much of this criticism coming from the peta-sucks crowd strikes me as disingenuous. I don’t see much point in worrying about whether or not peta-sucks thinks Camille is hurting the movement.
“Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them” – Henry David Thoreau
“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.” – Ghandi
“The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion.” – Frederick Douglas
These are good quotes; however, Ghandi had a peaceful protest – he never bombed places or wished the death of people just because he disagreed with them.
My point is – seeing what groups such as the ALF have done, there is a right way and a wrong way to protest laws. Unfortunately there are several ARAs who would take the next step and go to violence.
Frankly – the unjust laws that all three are quoting refer to events such as the Revolution and Civil War. Both of those are HUMAN things where people think for themselves. Animals – as I have clearly said, do NOT have rights.
Animals have protections, such as from cruelty, but that’s not the same as rights. Let’s put it in a human perspective – It’s the same as those who seek asylum in the United States – they have protection from deportation (unless they break rules), but they don’t say have the right to vote or have other liberties that we do.
Rights and protections are different things – as I said and maintain, there are those who do not see the difference.
(…and not to spam endlessly, but I’d wager lunch that I’m more politically liberal than either Dave or Camille.)
Liberal in the correct definition for you’re right. Liberal in the extremist form, it would have to lean toward the other two.
I do not wish for Animal welfare to fail, however, animal rights are another story. Animals as themselves are not seen as having the same rights as you or I except in the situation of cruelty (and I mean true cruelty such as neglect and abuse, not what is done in slaughtering).
The bigger picture is; however, is that Camille, Warwak and others tend to not discern between the two – hence when they DO in fact speak of things that would be a betterment of the treatment of animals, they harm a true cause.
However, you have to look at the bigger picture. Though I do not know about Camille, Dave Warwak is a well-known animal rights activist. His extremist views are received by everyone who reads about the issue. And, a lot of his ideas don’t sit well with those who are either on the fence or even some vegans because they’re that extreme. That in turn harms their case because who can take those comments (i.e. wishing omnivores catch the swine flu and die) seriously?
It’s like PETA – I know for a fact that there were many reconsidering if not flat out saying they were no longer going to support the group because PETA was boycotting maple syrup – a truly VEGAN product (unlike honey, which is produced because bees collect the pollen, hence the “slave labor” ideal), to protest the seal hunt. It was that out there, and people said “I can’t take this group seriously anymore.” Perfect example how extremists harm the cause.
As I’ve said, I support better treatment of animals, and despise people who kill animals strictly for sport or for the fur/scent glands/head and horns. Also, if a group is abusing animals, such as the possible case with Ringling (though I have questions given they severely edited the video, which can lead to questions about possible splicing in other situations), then I say get the creeps and lock them away. But, when you have extremists saying the things they did with the issue that led to this article to begin with, it hurts these true animal welfare causes because they leave an indelible stamp on the reader of the case.
Babble said: “I have to say, much of this criticism coming from the peta-sucks crowd strikes me as disingenuous. I don’t see much point in worrying about whether or not peta-sucks thinks Camille is hurting the movement.”
Babble, I lie awake at night worrying about whether Melvin approves of my methods!
Canofworms… I like that. Seriously – my name is MEL it is feminine, not masculine. If you can’t have respect for that, why should I have respect for your name?
Now, you start calling me Mel – just that, I’ll revert back to your name. Until then, this will stick.
And no – I do not approve of your methods – in fact, your methods do not work except to turn people away from the animal rights movement. No one in their right mind would ever seriously wish that people would die over animals just because they eat meat.
I mean it – I may strongly (to put it mildly) object to your comments (I do abhor your way of resorting to childish methods when you realize you have lost the point of argument), but I would NEVER EVER wish death to you for your beliefs.
There is a difference between disagree and wishing death on someone. I’ve learned it – I think it’s time that you do.
Sorry, this is what I meant to quote: “Why should I (or Dave, or Camille, etc.) really worry about that criticism, in that event? “
Quoting Mel:
“I do not wish for Animal welfare to fail, however, animal rights are another story. Animals as themselves are not seen as having the same rights as you or I except in the situation of cruelty (and I mean true cruelty such as neglect and abuse, not what is done in slaughtering).”
Not to get dragged into an endless, and useless debate, here, but just because it’s important to correct what I think is a misperception:
No one in the animal rights movement is calling for animals to be granted rights they cannot meaningfully enjoy. We aren’t saying that animals have a right to vote, or that dogs should be granted driving licenses, or other silly things. We’re saying that much as infant humans have an inherent right to basic moral consideration – we do not eat infants, or experiment on them, or use them for entertainment – we can’t see a good reason to exclude animals from that same basic consideration. It doesn’t matter that infants lack the conceptual capacity to understand that moral right. It simply matters that infants are sentient, living beings.
Because infant humans are *human* we regard them as moral rights-holders *automatically*. Because nonhuman animals are *not* human, we regard them as exploitable resources.
As AR people, disagree with that.
You and I may never agree on that fundamental question, and I understand that, but I still think it’s important for people to understand what we’re actually saying when we say “animal rights.”
As for the other bit: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, here, so please forgive me if I end up misinterpreting your actual position. If you’re saying that there’s no fundamental moral question around the *use* of animals, provided that we treat animals humanely while we do it, I would say here that you’re opposed to AR. It’s fine that you *are* opposed to it – that’s neither here nor there with respect to what I’m saying here.
But *if you are*, why should I worry that you feel I’m harming the movement (or Dave, or Camille, or anyone else)? Can you see why I think this criticism is more than a little disingenuous?
The animal *welfare* cause and the animal *rights* cause are very different things. Neither Dave, or Camille, nor I am advocating for kinder treatment of animals while we continue to use them indefinitely.
We may not eat or experiment on infants, but anyone who’s had a child has at least had some form of entertainment with the child by playing with the baby.
You might say that’s different, but I will use this on an animal level – Sara Houcke, a tiger tamer for Ringling Bros. (at least a few years back) would play with the tigers and learn their good days and bad days. She’d get nipped a few times, but it was relatively rare. Most of the tigers were maybe a couple of years old at most.
Also, she NEVER used the whip on the tigers because she respected them that much.
***********************
I don’t debate the morality of the use of animals simply because there are many situations that we have that use animals whether we like it or not.
Flu shots use eggs in order to create the vaccine.
A lot of insulin – and the last time I checked the more effective insulin – is made from pigs.
We got most of our vaccines safe through the use of animal testing.
We sent chimps into space to test the dangers of space travel – and they got home safe (the Cosmonauts on the other hand… this wasn’t always the case).
I could go on, but will refrain from it.
The problem with the argument of “If you’re saying that there’s no fundamental moral question around the *use* of animals, provided that we treat animals humanely while we do it, I would say here that you’re opposed to AR” is that PETA falls in line with this too.
You may ask why, but here’s the question – why in the hell would they be supporting controlled atmosphere killing of chickens when they want people to go vegan? They seem to – by this stand – say that it’s all right to kill them for food, but just be humane about it. That might not be their intent, but I will call it like they serve it. So by default you are saying they too do not support AR.
And, I would bear to ask, if you or others own a pet, don’t you also fall in line of breaking the animal’s right to not be used for your enjoyment?
I just do not understand the contradictions that animal rights have because – like in some cases with the other side, there are holes in the argument. Unless you practically live in a cave and grow your own food, we all fall victim to the animal rights case – we all use animals in some form or fashion, direct or indirect, and I seriously doubt that anyone can be truly an animal rights activist for that very reason.
That said, some people think they can and bastardize the issue to make money off it, and that’s where I have the biggest issue – we can do what we can to reduce it, but it’ll never be complete IMHO. All one can do – logically and seriously – is to do what they can to reduce the amount.
Personally, I am always thankful for the service and sacrifice of animals to help others. In reality – if it weren’t for some of their sacrifices, you or I might not be here today arguing the issue in the first case.
Hey mel,
I’m no particular fan of PETA’s mixed messages, my presence on the PETA forum notwithstanding. It’s a longstanding division in the animal rights movement; I completely disagree with folks who think we can promote animal welfare regulation as a means of achieving animal rights. It’s like claiming to be opposed to slavery, but calling for measures to regulate slavery. That won’t *end* slavery (and historically, didn’t).
It’s a mistake to think that PETA speaks for the whole of the movement.
As for much of the rest: that humans derive some benefit from the use of animals is irrelevant. We have the moral responsibility not to use animals *now* where we can, and to come up with alternatives where we can’t.
The fundamental question boils down to this: do you accept things as they are right now? You may. I don’t.
The animals we use aren’t doing it in “service” or “sacrifice” to us. That’s just what *we* tell ourselves. These animals are forced into serving as objects of our desire (most of the time) and need (some of the time). In neither case is that ethically justifiable.
You’re making the same mistake an awful lot of critics of animal rights make: there is no perfect moral system, ever devised by humans, that absolutely balances the freedom of the individual and the needs of society. None whatsoever.
That doesn’t mean that efforts to live an ethical life are meaningless. It means that any or all of them will fall short of being *perfect*.
Ethical perfection is a distraction.
As several of the AR folks have said, here, several times: One doesn’t justify the other. That *all* killing cannot be reasonably avoided doesn’t say anything about the *choice* to kill for the entirely optional purpose of eating a cheeseburger.
http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/corpse-munchers-are-ruining-everything-smithfields-swine-flu-virus-update/
The World Health Organization says Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus will infect over two billion people (one of every three people in the world) by the time it runs its course over the next 2 years.
Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus has spread to almost every country in the world. Since my initial writing of this, there has been a 75% spike in reported deaths—largely in part to deaths in the Southern Hemisphere where their flu season is just starting—from 800 just a few days ago, to 1400 people killed since Smithfield Food’s La Gloria, Mexico shops of horrors hatched this monster in April.
Throwing in the towel, the WHO has told the world to stop sending them reported cases. I guess it is too much work now that the shit has hit the fan.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that up to 40 percent of Americans will contract Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus. Not to worry, Obama has his corpse-munching finger on the pulse of the nation.
The White House said Friday that it has been holding regular meetings to prepare for an expected spike of deaths in the U.S. this September. Too bad Obama’s White House chooses to have meetings about how to deal with the multitudes of sick and dying, instead of having meetings about going vegan. All of this evil could have easily been avoided if corpse-munchers would simply give up their selfish destructive diet of flesh, blood, pus, menstruations and other assorted tumor-feed stuffs and discover all the amazing tasting healthy foods in the vegan diet.
The U.S. has the highest number of Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus deaths—340 to date nationwide and NY leads the way with 65 croakers—of any country in the world, followed by Argentina and Mexico. In Britain, Europe’s hardest-hit country, new cases spiked last week to 100,000, nearly twice as many as the week before.
Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus is already on an unstoppable course in the Southern Hemisphere where it is feared the virus might combine with the seasonal flu strain and develop drug resistance and mutate into a new strain by the time desperate corpse-munchers have scrambled to produce some weird injectable that enables them to continue stuffing their corpse-holes with dead animals for a few more years before some other diet induced disease snuffs out their life-lines.
The WHO reports that a vaccine might not be ready until the end of 2009 with little or no safety data about the rushed-to-production vaccine. Governments that are planning to roll out mass vaccination campaigns are “taking a gamble” since any deadly side effects won’t show up until millions of people get their life-saving/deadly shots.
Several farmaceutical companies have indicated they will give out vaccines to developing countries at a reduced cost when they become available. How convenient for those rich mother-fucking corpse-munchers to experiment on poor people and then claim they are giving them a break.
WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl said that after developing countries vaccinate health care workers, the organization will give them the choice of whom to treat.
Corpse-munchers are ruining everything. Go vegan or die.
It’s payback time baby!
On June 11 after an emergency meeting the World Health Organization (WHO) raised the alert level to its highest phase 6 indicating that a virus pandemic is under way.
The WHO noted that this alertness level indicates the global spread of the Smithfield Swine Flu Virus.
Dr Margaret Chan of the WHO stated, “The virus is spreading under a close and careful watch, no previous pandemic has been detected so early or watched so closely in real time right at the very beginning.” She warned that countries where infections have appeared to peak should brace for a second wave. And when asked about the death toll, the WHO puppet acknowledged and warned, “each and every one of those deaths is tragic, and we have to brace ourselves to see more. Countries must expect to see more cases of severe and fatal infections, this is a subtle, sneaky virus.”
Most corpse-munchers do not have immunity to the Smithfield Swine Flu Virus and illness/death may eventually become more widespread in different demographic and population groups. Vegans are healthier with stronger immune systems. Most vegans will not die from contracting the corpse-munching nightmare.
Mother Nature’s birth-control
And this just out from Geneva: There is an increased risk of severe or fatal illness in pregnant women when infected with Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus.
Many countries are experiencing widespread transmission of the pandemic virus and are reporting an increased risk in pregnant women, particularly during their second and third trimesters of pregnancy. An increased risk of fetal death or spontaneous abortions in infected women is being reported.
In addition to the enhanced risk documented in pregnant women, groups at increased risk of severe or fatal illness include people with underlying medical conditions, most notably asthma, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Some preliminary studies suggest that obesity, and especially extreme obesity, may be a risk factor for more severe disease.
Seems Mother Nature is targeting fat-fucking corpse-munchers.
Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus mainly spreads in humans—and in pigs—in the same way that regular seasonal influenza spreads, which is through the air from coughs and sneezes or touching those infected.
The WHO claims/unclaimed/and claimed again that the nasty bugger cannot be transmitted from eating properly cooked “Pork” (this is the corpse-muncher’s answer/assurance to eating shit—E-coli—as well … just cook it and eat it. WTF?); however, raw/improperly cooked pig parts can harbor flu just as the flu lives on door knobs and money for up to 10 days. Certainly Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus can thrive, mutate, and grow in a piece of refrigerated rotting pig flesh for months … and even years.
Greedy mother-fucking corpse-munchers who only want our money claim there is no connection with consumption; however, because the virus was born in Smithfield’s shops of horrors, it only stands to reason, pigs transmit and receive Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus—just as humans do—therefore, infected pigs off to slaughter are drooling all over themselves and standing in their brothers’ and sisters’ bloody entrails only to spread germs and viruses into each other’s slaughtered carcass just as E-coli always mixes in with the slop … especially in the summer months when flu’s typically die down, this bugger is growing in factory farms.
Then the butchered virus infected pig parts are refrigerated, preserved, boxed and shipped off to schools and other unsuspecting institutions for ignorant apathetic corpse-munchers to further handle, prepare, cook, and ultimately ingest/feed to others who have no choice or reason for alarm.
Finally when corpse-munchers contract Smithfield’s Swine Flu from messing around with virus infested pig parts, the very infected flesh they ate—raised on every known antibiotic—has built resistances to all known vaccines and antibodies. When corpse-munchers eat the antibiotic-resistant pig flesh, they too develop those same immunities. Many will check into the hospital and never check out. Penicillin used to work for everyone. And instead of yesteryear’s one antidote, today we have over 100 concoctions and none of them work anymore. Corpse-munchers have effectively exhausted all options in hopes of one more meal unimpeded … time to fess-up and go vegan.
Expect 50 to 100 million corpse-munchers dead, minus the animals these robbers-of-life will no longer be able to munch on with their dead corpse-holes equals 100’s of billions of lives saved and calls for a huge vegan party.
The big secret/unrealization? The USA has the highest death toll and is the top contributor to peace on Earth. Mother Nature has a way of working things out.
WHO declares pig corpses off-limits!
* Flu viruses can survive freezing, be present on thawed meat
* Blood of H1N1 infected pigs may contain virus
* Meat from sick pigs or pigs found dead must not be consumed
* WHO drawing up guidelines to protect workers handling pigs
By Tan Ee Lyn
HONG KONG (Reuters) – Meat from pigs infected with the new H1N1 virus shouldn’t be used for human consumption, the World Health Organization cautioned on Wednesday, adding it was drawing up guidelines to protect workers handling pigs.
The WHO comments appear more cautious than those from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), which said import bans are not required to safeguard public health because the disease is not food-borne and has not been identified in dead animal tissue.
The WHO however said it was possible for flu viruses to survive the freezing process and be present in thawed meat, as well as in blood.
Then the WHO backpedals their realizations at the fear of who exactly?
The WHO is full of shit!
Q: Can you catch swine flu from eating pork?
A: No, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). (Who made the WHO the authority?) Pigs coming in to slaughter facilities are monitored (By whom? Corpse-munching greedy mother-fuckers who just want to get their pigs to market?) for flu symptoms and those that are ill are not allowed to enter the food supply. (Bull-fucking-shit!) Cooking also kills the virus. (This is the corpse-munchers’ argument to eat shit as well. So are we saying raw uncooked pig parts can’t carry Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus but the following can?: Money, hands, kitchen workspaces, door handles, and tissues – but not pig parts—surprisingly convenient for the Pork Industry—pig flesh is safe … says the WHO at the recommendation of the Pork Producers) People who work with pigs, however, can catch the virus. (No shit! And now we find humans can pass Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus to pigs) The Department of Agriculture (The USDA is corrupt beyond reason and has only worked to fuck the average corpse-muncher with false information catering to the meat and dairy industries) is conducting tests to confirm that the food supply is safe, said Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
And the WHO then says:
In the ongoing spread of influenza A(H1N1) (Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus), concerns about the possibility of this virus (Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus) being found in pigs and the safety of pork and pork products have been raised.
Influenza viruses (Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus) are not known to be transmissible to people through eating processed pork or other food products derived from pigs. (Not known? WTF? Do they say it is not known you can catch Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus from money, hands, kitchen workspaces, door handles, and tissues?) Heat treatments commonly used in cooking meat (e.g. 70°C/160°F core temperature) will readily inactivate any viruses potentially present in raw meat products. (This is their answer to everything. Do they also say to cook money, hands, kitchen workspaces, door handles, and tissues to a 70°C/160°F core temperature?)
Pork and pork products, handled in accordance with good hygienic practices recommended by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Commission and the OIE, will not be a source of infection. (So the pork and pork products mishandled will be a source of infection?)
Authorities and consumers should ensure that meat (Dismembered corpses) from sick pigs (Aren’t they all sick and full of misery and antibiotics?) or pigs found dead are not processed or used for human consumption under any circumstances. (Smithfield doesn’t really care about corpse-munchers. But they do care about money enough to blow off laws. These are the same corpse-munchers who push downer-cows around with forklifts off to slaughter … and now we are going to further trust them with honesty and transparency in monitoring Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus pandemic?)
The WHO issued a statement to: Reduce the risk of catching or spreading flu
Cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing. Use a tissue.
Dispose of used tissues carefully.
Wash your hands frequently with soap and water.
Clean hard surfaces (eg kitchen worktops, door handles) frequently using a normal cleaning product. (No need to worry about pig parts though, just money, hands, kitchen workspaces, door handles, and tissues)
If we were all vegans and didn’t fuck around with animals, not only would we live longer and solve the Health Care Crisis, but we would never have to worry about: Strokes, Heart Disease, Osteoporosis, Kidney Stones, Colon Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Pancreatic Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Stomach Cancer, Endometrial Cancer, Breast Cancer, Hypoglycemia, Diabetes, Kidney Disease, Peptic Ulcers, Constipation, Hemorrhoids, Hiatal Hernias, Diverticulosis, Obesity, Gallstones, Hypertension, Asthma, Salmonellosis, Trichinosis, Irritable Colon Syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the human variant of Mad Cow Disease), Smallpox, Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus (Influenza), Tuberculosis, Malaria, Aids, Bubonic Plague, Measles, Cholera, AIDS, Global Warming, Factory Farming’s Cruelty and Pollution, Starvation/World Hunger, School Shootings, and War.
Get your vaccines so we can remain a corpse-munching nation. It must suck to be a corpse-muncher responsible for most of the world’s problems.
Careful Dave, your ignorance is showing!
Warwak:
1. WHO is highly inaccurate on their studies, and has had cases of scandal that make me question their research.
2. Epidemics occur no matter the circumstance. We’ve had pandemics from other animals, such as the avian flu, that were NOT caused by eating meat.
3. Again – if supposedly 2 out of 3 people will get the flu over the next few years, this would bear to say that this will happen to vegetarians.
ERGO the third point – doesn’t matter if you’re vegan or not, you are at risk for catching said bug.
Please – this information you submitted is full of holes and missing some common sense. I’ll give you this much, at least you’re not citing “People’s commission for Responsible Medicine.”
Yippee!
Mother Nature’s birth control… I’m all warm & fuzzy!
Gotta start planning that party…
Yes, because there’s no better where to way to spread the flu than to share it with friend. You fail again Camille.
Look, vegan, omnivore doesn’t matter. We all get sick, and we all will die.
Though I do not trust the WHO, this quote clearly shows ignorance on your part (all caps mine):
The World Health Organization says Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus will infect over two billion people (ONE OF EVERY THREE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD) by the time it runs its course over the next 2 years.
What does that mean? – It means – clear and simple: there is a good chance that many vegans will catch this bug and possibly die.
Too many factors affect this: not just diet, but EXERCISE, SMOKING, DRINKING, ISSUES WITH IMMUNE SYSTEMS (I.E. HIV, AIDS) EVEN INHERITED CONDITIONS SUCH AS ASTHMA, DIABETES, AND AGE (YOUNG AND OLD MOST SUSCEPTIBLE)
This is where you and Warwak fail on your argument to go vegan – end of discussion.
Just looking at the list of afflictions that vegans have an immunity from, not only makes me double over laughing, but confirms the idea that Warwack is seriously delusional. Shit, AIDS is on the list. AIDS? You can’t be serious, dude. Stop fucking around.
How about this. Provide unbiased studies that have been published in peer reviewed medical journals that confirms this idea that a vegan diet grants you such immunity.
Melvin said: “Nor will you take a non-vegan’s comments seriously.”
Now we understand each other.
As long as you choose to justify your selfishness and rationalize the holocaust, you are nothing more than the enemy.
When the corpse-munching world objects, I recognize it as noise and, accordingly, dismiss it.
Your disgusting behavior needs to be eradicated, not negotiated with.
With your delusions of self-righteousness and superiority, no one is going to take you seriously. Hell, I only cruise by you and Dave’s blogs because your ignorance and your belligerence makes me laugh out loud.
Hell, I know I’d have an easier time talking to a rock than to try to reason with you. Hence I enjoy sniping at you because it amuses me.
Canofworms, you again fail in your argument – your views toward me are selfish, ugly and frankly infactual.
I do not justify the Holocaust – the true one which was where millions of Jews were slaughtered by Nazis because they were bigots and racists.
There is no correct definition of holocaust in the terms of killing animals for food – there is NO INTENT TO WIPE OUT THE ANIMAL POPULATION. Period – end of discussion.
Holocaust is NOT the correct definition, and is used by a bunch of delusional extreme vegans who think that using big words makes them look smart.
In fact your very line of “Your disgusting behavior needs to be eradicated, not negotiated with” Makes YOU the neo-NAZI, not anyone who is an omnivore. Those are the same philosophies that Hitler had that led to the true Holocaust – not this shit that you are spewing.
Now, do I eat meat? – yes, but not as much as one thinks. I actually consume more by-products of animals (eggs, milk) than actual meat.
You have only shown that you are a petty and ugly vegan – inside and out – when you are arrogant enough to think that your views are right all the time and not subject to argument.
Until you can figure out that your comments WILL be argued, and again and again and again be debunked, you will always FAIL in your endeavors. The ONLY way that any true improvements will happen in this world is if people – in fact – negotiate.
So, canofworms, take your narcissistic can to the lake and go fishing. You sure can’t debate your way out of a paper bag, that’s why you constantly ignore comments: You can’t debate… I don’t think it’s just won’t, but you can’t.
warwak said
“If we were all vegans and didn’t fuck around with animals, not only would we live longer and solve the Health Care Crisis, but we would never have to worry about: Strokes, Heart Disease, Osteoporosis, Kidney Stones, Colon Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Pancreatic Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Stomach Cancer, Endometrial Cancer, Breast Cancer, Hypoglycemia, Diabetes, Kidney Disease, Peptic Ulcers, Constipation, Hemorrhoids, Hiatal Hernias, Diverticulosis, Obesity, Gallstones, Hypertension, Asthma, Salmonellosis, Trichinosis, Irritable Colon Syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the human variant of Mad Cow Disease), Smallpox, Smithfield’s Swine Flu Virus (Influenza), Tuberculosis, Malaria, Aids, Bubonic Plague, Measles, Cholera, AIDS, Global Warming, Factory Farming’s Cruelty and Pollution, Starvation/World Hunger, School Shootings, and War.
Get your vaccines so we can remain a corpse-munching nation. It must suck to be a corpse-muncher responsible for most of the world’s problems.”
Can you explain AIDS, Starvatoin/world hunger, schoolshootings and war. I don’t understand what veganism has to do with those, but please refrain from just calling me a corpse muncher and instead actually give some kind of a reason.
What folks don’t often realize in their rush to call the holocaust comparison flawed is that this particular comparison predates the modern animal rights movement by many years. It was first made by noted Jewish author Isaac Bashevis Singer (who escaped Poland during the rise of the Nazis, and was contemporary with the historical Holocaust), in “Letter Writer”. Available currently in Collected Stories, Vol. 1. See:
Amazon.com: Isaac Bashevis Singer: Collected Stories V. 1 Gimpel the Fool to The Letter Writer (Library of America, 149) (Vol 1) (9781931082617): Isaac Bashevis Singer: Books
A fuller reading of the quote is:
“All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.”
Yet, Babble, this still is an opinion – and one that still has a flaw. The one thing I’ll give him is that he did truly use an extermination camp – not a concentration camp which is actually an innaccurate allegory to the comparison they make between slaughterhouses and the other. In concentration camps – there were survivors: Extermination camps such as Treblinka, there were few (i.e. 1-2) to NO survivors from those camps wher were Jewish. Those who were on death detail who were Jews were still exterminated in order to avoid having said Jews find a way to escape their death.
Holocaust by its true definition is the attempt to totally destroy a race, and again, humans who eat meat are NOT set out to exterminate the entire animal race.
Let’s look at another point in history, Hitler was set out to destroy the Jews and blame them for all the problems Germany was having after WWI: Hyperinflation, no trade, no real economy. This wasn’t their fault, but Hitler thought it was for some reason or another (they’ve never been entirely too sure why his hatred for Jews).
Hitler’s reasoning is one reason you can conversely argue the Nazi philosophy toward people such as our two more extreme ARs here – they want omnivores to be destroyed for eating meat. They wish total destruction – just read their quotes wishing for omnivores to die. Doesn’t matter if they don’t support killing animals for fur or abhor anyone truly brutalizing animals for any reason (even more so for no reason), if you eat a chicken wing, you are guilty and therefore should die in their viewpoints. And, some do go to to the extremes that the SS did.
Babble – the comparison does not work when you can easily look at it from both sides of the scenario – the argument above clearly proves it when you truly look at history, not revisionist history that people want you to read. This too can be seen in cases such as PETA making sure people don’t remember they were cited for illegally euthanizing animals because it was the more “humane” thing to do. It was in fact murder – similar to the Jews being gassed or shot right away from being taken from the trains at concentration camps. Healthy and sick, didn’t matter sometimes – you were killed. This is why I say – and will maintain that the Holocaust comparison for omnivores killing and eating animals is truly and overall innaccurate. When you can apply it on both sides, the argument is hypocritical.
I think if you divorce it from quibbling over the specifics, and instead go to what I think was the spirit of the comparison – man’s treatment of animals, despite what we may tell ourselves, is most often horrible – it’s not a flawed comparison at all.
But if you’re bound and determined to miss the forest for the trees, it’s probably pointless to really debate it.
Babble, I am merely pointing out the fallacies of this argument in general. It fits again BOTH sides of the argument, and both uses contain fallacies that make said comparison really moot if you look at the general scheme of things, again both sides.
Unfortunately, people in the animal rights movement fail to see this argument, which I feel you too are not seeing – so please let me summarize the relation on both sides:
1. From the AR point of view, those who eat animals are considered to be the level of Nazis because they kill a certain number of animals every year, sometimes (not all the time) in ways that make me upset because it’s not humane nor is it safe for the omnivore to consume (i.e. e-coli poisoning due to feces from a killed chicken coming into contact with other meat).
2. From the Omnivore POV to some animal rights groups touting this (if not all) – saying that one wishes for the deaths of those who are omnivores and eat meat is at the level of Hitler in the days of the Holocaust because like him in regard to the Jewish faith (well, more accurately, non-Aryans) – the ARs are singling out an individual group for their beliefs and wishing death toward those who disagree with them. They are also doing similar things that were occuring then: dousing those wearing fur coats with paint or flour, blowing up buildings that are full of lab testing, etc.
I’m sorry Babble, again even if you wish to go by the “spirit” of the issue – some in the Animal rights movement, though I will argue in general – do not correlate, or wish to do so – that their Holocaust comparison can in fact be turned on its ear to reflect their very views. It is – and will remain, a moot issue.
…and, again, I think it’s inappropriate to assume that PETA speaks for the animal rights movement. There is no national organization that speaks for the animal *rights* movement, which at this point exists solely at the grassroots.
That PETA calls *itself* an animal rights organization is really neither here nor there. Their approach is regulation of animal exploitation; ARA’s (at least in the sense of the emerging abolitionist movement) reject this approach as fundamentally flawed from an AR perspective.
Babble, you are assuming that I am saying PETA is your spokes person. They are the most recognizeable true; however, I have seen this with other groups and people such as yourself.
And as far as PETA – if you read their blog and Web site, they are NOT just the regulation of animal exploitation, they are also trying to get people to go vegan and stop animal testing. Both of these latter veiws are similar views to you and other animal rights people I read here. Just because you wish to not be labeled as someone who supports PETA, please do not assume that you have different beliefs from said organization. They are actually similar in the generalities – the execution is different.
Well, damn, Babble — I really thought that this site existed to entertain me. But then I read Melvin’s last comment and I realize… they’re EDUCATING us.
Let me quote: “Just because you wish to not be labeled as someone who supports PETA, please do not assume that you have different beliefs from said organization. They are actually similar in the generalities – the execution is different. ”
Yes, Babble DON’T ASSUME that you have different beliefs. Let Melvin tell you what you believe!
Are they for real?
Oh, of course it’s absolutely ridiculous to expect the peta-sucks crowd to actually listen to whatever any of us are saying. I’ve been quite clear on this from the beginning: they aren’t going to.
Really Canofworms, I was thinking the same thing about you – are they for real? Go fish honey before those worms rot.
(Oh, this stuff about you going fishing too will not go away until you call me by my proper name of Mel.)
Frankly, the reason I even made the comment was that Babble decided to say – and I quote: “and, again, I think it’s inappropriate to assume that PETA speaks for the animal rights movement. There is no national organization that speaks for the animal *rights* movement, which at this point exists solely at the grassroots.”
I didn’t – in my entire post that he was referring to – say one damn thing about PETA. Clearly showed to me that he was trying to manipulate the argument to show how he was a different AR activist when in fact – as I posted – there are parallels to the two that are the same. Only the label is missing.
**************
Babble – I have shown that you have missed the point – and now TWICE – I made that you and other ARs cannot use the Holocaust reference accurately because it can be turned right back against AR people.
You have tried at least twice to manipulate my argument into an invalid one, but you cannot do it. I have tried to listen to your side – but when it’s manipulating an argument on your part that can be proven by history to try and win a point, it’s hard to.
No, I am not perfect anymore than you are, but I grow weary of people who refuse to at least see the other side. I do try to, but I cannot see it in you or others.
In reference to the argument of: ”
I think if you divorce it from quibbling over the specifics, and instead go to what I think was the spirit of the comparison – man’s treatment of animals, despite what we may tell ourselves, is most often horrible – it’s not a flawed comparison at all.”
Babble, here’s my challenge –
Attempt to refute my argument that omnivores cannot use the Holocaust against the AR activists and call THEM Nazis when:
1. PETA and other animal rights organizations have on record cases where they have illegally euthanized animals – healthy and not – simply because they were unwanted by their families.
You cannot use the argument that it was the more humane thing to do – not when said groups promised to find good homes for these groups. The Nazis said that the Jews were going to go to work camps and work hard and strong… but many were euthanized or died working.
2. Many animal rights activists (present company excluded), call those who eat meat “corpse-munchers, parasites” and a few other things and wishing for their deaths, such as the comments above in this blog.
This is the SAME philosophy that the Nazis had toward the Jews and other Non-Aryans. A clear example too is Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” where he blamed Jews for all the diseases and suffering that Germany was going through after WWI.
**************
You also cannot use your previous comment about using it in the spirit of things, because again – that can be turned around and those who eat meat can say the same about calling AR activists this in the “spirit” of things.
Please note that I will call out any straying from the questions above or manipulating my comments to change the subject. If I have to, I will point out the irrelevance to the main issue and why.
This is my challenge – I look forward to the response and ensuing debate.
You look forward to telling me what I *really* think instead of listening? Go back to peta-sucks and tell them I refused to “debate” you, kiddo. Waste of time. You’re not *interested* in what I think. You’re doing a version of what Connor is doing with the entire blog: conflating any and all ARA’s with Warwak and Marino.
Despite your claim, you’re not “trying to see the other side” in this at all.
You’re just telling me – over and over agin – that underneath it all, I’m really just PETA.
What’s the point of trying to talk to you? You’re not listening now, and you’re never going to. Your “challenges” are silly.
Babble, I have NEVER said that you specifically are a member of PETA, though you do have – like any animal rights/welfare people have some of the beliefs. Hell, even I have some of PETA’s beliefs – and I’m obviously not a member. I do not support the killing of animals for fur, scent glands or other items. It’s a waste of the animal. Nor do I support the abuse – and I mean true abuse, not slaughter – of animals.
I want to see why you feel that it’s in the spirit of ARAs – regardless of affiliation to PETA or not, why the Holocaust argument is valid when YOU use it but not those who oppose it.
It is my sincere belief that you choose to not argue the point because you realize that – in fact – this one can be pointed toward anyone who supports AR.
You are also extraordinarily narrow-minded about the opposite side of the debate in general if you put me in line with Connor. Even I do not agree with him all the time. Nor do I manipulate him or even you to say that “yes, I’m right.” I don’t care – I just want to see why there’s such a difference in opinion when something such as the Holocaust argument is turned around to go against the ARAs (any and all) who like to use it in the “spirit” of the word.
The only waste of time is someone who will refuse to give an answer to a debate but respond to a question with the “nyah” attitude.
I will listen if you’re willing to give a response to the actual question above I issued.
And, if fairness to you, I will not tell you how YOU think but give MY opinion – which can either agree or disagree with you. This is another thing I’m noticing with ALL ARs here (again, regardless of affiliation) – you have at least attempted to say that I am something when I’m not twice – one case inserting the phrase PETA into an argument I gave when I clearly said AR in general (PETA wasn’t even in the comment), to say what you think I said. This argument above was number two.
In my honest and humble opinion only, I feel that you refuse to debate the issue, not because I won’t bother to listen, but in fact because you realize there actually is a point here that is difficult to rebut. The Holocaust comparison given by ARs (regardless of affiliation) is really a very moot point because it can be used on both sides. I’ve clearly given examples on BOTH viewpoints of the scenario, and no one has refuted it.
If you wish to not give your point fine, but this is what I see when again, a direct question is deferred to something else.
BTW:
“What’s the point of trying to talk to you? You’re not listening now, and you’re never going to. Your “challenges” are silly.”
****************
My “challenge” is a legitimate debate starter Babble. It’s not silly: as neither have your points. I do actually read them even if I disagree with them.
This is one thing that I’ve noticed any and all ARAs lately can’t seem to do effectively – if they throw out a case with proof and someone counters it, then they get mad. Someone issues one to them, they ignore it.
One reason people have trouble with the opposite viewpoint (both sides) is that when they’re challenged, a lot of them turn paper tiger and run instead of standing up for themselves. I might get ridiculed by Camille here on the board, but at least I do stand up for what I feel when I am challenged by you or her. She backs away when challenged, as does Warwak and right now apparently you.
The point is this:
a) my position on animal rights isn’t up for debate. I don’t care that you or anyone else disagrees with it.
b) you’re using claims of “debate” to piss and moan about PETA. I don’t care what you think about PETA.
c) you’re using claims of “debate” to piss and moan about Warwak and Marino’s claims of “holocaust.” I don’t care that you disagree with Warwak or Marino (or me, for that matter) on anything at all.
I’m not going to debate it. Moan and groan here, if you wish. Go back to peta-sucks, so they can inflate your ego for having “bested” me, if you wish. It doesn’t amount to anything.
If you want to *actually* understand what I’m saying, I’m willing to discuss it, but I’m not going to waste my time debating you, particularly when you claim you have absolute right to define the terms of any given debate.
You do not.
If you were actually interested in understanding me, you wouldn’t do this.
You *are not* so interested, obviously.
*The point is this:
a) my position on animal rights isn’t up for debate. I don’t care that you or anyone else disagrees with it.*
The debate I am issuing is on the comment of using the term Holocaust in issues such as this. That has NOTHING to do with the actual events of animal rights, just the verbiage used by AR members toward non-vegans.
And, if the issue is not for debate, why make your point to begin with? People are always going to argue with it – at least that’s what I get from the other side as well as the side I stand on.
*b) you’re using claims of “debate” to piss and moan about PETA. I don’t care what you think about PETA.*
Good, neither do I – PETA obviously doesn’t give a shit about this board, so my comments aren’t dripping with PETA phrases – they say ARAs – Animal rights activists. That includes you as well as the others.
My point again is all ARAs I’ve read – including you – have said that the term Holocaust is used in the spirit of things. However, if you look at the broader scale, you can turn said usage toward ALL animal rights activists who want people to go vegan and hate those who don’t.
*c) you’re using claims of “debate” to piss and moan about Warwak and Marino’s claims of “holocaust.” I don’t care that you disagree with Warwak or Marino (or me, for that matter) on anything at all.*
No sir – you said, direct quotes:
*What folks don’t often realize in their rush to call the holocaust comparison flawed is that this particular comparison predates the modern animal rights movement by many years. It was first made by noted Jewish author Isaac Bashevis Singer (who escaped Poland during the rise of the Nazis, and was contemporary with the historical Holocaust), in “Letter Writer”. Available currently in Collected Stories, Vol. 1. See: …*
(after my response – all caps mine)
*I think if you divorce it from quibbling over the specifics, and instead go to what I THINK WAS THE SPIRIT OF THE COMPARISON – man’s treatment of animals, despite what we may tell ourselves, is most often horrible – it’s not a flawed comparison at all.*
When you get challenged – as well as the others, you turn away from it. Why are you scared to give an opinion about why my assessment of this comparison can be turned around to all ARAs? (again, that is animal rights activists, not specifically PETA).
*I’m not going to debate it. Moan and groan here, if you wish. Go back to peta-sucks, so they can inflate your ego for having “bested” me, if you wish. It doesn’t amount to anything.*
I am not going to say that I bested you – though you do harm your case when you fail to debate your stance. You are proving to me that ARAs are paper tigers who – when challenged – run away. Do you not understand that is a reason why your cause gets harmed?
*If you want to *actually* understand what I’m saying, I’m willing to discuss it, but I’m not going to waste my time debating you, particularly when you claim you have absolute right to define the terms of any given debate.
You do not.*
Bullshit – with the exception of “Please note that I will call out any straying from the questions above or manipulating my comments to change the subject. If I have to, I will point out the irrelevance to the main issue and why.”
The reason I said that was that I have seen countless times you insert the word PETA into an argument I have made when I am talking about animal rights activists in general – which include you, or change something I say into another subject. You have also stated that I must be anti-animal rights when I have shown that even I have some, just not in the case of the slaughter of animals for food (unless done in illegal forms – which I too stand with you guys to get that situation remedied.)
That said, let me put it up to another point – if you too were allowed to do the same to me (which I will accept) would you be willing to debate?
Bear in mind, I do have the right to give my difference of an opinion as you do, but as I have shown you – there are points I do agree on.
*If you were actually interested in understanding me, you wouldn’t do this.
You *are not* so interested, obviously.*
Actually – all I am interested in your point of view as to why the Holocaust can only be seen as a comparison for the suffering of animals, yet the comparison is ignored as far as those who are animal rights activists being considered Nazis for their bigoted POV toward anti-vegans. Trust me – were I to call you or anyone else here the names that anti-vegans get called on other boards, I’d be lynched in the verbiage sense.
That has nothing to do with you personally, but I do not understand why it’s right for one person to say it but not another.
You my dear sir are obviously not interested in the debate because it’s a hard question. This is not the first time I’ve had ARAs in general dodge hard questions, I doubt the last, but it does show a cowardice that does harm your case.
With this, I will leave it be. You have shown to me that you are a feckless paper tiger.
A silent Holocaust is going on in America–right here and now–right in front of our noses three times a day. Can’t you smell it? Look off in the distance. Factory Farming is hazing our World. Well, maybe, you cannot see it. I see it in the far off distance, a wavy haze melting the ground.
Many people are deeply upset because animal rights activists use the term “holocaust” when referring to the torment and killing of millions of animals. And they seem to think the word has been irreverently taken from those who use it to describe the horror of what happened to millions of persons whose bodies were immolated in the ovens of Nazi concentration camps.
But they are wrong. The word “holocaust” is taken from the biblical term used to describe the total immolation of sacrificed animals–they were known as whole-burnt offerings. The Greek word for such sacrifices is “holókaustos” and was used in the translation of the Hebrew scrolls as far back as 250 B.C. That translation (called the Septuagint) was completed for the Jews who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, and could no longer read or speak Hebrew.
So referring to the death of millions of animals as a holocaust was used more than 2,000 years before people applied it to the torture and slaughter of human beings. It is not animal rights people who have linked the death of animals and the death of people. It is those who were appalled at the human carnage of Nazi Germany, who likened it to a holocaust–to the death of millions of animals.
Fail
You haven’t answered my question properly. Nor have you countered why non-vegans cannot justifiably see you in the same vein as you see them. You are in the same vein as those you deplore and deride and call such because you show bigotist remarks toward those who eat meat.
**************
I have never read the literal word “holocaust” in the Bible (and it would be the lowercase), so please give me the actual Bible verse that uses the word holocaust.
In return, I can give you a book of the Bible that lists what is allowed to eat – which includes animals. It is several chapters, and yes, it does mention animals and insects that are clean versus those that are unclean.
For your edification – and a point that will show how your argument is right and wrong (but for reasons that will surprise you) the definition of holocaust (Mirriam Webster Dictionary):
1. a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire
3 aoften capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the b: a mass slaughter of people ; especially : genocide
Additionally, holocaust means “destruction by fire,” and giving animals to sacrifice was in fact burning sacrifices. That has nothing to do with the slaugher of animals for food – save a couple of rare exceptions, the priests could not even eat the meat.
You are trying to use the second and third definitions of this word; however, the biblical definition is the first one – sacrifice by fire, also described in the book of the Bible I know touts this.
Additionally, definition two counters your point – a THOROUGH DESTRUCTION. We have not seen this happen in the farming and slaughtering of animals for food. If that were true, we’d have no cattle, pigs, sheep, chickens and other animals used for food.
We have however, nearly had a holocaust of bison due to the massive slaughter of them for their hides back in the 1800s. Fortunately, that was countered due to the raising and protecting of said bison by farmers. You also want to know what happened? – not only did the bison get off the endangered species list – they actually OVER POPULATED and a balance had to be created.
Ergo, the comment passes AND fails: The word holocaust passes due to the reference to sacrifices to God.
However, the term FAILS in your correlation to the similarities of the Holocaust of Europe. There has not been a thorough destruction of animals in this case.
******************
You also imply that I do not believe in the Holocaust. I do – but the Jewish and Non-Aryan one during Hitler’s regime.
And – I would still bear the point that you and other ARAs can and still can be seen as Nazis in your own right – you have bigoted opinions about those who do not walk lockstep with your beliefs of animal rights.
There are verifiable facts that PETA was caught euthanizing animals illegally just because they were unwanted. They were healthy, wanting to be loved, but these PETA members killed them. This is EXACTLY the same as the Nazis gassing Jews in the Holocaust – many were told they were going to the showers to get cleaned up for the next part of their trip, and were gassed. Others were told they were going to be free – but were humiliated and defenseless.
Ergo, I will maintain that the term Holocaust is in fact useable on both sides of the argument. It is a draw.
The point is that we can go around and around and around in utterly useless debate and *nothing* will change. I don’t disagree with the Singer quote as given. You may or may not; it doesn’t matter either way.
It won’t stop ARAs from using the holocaust comparison; it won’t stop folks on your side from comparing us to Nazis. Debating it *is completely pointless* because *nothing* will come of it.
You’re welcome to spin this however you wish: I don’t care. Go tell yourself I “can’t” debate, if it entertains you to do so. It doesn’t matter, because when you boil everything else away, it’s just about you entertaining yourself.
Why should I care?
I’ve responded to you repeatedly inserting PETA into this discussion *because you’ve repeatedly inserted PETA into this discussion.* If you’ll stop doing it, I won’t have a reason to keep pointing out THAT you’re doing it. You can piss and moan about PETA to your heart’s content. I don’t care what you feel about PETA, one way or the other.
Babble:
1. I don’t insert PETA into the comments, I use ARA. You my dear sir correlate ARA with PETA apparently, and while it does include said group, that is not the same.
If you wish for me to just say Babble, please tell me so you know I’m clearly referring to you and other animal rights activists.
2. Not debating makes me question why you are on a board like this too. When you post a comment, you set yourself up for this debate. You may not like my challenging you for it and think I think I’m better than you – but I’m calling a spade a spade. If you don’t wish to have your opinions challenged, don’t go on a board like this.
…this does rather call into question your claim that you’re trying to “understand” the other side. No, you’re not. You’re just here to disagree with us, as often as possible.
As I said, you can spin this however you wish. When you boil everything else away, useless debate is *still* useless debate. If I thought for even a second some good would come of it, I might give it a go, but be honest here:
Are you any more likely to change your mind on this point than I am? I doubt it.
What, then, is the value of debating it? To suck up to peta-sucks because you issued a challenge?
Again, why should I care?
And you don’t disagree with us? I’d say that’s a stalemate there pal.
Plus, you argue your side, you let others who may be on the fence read and decide for themselves. A majority of the ARAs as well as the omnivore lifestyle, fail to let others read and decide for themselves.
The one thing I”ll give the other two is that they at least show clearly their virtues and that they will constantly fail to give a rationalized debate. I do see that chance with you and I’d actually like to have a more detailed opinion as to why the other side does not see the correlation of the Holocaust on the part of ARAs – the bigotist comments such as the two stronger opinionated people here.
I don’t give a fuck about peta-sucks here – this ain’t their board obviously – why are you so worried about it? Seriously – is that why you’re refraining from commenting? – because you think I’ll gloat that I managed to get an ARA to debate this issue? Look, people disagree with me there, and have had to correct me on information as well. I’m not perfect, nor are you.
A debate is useless when only one side is told. Apparently you only want my side of it told, so I’ll just call it at that and leave it be.
I responded specifically to this:
“This too can be seen in cases such as PETA making sure people don’t remember they were cited for illegally euthanizing animals because it was the more “humane” thing to do.”
You specifically referenced PETA, not “ARA’s in general” and you’ve done so three or four times in this particular comment thread.
Babble – point blank:
1. That is one case.
2. This was used as an EXAMPLE in an argument I gave. The words “such as” are used for example – that doesn’t mean every flipping ARA does it.
If you wish to take umbrage in that summary that’s your perrogative: That was not directed toward you personally in any way. If I have a case toward you personally, I will address you personally – as you have seen in the case ironically of my challenging you to a debate.
All this complaint post you gave does is show you’re more sensitive to the negativities of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals than people knew.
I do not have to use “for example” after every example I give anymore than you have to debate me. I hope that you’ll be able to discern between my examples in the future.
The point, as I’ve said SEVERAL times, is that:
- Your side isn’t ever going to stop calling us Nazis.
- My side isn’t ever going to view animal agriculture differently. Some will see that as a holocaust, *and will say so*. This is not going to change.
Given that, *why* should I debate it? For your own personal shits and giggles? Why should I care?
That you repeatedly conflate what I’m saying with whatever you dislike about PETA is the issue. You’re not really trying to understand *me*; you’re just *using* me to complain about PETA.
1. And your side won’t – so fine, it’s a draw.
2. It’s sad though that people aren’t educated enough to really understand the true meaning of the definition of the word holocaust, so they’ll use it. It’s becoming as twisted as the word racist – correct if some use it, incorrect if others use it.
And – *sigh* you are once again manipulating examples I use to be put toward you. So what? – you put me in the same category as someone who is automatically anti-animal rights because I disagree with you on vegetarianism. That’s no more true about me than what you’re saying above.
If you’re willing to discuss it privately, I’ll do that. I’m not willing to play a games that will just end up going nowhere.
Why are you willing to discuss this in private than you are out in the open? That’s a sudden change, and frankly shows three things:
1. You’re scared of debate on the boards. Why?
2. You’re contradictory – at least stay firm on your stance.
3. You’re the one who is “not willing to play a games that will just end up going nowhere.”
Additionally, I refuse to give my e-mail out to people whom I do not trust, and given this sudden 180 on the issue, I do not trust what you will say or do if you have access to my e-mail. Nor will I discuss something in private messaging because again – it’s not regulated by a mod and one can say whatever they want without fear of retribution.
You may not like my stance here, but after someone on another board attacked me for no reason in PM – they were a member of the board – I refuse to allow it.
It’s not a “sudden change” of anything. It’s a recognition that you’re likely to spew this all over peta-sucks. Given this latest response, it looks like that suspicion was entirely correct.
I’m willing to discuss it privately – discuss, not debate – on the off chance that your interest in understanding might be genuine. I’ll go make a gmail account and post the name and password here if you wish. You’ll never even need to TOUCH the account again, and you won’t have to go to the trouble of setting it up.
If you’re honestly interested in trying to *understand*, and not just mock, I’m willing to discuss it.
Are you willing to do it without your audience? I honestly don’t think so, which is the rub, isn’t it?
No – anyone with a shred of common sense knows damn well that e-mails can be traced, you can trace my e-mail and then spam other accounts or harrass me otherwise. I’m not stupid.
And – I know you hate this correlation, but it’s a perfect example – PETA does this exact same thing when they realize that the dissenter has a point and they’re scared that it’ll sway people from their stance on a subject.
Frankly – you are using this as an excuse to get out of debating an issue where others can look at the scenario and judge for themselves. You are trying to use this as a way to turn the tables on me and say that I’m feckless (and I’m not). Why else would you pull a stunt – and yes stunt – like this two days after I posted the question to begin with?
I’m the one who’s up for a discussion to let others judge for themselves – you are not.
You’re doing exactly what I expected you’d do. Again, so much for your claims that you’re here to try and understand anything.
No, you’re not. Can you honestly not see why Camille refuses to engage you seriously? You’re as dishonest and wearisome as the rest of the peta-sucks crowd, quite honestly.
You haven’t answered my question as to why you’re scared to post on this board your opinion.
Babble – you know damn well that no one in their right mind would give out an e-mail to someone with such an extreme point of view as you and others here, knowing they will not give it to you because they do not want to be harassed and intimidated with no recourse. They can be traced, and simply put, this is a tactic you’re using to get out of the issue.
I do seriously care about your reasoning, but frankly, you are the chicken – I do not and will not give a fuck about Peta-sucks or other boards here. You can’t answer a direct question on a board, you can’t stand debate, and you are the one who is fucking dishonest.
So – this will drop – you have shown to me that you’re the paper tiger, and frankly – you have shown to myself and others that you do not care enough about your stance to take the issue out in public.
Well that and you’ve misinterpreted my comments each and every time you’ve posted.
Frankly, you’re just scared to debate-discuss hardball questions on the boards. Has nothing to do with “If you’re honestly interested in trying to *understand*, and not just mock, I’m willing to discuss it. Are you willing to do it without your audience? I honestly don’t think so, which is the rub, isn’t it?”
In fact – given that you have proven time and time and time again you will manipulate my comments into what you want me to imply – I’m not going to bother with this anymore. Why should I care what YOU think when you’re too coward to discuss something on a board openly to where others can read and decide for themselves?
The point was that I’d make a gmail account *you* could log into with any bog standard web browser. I can’t “trace” that back to anything other that gmail. But you knew that, didn’t you? Why bother discussing anything at all with me, if it isn’t for the public entertainment of peta-sucks?
There are things such as hackers sir – anything can be traced. Have you not read the news to where there are reports that the government can trace where you’ve been?
Seriously – don’t pull that tripe on me.
As I have said CLEARLY many times – I want this discussion in public where those on the fence can read BOTH sides of the argument and make their own choice. It’s not for the entertainment of peta-sucks, ARAs or even mine. If it were, you’d think there’d be egging on this debate between the two of us from others.
Is that not clear enough?
…right, why bother discussing anything if you can’t mock it over on peta-sucks? All of your blather about trying to “understand” is so much of the usual peta-sucks dishonesty. It’s not surprising in the least. Disappointing, but not at all surprising.
I’ve laid my cards on the table; I’m not going to debate it, privately, publicly, whatever. Until this latest from you, I *was* willing to discuss it privately, on the hope that your interest in understanding was more than just a game you were playing.
But it *is* just a game you’re playing, after all.
You could easily repost private emails from me here or elsewhere: but that would easily prove that you’re just playing games, and you know it.
So you’re not going to take up the offer, ever.
Because your intention isn’t understanding, at all. It never, ever was, and it never, ever will be.
Babble – frankly your post is simply bullshit here. I do not nor would I repost an e-mail here on boards. If I did, I would’ve accepted your challenge.
But no – I respect the privacy of the e-mailer unless they ask it to be posted.
You don’t know me anymore than I know you.
Frankly, If I’m playing a game, you’re playing a game – why else would you pull this shit and do the gmail thing TWO DAYS after I issued the question to begin with?
Seriously – you’re showing to me your naivete.
My intention was to understand your point of view as to why the Holocaust term is OK to use in the spirit of things.
What did I get? – the realization that ARAs can spew the shit, but can’t handle a rational discussion on boards so people can read and decide for themselves.
So, you DID ironically answer my question in default (yours is right and mine is wrong so “nyah”), and frankly, I’m stopping this. It ain’t worth it when I know you intentionally misconstrue my comments to fit your views.
In response to: “…right, why bother discussing anything if you can’t mock it over on peta-sucks? All of your blather about trying to “understand” is so much of the usual peta-sucks dishonesty. It’s not surprising in the least. Disappointing, but not at all surprising.”
I have never discussed anything here – such as this debate issue – over on PETA-sucks. The only ones I’ve discussed have been issues from PETA and an ARA board that is not your Babble forum.
Dishonest? – Bullshit.
And – I do understand that you are manipulating what I say into what you think I mean to try and look holier than thou.
If you were honestly interested in trying to understand me, discussing it with me privately would be an option. You’re not interested in understanding – you’re interested in making sure your audience on peta-sucks has an opportunity to mock it.
You’re as dishonest as the rest of the peta-sucks crowd. It’s disappointing, but not surprising in the least.
I could easily repost private emails elsewhere, but I’d be opening myself up to the same charges of hypocrisy coming from your side. Assuming we both have an interest in not being viewed as hypocrites by the other, that would have kept us both more-or-less honest.
But you have no intention of keeping anything private, do you?
You have every intention of making sure this is posted publicly so that peta-sucks can do whatever they’re going to do (and inflate your ego) in response, don’t you?
I’m not manipulating you. I’m calling out your actions and making it clear that your repeatedly stated *intentions* are dishonest.
As they clearly are, at this point.
You’re never going to discuss this in a way that prevents you from reusing it elsewhere, and mocking it. What would be the fun in that?
*If you were honestly interested in trying to understand me, discussing it with me privately would be an option. You’re not interested in understanding – you’re interested in making sure your audience on peta-sucks has an opportunity to mock it.*
Speculation – incorrectly – on your part. Also you apparently have issues with people mocking you on Peta-Sucks.
If that’s your issue, that’s fine – but I have nothing to do with what goes on with others any more you do the two stronger voiced people here.
*You’re as dishonest as the rest of the peta-sucks crowd. It’s disappointing, but not surprising in the least.*
What’s disappointing is that you assume way too much about me that is false.
*I could easily repost private emails elsewhere, but I’d be opening myself up to the same charges of hypocrisy coming from your side. Assuming we both have an interest in not being viewed as hypocrites by the other, that would have kept us both more-or-less honest.*
You could, but as I said I wouldn’t do that. Are you implying that you would do that to me.
Frankly, this is a stalemate that doesn’t make sense.
*But you have no intention of keeping anything private, do you?*
Bullshit speculation on your part – false accusations and one reason that I refuse to do this privately.
*You have every intention of making sure this is posted publicly so that peta-sucks can do whatever they’re going to do (and inflate your ego) in response, don’t you?*
Again, bullshit on your part. I think you just don’t want people to have disagreements about your arguments. At least I take as good as I give.
*I’m not manipulating you. I’m calling out your actions and making it clear that your repeatedly stated *intentions* are dishonest.
As they clearly are, at this point.
*
Hmm… let’s see: You say adamantly for two days you will not debate here, then suddenly you change your mind and will “discuss” this in private. What’s YOUR intention, except to attempt (feebly) to try and make me look like the fool and you’re the oppressed vegan?
Seriously – tell me what is YOUR true intention? I think it’s YOUR intentions that are dishonest: I’ve given mine (and I’m someone who means what I say – and truly say, not have inserted in my mouth by ARs such as you), but a 180 in debate by you shows that your intentions are more unethical.
*You’re never going to discuss this in a way that prevents you from reusing it elsewhere, and mocking it. What would be the fun in that?*
I have given my word that I would not reuse comments made between us here – I do not reneg on my word.
In fact, based on your comments, I would dare say that you are saying this because YOU would use it and mock it.
I will maintain that you are doing this to try and discredit me. You have shown that you will create comments and issues about me, ignore my straightforward comments, and are chicken.
You are afraid that OTHERS will post and counter your demands. I have noticed reading other boards that you’ve posted at you stop posted because many had questions similar to mine.
I personally think you’re thin skinned and can’t take what you dish out on boards. That’s why you want to debate this in private, where you can say anything you want to without fear of being banned.
You’re a paper tiger – scared to debate a direct question in public for anyone to read. I’m not – and will not stoop to your levels. I don’t give a damn what PETA-sucks would say: they’re not my masters anymore than PETA, Camille and Warwak would be your masters (and so you don’t use it – I know damn well you ain’t a member of PETA).
Seriously – I have said that I will not debate this issue anymore. You’ve made your point to me, and the more you try to ridicule me, the more it reflects how you want to be seen as the “poor widdle me” complex that I see too many ARAs do.
I thought – utterly incorrectly, as it turns out – that your intentions were to try and understand where we’re coming from. I no longer find that to be the case. It’s just that simple. If you were honestly interested in *understanding* me, discussing this apart from the peanut gallery wouldn’t be an issue.
That it *is* an issue is telling. Not at all surprising, but telling, just the same. That you choose to spin this as something other than what it so obviously is is *itself* telling.
You, like every other vocal anti-AR opponent, have an interest in *appearing* to be “understanding” on these issues, or “respecting” AR opinions, when the reality is that you’re doing no such thing.
I can only say that until this little bit of telling petulance, I *was* willing to *discuss* the issue with you – just not in front of your peta-sucks audience. I was willing to trust that you’d keep a private email conversation private. Again, not in the interest of endless rounds of useless *debate*, but on the off chance that your stated intention – to try and understand – was genuine.
It’s blatantly obvious that that stated intention *is not genuine*, and never was.
I’m now thoroughly convinced you’re going to keep pushing for me to debate you publicly for precisely the reasons I’ve stated: what good is a private conversation if peta-sucks can’t mock it?
What does that really do for you, if we take this to a private email conversation?
You can’t use it elsewhere, if we do, unless you confirm every suspicion I already have *about* you, and you know it, which is why you’re reacting the way you are here.
Keep dancing around this all you wish; it’s not going to change my assessment of your intentions one bit.
*I thought – utterly incorrectly, as it turns out – that your intentions were to try and understand where we’re coming from. I no longer find that to be the case. It’s just that simple. If you were honestly interested in *understanding* me, discussing this apart from the peanut gallery wouldn’t be an issue.*
This is the only place I can do it without fear that you’ll trace my IP or e-mail and pester me. Get real here.
*That it *is* an issue is telling. Not at all surprising, but telling, just the same. That you choose to spin this as something other than what it so obviously is is *itself* telling.*
You my dear sir have been spinning my comments from day one. I haven’t changed my opinion yet in regard to that, because you haven’t given me reason to.
*You, like every other vocal anti-AR opponent, have an interest in *appearing* to be “understanding” on these issues, or “respecting” AR opinions, when the reality is that you’re doing no such thing.*
Respect does not mean that I have to agree with you. And, I can list many times you fail to bother “understanding me.” Bullshit on your part, or more honestly “Poor widdle me” complex.”
*I can only say that until this little bit of telling petulance, I *was* willing to *discuss* the issue with you – just not in front of your peta-sucks audience. I was willing to trust that you’d keep a private email conversation private. Again, not in the interest of endless rounds of useless *debate*, but on the off chance that your stated intention – to try and understand – was genuine.*
You *WERE* willing to do it two days later, and spin it to try and make me look feckless. You weren’t going to do it until you could spin it into your favor.
Please – give me a break really. You’re intent was less genuine than you claim mine was.
Oh and finally – again: BULLSHIT on your assumption (FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND) that I would NEVER post a PM out in PUBLIC. NEVER!
(You fail to understand me – so worst – pot/kettle).
*It’s blatantly obvious that that stated intention *is not genuine*, and never was.*
Again – Bullshit on your part. Seriously – this is the “Poor widdle me” complex you have: When you realize you’re cornered, you assume that someone’s intent isn’t genuine.
Mine was genuine, always was, always would be and will be.
*I’m now thoroughly convinced you’re going to keep pushing for me to debate you publicly for precisely the reasons I’ve stated: what good is a private conversation if peta-sucks can’t mock it?*
I will not push for this debate no. You’ve already answered my question by not giving one – ergo you’re feckless.
But, you had better expect me to call you out on bull with proven facts. This board – unlike yours – allows for debate. If you can’t take it, don’t post here. This is where you’ve failed in your debate from the get go.
*What does that really do for you, if we take this to a private email conversation?*
You’re the one who has asked for the e-mail conversation – not me – CLEAR CASE OF SPIN! on your part!
*You can’t use it elsewhere, if we do, unless you confirm every suspicion I already have *about* you, and you know it, which is why you’re reacting the way you are here.*
You failed to read the part obviously that I would NOT post up a private conversation. That would lead to more troubles than either of us would want to.
Again – TOTAL SPIN and LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ON YOUR PART.
*Keep dancing around this all you wish; it’s not going to change my assessment of your intentions one bit.*
You do so Babblefish – because you’re doing this.
THE SPIN ON THIS CASE THAT YOU’RE DOING STOPS HERE!
I don’t have to *try* to make you look feckless, in this, Mel. You’re doing a fine job of that all on your own. Just be honest; that’s all I’m really saying. But, you won’t.
I am being honest, but you will ignore it like you did this debate in the first place. (and frankly, you need to admit you’re feckless too – I’ve given logical reasons why I won’t debate in e-mail as you did for not debating in public. Standstill – draw – detente).
End of discussion, please don’t respond further, or you’ll be seen as a troll.
Playing the troll card? So soon? Heh. Amusing. I never once asked you to *debate* me in email. There’s still a relevant difference between having a reasonable *discussion*, which you refuse to do, and engaging in useless *debate*, which I refuse to do. You’re still running through the spin cycle, kiddo.
Like I said – there’s no value for you in doing ANY of this away from the peta-sucks audience, not that you’ll EVER admit it to me. But we both know it’s true.
(I assumed, for the record, that your intent wasn’t genuine from the beginning, Mel. I hoped I was wrong. I wasn’t. I rarely am, with anti-AR folks.)
Well babble, you were wrong here, and instead of attempting to debate you flamed out and left.
I’m seeing a pattern here. Warwak tries to lure young children into secret meetings without their parents knowledge. Camille talks about chatting with young kids in her underwear. Babble tries to get a young lady to have private conversations with him. Area ALL ara’s perverts?
Joe sounds like Sarah playing the ped card when all options are lost and he is just a fucking corpse-muncher ruining my world. Fuck you Joey
Send us your real name and address ( I always use mine and am not hiding from anyone) and we’ll make sure we can respond in kind you mother-fucking corpse-muncher
Warwak, seriously dude – that’s you too. Call animal deaths in combines “collateral damage” They’re still murdered so you can eat.
Grow up.
(Oh, BTW, asking for personal information can get you removed from boards – so watch it).
I don’t give my personal information out to psycho freaks like you.
And you can’t deny that you DID tell young children to meet you off school property and “not tell their parents”. For that alone, you should be in prison.
Oh and normally I don’t use profanity, but Fuck You right back at you, Davey.
Have a nice day!
I knew it – just another loser corpse-muncher hiding behind the internet
Takes one to know one Warwak – you say half the stuff you do on the Internet, you’d be eating meals through a straw for some time.
(I personally don’t condone violence on anyone for their opinions – but am speaking what some would do).
It’s becuse he’s not a dumbass like you who will make him self look like a pedo
I have one question for all of you imbeciles.
If warwak’s a pedophile…
when he was in the national spotlight and when every flesh-eating secretion-slurping fucker was trying to eviscerate him…
why was there never even one little word (let alone any charge or allegation) uttered in court?
BECAUSE HE’S NOT A PEDOPHILE! PLEASE! IF HE DID ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE EVER, THEY WOULD HAVE FILETED HIM!
you people want to talk about slander and defamation… you’re nothing but whiney gossipy idiots.
Camille – have you not even cottoned on that the comments you and Warwak make about people, including what you did to Sarah in your blog, are EXACTLY what you’re decrying people for doing to Warwak?
(Pause)
No, of course not – because he has the same opinion as you.
We’ll never know WHY exactly he was fired from teaching – thanks to closed record on the subject people can’t file an FOI on, so he can say whatever he wants to – including playing the victim – to his firing.
I will say that if he was fired from teaching though, it had to be a serious reason. Too few teachers nowadays to just willy-nilly fire them.
Reading comprehension bitch. Where did I say pedophile?
I stated a FACT about davey boy. I stated a FACT about your skanky fucking ass. I stated a FACT about babble.
Then I wondered aloud if all ara’a are PERVERTS, not pedophiles.
Learn to fucking read bitch.
uh huh..
explain to me how all this anger is going to make this a better, more compassionate world. please, i’ll be waiting.
you are just grandstanding the issues, seeking only to slander and malign aras.
no you only need to look into the mirror to see a *prime* example of a clueless pervert. an apologist lockstep conformist drone, one clearly incapable of independent thought. like the man said, i see you’re not the sharpest knife in the box. geeze.
Compassion? Wakjob and camel face are WISHING for the death of their fellow human beings because they disagree with their agenda?
Yeah, lots of compassion there.
your complaints seems bogus, childlike, almost forced… like you don’t really have anything to say. no doubt. oh sure you can give warwak and camille a big hearty fail on the golden rule, and the language they seem destined to use, you might even go so far as to label them as mouthy and obscene, at least from your shallow, deformed psychopathic macho perspective, that is.
and there is a difference, they speak the truth.
but you’re not looking at the big picture. no of course not. after all that’s impossible since you have gone to great lengths to align yourself with the typical close-minded cruel speciesist worldview. you continue to live in your bubbleboy world of half-truths, missed opportunities, disinformation, doublespeak and relentless mass media propaganda. it’s no wonder you fail to recognize even simple truths, you never had the chance.
this way you can pretend your happiness and your dull, monotonous and foolish materialism.
there are other questions to be examined.. it is unthinkable that you can be so far removed from compassion that you can dismiss the immeasurable suffering of animals who we know can feel pain and emotion and form emotional bonds.
what about the immeasurable suffering of the animals, this question is not to be ignored. whether it is mass factory farms, feedlots, sport hunting or experimental laboratories, the animals still suffer. that is not right, it is immoral and as a compassionate human being all of us has a duty and an obligation to put an end to this. to decrease the suffering. to make this a better world.
simple as pie.
http://www.themeatrix.com/inside
http://www.donoteatus.org/
Hmm… Dolly, I can say the same with ARAs so it’s a draw at the worst.
Please – again try to be creative VeeJay. We do know who you are.
Oh and VeeJay… uh Dolly, uh VeeJay (make up thine mind) –
RE: “you might even go so far as to label them as mouthy and obscene, at least from your shallow, deformed psychopathic macho perspective, that is.
and there is a difference, they speak the truth. ”
When you resort to childish name calling and obsenities, people DO NOT take you OR your cause seriously.
They’re giving an opinion – NOT the truth (or at worst, the WHOLE truth), so why not actually look in the mirror – realize that YOU, CAMILLE and DAVID are in fact HYPOCRITES to what you preach to us.
Now, please keep consistent with your unintelligent blather and choose one name or another. I can’t take you guys seriously for the fact that you think that shouting will get you brownie points here. All you get is a bunch of slams back at you that really can disprove yours – all of your cases.
Joe (you inconsequential piece of shit),
When I have the slightest interest in what any of you morons have to say, I’ll start to read your posts.
In the meantime, KISS MY VEGAN ASS!!!
Yes, and that’s why you keep looking more and more like a moron and why no one takes you seriously.
As far as your vegan ass – the photo you used on your blog ain’t yours – I know because I”ve seen the photos you’ve posted up.
You’re just as trim as I am… and I’m an omnivore. This debunks your lovely claim that vegans are trimmer and healthier.
You really shouldn’t go off your meds camel-face.
melvin, you crack me up!
so exactly how fat and disgusting are you trying to tell me you are?
(this is so much fun!)
Oh, so you admit that you’re actually quite heavy set for what is seen as a stereotypical vegan? You are about a size 6-8 in your photos, which is what I am myself. I know because your build is like mine. If you’re a smaller size you’re shorter than me.
Look bitch – if you want to call yourself fat and disgusting that’s your own choice – because frankly, you’re a normal sized human being like I am. Our diets are different, but sorry canofworms, we’re NORMAL regardless.
I’m happy and healthy – and you know what? I don’t care about your diet. You don’t want to experience the flavors of what food has to offer – both sides, that’s your perrogative. I enjoy plenty of vegan dishes as I do dishes with meat, fish or shellfish. In fact, I enjoyed a wonderful tofu dish with black beans and corn relish as well as a stir-fried tofu.
Unfortunately, people such as you cannot grasp the merest of facts that just because people eat SOME meat that they can’t a. be thin and trim and b. that we can’t seem to enjoy vegetarian dishes.
So – why don’t you just go sea kitten hunting and drop the idiodicy. I know you’re full of hot air and when it comes to real things, you sink faster than the Titanic.
(Oh, and NO, I am NOT going to post a photo to prove it because you will use photoshop and manipulate my photos for your UGLY ASS and HIGHLY Innaccurate blog. My IQ is much more advanced to know what you’d try to do – especially since you don’t get the basics of the fact that Sarah CAN and probably will succeed in getting damages from you on your blog).
Fat Ugly Vegans makes me laugh!!!
hahahaha
I could not agree more, Camille.
Nothing is quite as funny or ironic as a fat and ugly vegan.
Gee, it’s nice to laugh at yourself… your a normal sized woman compared to the models they use in PETA for their advertising.
If you’re bitter about your size, that’s fine… just don’t try to hide your true self when you post photos of said self online where people can accurately assess your build and size.
[...] Praying for the flu? [...]
Look folks, here it is…
There is no answer. There is no truth. You see what you want to see,
you hear what you want to hear, and sling shit at others. That’s all.
Noone knows anything, they just think they do. Look up the lyrics to
the song “Elephant Talk” by King Crimson. I doubt you’ll “get it” but
there’s always hope. The fact is, however, we don’t know. We’re all
just guessing, and we’re all going to die someday. That’s it.