Vegetarian Discussion: Vegetarians Are Intolerant PC Speech-suppressers

Vegetarians Are Intolerant PC Speech-suppressers
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page:  Previous  1 2   (First | Last)

Dutch
2008-10-19 16:26:37 EST

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
news:kNydnfSFkojPM2fVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.noot> wrote
>>> Story about a visiting fellow at a UK university who had all his
>>> computer privileges revoked because of some tongue-in-cheek comments he
>>> made about vegetarians:
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/
>>>
>>> Vegetarians are intolerant bigoted extremists. This is not really news.
>>
>> That is very chilling that he would be banned for expressing this
>> opinion, especially considering the fact that the piece in question is
>> very thoughtful and well reasoned.
>> http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/blog/comments.asp?ref=196
>> The title "Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard" is, as you say,
>> tongue in cheek humour.
>
> Even if his opinion had been more overtly hostile toward vegetarianism and
> vegetarians, it still would have been outrageous, and a capitulation to
> radical extremists, for the university not only to take down the page, but
> to cancel his computer privileges entirely. But what is not at all
> surprising is that the vegetarians mounted a concerted effort to suppress
> someone's speech. They are totalitarians, in thought and in deed.

I have always taken a more moderate view than that, but after seeing this I
am reevaluating.



Dutch
2008-10-19 16:42:57 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:486586ba-c4b1-4f13-8026-54cb9b1a2f38@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 18, 8:07 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote
>>
>> > Story about a visiting fellow at a UK university who had all his
>> > computer
>> > privileges revoked because of some tongue-in-cheek comments he made
>> > about
>> > vegetarians:
>> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/
>>
>> > Vegetarians are intolerant bigoted extremists. This is not really
>> > news.
>>
>> That is very chilling that he would be banned for expressing this
>> opinion,
>> especially considering the fact that the piece in question is very
>> thoughtful and well
>> reasoned.http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/blog/comments.asp?ref=196
>> The title "Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard" is, as you say,
>> tongue in cheek humour.
>
> The essay is a piece of crap

It is not a piece of crap. He addresses most of the arguments that
vegetarians use to justify why they do not eat meat and counters each of
them in a logical and convincing fashion. Just because you disagree with him
does not make it a piece of crap. What *is* crap is the tortured so-called
"ethics theory" that you try to pawn off.

> however it clearly is a genuine attempt
> at engaging in reasoned argument for a sincerely held position and as
> you both say it's totally outrageous that his IT privileges were
> revoked. I will write to the university and tell them that I am a
> vegan and that the stupid essay does not bother me in the least, but
> their lack of respect for freedom of speech bothers me greatly.

Good for you. They won't listen though.


Rudy Canoza
2008-10-19 18:49:46 EST
Dutch wrote:
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
> news:kNydnfSFkojPM2fVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.noot> wrote
>>>> Story about a visiting fellow at a UK university who had all his
>>>> computer privileges revoked because of some tongue-in-cheek comments
>>>> he made about vegetarians:
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/
>>>>
>>>> Vegetarians are intolerant bigoted extremists. This is not really
>>>> news.
>>>
>>> That is very chilling that he would be banned for expressing this
>>> opinion, especially considering the fact that the piece in question
>>> is very thoughtful and well reasoned.
>>> http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/blog/comments.asp?ref=196
>>> The title "Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard" is, as you
>>> say, tongue in cheek humour.
>>
>> Even if his opinion had been more overtly hostile toward vegetarianism
>> and vegetarians, it still would have been outrageous, and a
>> capitulation to radical extremists, for the university not only to
>> take down the page, but to cancel his computer privileges entirely.
>> But what is not at all surprising is that the vegetarians mounted a
>> concerted effort to suppress someone's speech. They are
>> totalitarians, in thought and in deed.
>
> I have always taken a more moderate view than that, but after seeing
> this I am reevaluating.

Not all vegetarians are extremists, but all proponents of vegetarianISM
are extremists. If they're "vegans", they're damned near terrorists.

Most "isms" translate to extremism. Not all, but most, and
vegetarianism is one. Proponents of vegetarianism as an ideology are
overwhelmingly far-left radicals.

It is very rare to find moderately conservative to even somewhat
far-right conservatives who are vegetarian, and when you do, it's
virtually always for health reasons. Only when you get all the way out
to the Nazi-leaning rightwing fringe do you find extremists who embrace
some bizarre notion of animal "rights". By contrast, most proponents of
animal "rights" quite happily self-identify as leftwing extremist nuts.
They don't think they're self-identifying quite as far to an extreme
as they actually do, but they *are* far-left extremist totalitarian nuts.

Rupert
2008-10-20 01:27:20 EST


Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 3:49 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote
> >>>> Story about a visiting fellow at a UK university who had all his
> >>>> computer privileges revoked because of some tongue-in-cheek comments
> >>>> he made about vegetarians:
> >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/
> >>>> Vegetarians are intolerant bigoted extremists. This is not really news.
> >>> That is very chilling that he would be banned for expressing this
> >>> opinion, especially considering the fact that the piece in question is
> >>> very thoughtful and well reasoned.
> >>> http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/blog/comments.asp?ref=196
> >>> The title "Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard" is, as you
> >>> say, tongue in cheek humour.
> >> Even if his opinion had been more overtly hostile toward vegetarianism
> >> and vegetarians, it still would have been outrageous, and a capitulation
> >> to radical extremists, for the university not only to take down the
> >> page, but to cancel his computer privileges entirely.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> But it was *just* as outrageous for the "vegan" fain�ants to demand that
> the page be taken down in the first place.
>

Yes. I have emailed the university expressing my concern for their
lack of respect for free speech.

>
> >
> >> But what is not
> >> at all surprising is that the vegetarians mounted a concerted effort to
> >> suppress someone's speech. They are totalitarians, in thought and in deed.
> >
> > You've got no basis for making that ridiculous generalisation,
>
> Yes, I have.
>

I think you're just expressing mindless bigotry, myself. Feel free to
provide any actual evidence you have for your point of view.

>
> > fact that my friend Angie had to attend court hearings for a seven-
> > figure lawsuit because she handed out a few leaflets about mulesing,
>
> I doubt that was the reason - "merely" handing out leaflets. If the
> leaflets were libelous or defamatory, then she /should/ have to answer
> for it. BTW, isn't this cunt "Angie" the same one who dutifully
> revealed the contents of Derek's e-mails to you, but then said that the
> list of directors of her band of terrorists was "confidential"?
>

The leaflets were not libellous or defamatory. They contained an
accurate description of the practice known as mulesing, with an image
of a lamb who had recently had the procedure performed, and cited the
opinion of two veterinary surgeons who said that they believed that
the practice was cruel and unnecessary. It was alleged that we had
breached the Trade Practices Act. This all started because PETA
started calling for a boycott of Australian wool in response to some
footage we gave them. They wanted to sue PETA over it but they had to
bring in an Australian organisation so they went after us as well. It
most certainly was a gross violation of our right to free speech.

As far as libel and defamation go, perhaps you should have to answer
for alleging that I am likely to go out onto the street and shoot
people, while comically simultaneously saying that I am "not a real
man" for failing to violently retaliate when I was the victim of an
unprovoked assault. I don't really see why it's my job to deal with it
myself, Ball. What are the bouncers and policemen being paid to do? I
go into that place week after week, and hand over no small amount of
hard-earned cash for drinks; I think I am entitled to expect to be
protected from unprovoked assaults without having to deal with it
myself. I am really not in the least interested in any feelings of
contempt you have for me on account of the fact that I did not
violently retaliate. But it's certainly rather comical that you
simultaneously defame me by saying that my medication is all that
stops me from going out and shooting people.

You should also perhaps have to answer for your utterly ludicrous
claim that Animal Liberation NSW is a terrorist organisation. Do you
really not care in the least about making an abject clown out of
yourself in public? I challenged you to have a go at defend this
utterly ludicrous assertion, just for a laugh, and you declined to
respond, for obvious reasons.

It is perfectly reasonable that Angie should have forwarded Derek's
email to me. Derek did not request that the email remain private and
he had no reason or right to expect that it should remain private.
Derek was making accusations against me based on misinterpretations of
quotations he provided from my postings, deliberately attempting to
undermine my reputation and standing in the organisation. It was
utterly pathetic, of course, and everyone thought it was a joke, but
of course I had a right to see what I was being accused of and make a
reply.

Calling Derek an Internet stalker is not too far from the truth. He
does extensive research into people's posting histories and takes
whatever opportunity he can to try to use the information against
them. He also deliberately sets out to induce paranoia in people and
make them upset. He invests considerable time and energy into trying
to get at people, because he's sick. He probably doesn't actually do
anything illegal. We don't know.

Yes, it is the same Angie, you pitiful woman-abusing midget.

>
> > and the fact that we're not allowed to publicly call for a boycott of
> > battery cage eggs?
>
> I doubt that that's the case, either.
>

Well, I'm afraid you're wrong. Do some research about the Trade
Practices Act in Australia.

>
> > Stop worrying about the mote in your brother's eye and pay some
> > attention to the beam in your own.
>
> No such beam.
>
> Vegetarians, especially "vegans", are intolerant speech-suppressing
> totalitarians.

Vegetarians in general are not speech-suppressing. Some may be, but
most are not. The label "totalitarian" is of course a joke. You are a
statist who wants to use force to deprive poor foreigners of their
right to work for people who are willing to employ them, believing
that this will help you hold on to your undeservedly generous share of
the world's pie. You haven't got a leg to stand on when you call
anyone "totalitarian".

You suck.

Rupert
2008-10-20 02:54:00 EST
On Oct 20, 6:49 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
> >news:kNydnfSFkojPM2fVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote
> >>>> Story about a visiting fellow at a UK university who had all his
> >>>> computer privileges revoked because of some tongue-in-cheek comments
> >>>> he made about vegetarians:
> >>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/
>
> >>>> Vegetarians are intolerant bigoted extremists.  This is not really
> >>>> news.
>
> >>> That is very chilling that he would be banned for expressing this
> >>> opinion, especially considering the fact that the piece in question
> >>> is very thoughtful and well reasoned.
> >>>http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/blog/comments.asp?ref=196
> >>> The title "Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard" is, as you
> >>> say, tongue in cheek humour.
>
> >> Even if his opinion had been more overtly hostile toward vegetarianism
> >> and vegetarians, it still would have been outrageous, and a
> >> capitulation to radical extremists, for the university not only to
> >> take down the page, but to cancel his computer privileges entirely.  
> >> But what is not at all surprising is that the vegetarians mounted a
> >> concerted effort to suppress someone's speech.  They are
> >> totalitarians, in thought and in deed.
>
> > I have always taken a more moderate view than that, but after seeing
> > this I am reevaluating.
>
> Not all vegetarians are extremists, but all proponents of vegetarianISM
> are extremists.  If they're "vegans", they're damned near terrorists.
>
> Most "isms" translate to extremism.  Not all, but most, and
> vegetarianism is one.  Proponents of vegetarianism as an ideology are
> overwhelmingly far-left radicals.
>

Could you please provide some evidence for this ridiculous pitiful
nonsense?

I don't know anyone in the animal rights movement who is a far-left
radical. Keith Burgess-Jackson is an animal rights conservative and
David Graham and myself are animal rights anarcho-capitalists. I hang
out with a bunch of people on a Yahoo group who identify as animal
rights libertarians.

The portion of the animal rights movement which engages in violence is
a tiny minority; you were the one who was talking about libel and
defamation just now.

Just explain free speech to me, Ball. You and Derek say that I have a
propensity for violence (while simultaneously mocking me for my lack
of propensity for violence) and say that I am at risk of committing
violent crime and have lied to my employer. You also say that Animal
Liberation NSW is a terrorist organisation. Nothing bad happens to
you.

What's-his-face writes an essay called "Why vegetarians should be
force-fed with lard" and gets his IT privileges revoked.

Angie hands out some leaflets containing some factual information
about mulesing and faces a seven-figure lawsuit.

Apparently it's only the second one that's unacceptable.

I need your help, Ball. Explain your dazzling moral insights to me.

> It is very rare to find moderately conservative to even somewhat
> far-right conservatives who are vegetarian, and when you do, it's
> virtually always for health reasons.  Only when you get all the way out
> to the Nazi-leaning rightwing fringe do you find extremists who embrace
> some bizarre notion of animal "rights".  By contrast, most proponents of
> animal "rights" quite happily self-identify as leftwing extremist nuts.
>   They don't think they're self-identifying quite as far to an extreme
> as they actually do, but they *are* far-left extremist totalitarian nuts.

Show us an actual study instead of just mouthing mindless prejudice.

Rupert
2008-10-20 02:56:45 EST
On Oct 20, 12:52 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 8:07 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote
>
> >>> Story about a visiting fellow at a UK university who had all his computer
> >>> privileges revoked because of some tongue-in-cheek comments he made about
> >>> vegetarians:
> >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/
> >>> Vegetarians are intolerant bigoted extremists.  This is not really news.
> >> That is very chilling that he would be banned for expressing this opinion,
> >> especially considering the fact that the piece in question is very
> >> thoughtful and well reasoned.http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/blog/comments.asp?ref=196
> >> The title "Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard" is, as you say,
> >> tongue in cheek humour.
>
> > The essay is a piece of crap,
>
> You just don't like it because it ridicules you.  In fact, it was a
> reasonably good humor piece - not world class or timeless, but decent.
>

I found the attempts at humour mildly amusing. I certainly was not in
the least bothered by the essay. I just thought that some of the
arguments were of rather low quality. I didn't evaluate it as a
serious criticism of vegetarianism, although it was obviously trying
to be.

> > however it clearly is a genuine attempt
> > at engaging in reasoned argument for a sincerely held position and as
> > you both say it's totally outrageous that his IT privileges were
> > revoked. I will write to the university and tell them that I am a
> > vegan and that the stupid essay does not bother me in the least, but
> > their lack of respect for freedom of speech bothers me greatly.
>
> Please post their reply here.

Certainly. I have sent the email. I will let you know if I get a reply.

Rupert
2008-10-20 02:58:37 EST
On Oct 20, 4:42 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:486586ba-c4b1-4f13-8026-54cb9b1a2f38@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 8:07 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote
>
> >> > Story about a visiting fellow at a UK university who had all his
> >> > computer
> >> > privileges revoked because of some tongue-in-cheek comments he made
> >> > about
> >> > vegetarians:
> >> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/
>
> >> > Vegetarians are intolerant bigoted extremists.  This is not really
> >> > news.
>
> >> That is very chilling that he would be banned for expressing this
> >> opinion,
> >> especially considering the fact that the piece in question is very
> >> thoughtful and well
> >> reasoned.http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/blog/comments.asp?ref=196
> >> The title "Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard" is, as you say,
> >> tongue in cheek humour.
>
> > The essay is a piece of crap
>
> It is not a piece of crap. He addresses most of the arguments that
> vegetarians use to justify why they do not eat meat and counters each of
> them in a logical and convincing fashion. Just because you disagree with him
> does not make it a piece of crap.

Not on that account alone, no; however I disagree with your evaluation
that he countered all the arguments for vegetarianism in a logical and
convincing fashion. While I don't deny that there were some worthwhile
points I thought that as a critique of vegetarianism the essay was in
general fairly low-quality. That was the take I had on it. I can't
really be bothered arguing the point here.

> What *is* crap is the tortured so-called
> "ethics theory" that you try to pawn off.
>

You're entitled to your view.

> > however it clearly is a genuine attempt
> > at engaging in reasoned argument for a sincerely held position and as
> > you both say it's totally outrageous that his IT privileges were
> > revoked. I will write to the university and tell them that I am a
> > vegan and that the stupid essay does not bother me in the least, but
> > their lack of respect for freedom of speech bothers me greatly.
>
> Good for you. They won't listen though.

Probably not, no.
Page:  Previous  1 2   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron