How far do you take your ethics?

[Guest guest]

Hey now...do we have to start attacking each other's regligions? I am not

Christian, or a member of any organized religion for that matter, but I don't

know that it's ok to start calling other's beliefs " ficticious " ...seems a

little uncalled for and off topic...I just joined this group, and it seems as

if someone is always being attacked...

 

Quoting Angie Wright <angiewright:

 

> Perhaps he's a social misfit -------shame Too many vegans already fit

> into that catagory -----not me of course !!!!

>

> Angie

>

>

> Oliver Slay [oliver]

> 31 March 2003 05:26

>

> RE: How far do you take your ethics?

>

>

> i don't agree that Simon is mad ... i think he is merely so deluded that he

> is trapped in his own world without the key to let himself out.... and

> that which he is searching for in these endless questions is to be saved by

> someone (by God or Jesus BECAUSE these fictitious characters will never save

> him and really his subconscious mind does not want to be free at the same

> time as wanting to be free)... or by an answer to his question to free him

> from this repetitious drivel that he is forcing us to eat despite the fact

> that we don't want to eat it ... and yet when we tell him we don't want to

> eat it he doesn't listen... and when we tell him the answer he doesn't

> listen either...

>

>

>

>

> ---

>

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release 27/01/2003

>

>

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

read the Teaching Yourself Philosophy of Religion for a good argument on that ... but can't remember it ... projection of one's will to the highest ideal ... etc...

 

 

 

shawnam [shawnam] Hey now...do we have to start attacking each other's regligions? I am not Christian, or a member of any organized religion for that matter, but I don't know that it's ok to start calling other's beliefs "ficticious"...seems a little uncalled for and off topic...I just joined this group, and it seems as if someone is always being attacked...

[Guest guest]

I feel exactly the same, I don't understand quite why many people are attacking Simon, I think Oliver and Michael have been very mean to him. I'm a social misfit too, but quite proud of it even if Angie thinks it is bad to be a social misfit, since most people around where I live are pretty ignorant and not the sort I would want to know anyway, not only for being meat-eaters, but litter-droppers and parents who smoke around little kids. They tell me to F off if I say anything about their anti-social, cruel and irresponsible behaviour, so these people fit in socially because they seem to be the norm at my kids' school and the local park and I am the misfit! I don't care to fit in with such people thanks very much, I would not want to be a misfit among vegans but I am a misfit with those many vegans who don't like families and kids. As a vegan I don't think see Simon as that odd just because he wants utopia where no animals kill one another. Other vegans should be a bit less judgemental of him, we should know better!

 

Lesley

 

 

shawnam [shawnam]31 March 2003 16:52 Subject: RE: How far do you take your ethics?Hey now...do we have to start attacking each other's regligions? I am not Christian, or a member of any organized religion for that matter, but I don't know that it's ok to start calling other's beliefs "ficticious"...seems a little uncalled for and off topic...I just joined this group, and it seems as if someone is always being attacked...Quoting Angie Wright <angiewright:> Perhaps he's a social misfit -------shame Too many vegans already fit> into that catagory -----not me of course !!!!> > Angie> > > Oliver Slay [oliver] > 31 March 2003 05:26> > RE: How far do you take your ethics?> > > i don't agree that Simon is mad ... i think he is merely so deluded that he> is trapped in his own world without the key to let himself out.... and> that which he is searching for in these endless questions is to be saved by> someone (by God or Jesus BECAUSE these fictitious characters will never save> him and really his subconscious mind does not want to be free at the same> time as wanting to be free)... or by an answer to his question to free him> from this repetitious drivel that he is forcing us to eat despite the fact> that we don't want to eat it ... and yet when we tell him we don't want to> eat it he doesn't listen... and when we tell him the answer he doesn't> listen either...> > > > > ---> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).> Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release 27/01/2003> > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard.> ---------------------------> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>> Un: send a blank message to - > >

[Guest guest]

-

" mavreela " <nec.lists

 

Monday, March 31, 2003 2:59 PM

Re: How far do you take your ethics?

 

 

> > I wonder if any veggie Iraqis' have or will be killed.

>

> Would it make any difference to anything?

>

>Any kind of change must make some difference to something.

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

an invasion and occupation is a pretty big enough change... let's not worry about the specifics...

 

 

 

simonpjones [simonpjones] >Any kind of change must make some difference to something.

[Guest guest]

> I think Oliver and Michael have been very mean to him... As a vegan I

> don't think see Simon as that odd just because he wants utopia where

> no animals kill one another. Other vegans should be a bit less

> judgemental of him, we should know better!

 

And why should we know better than to be judgmental? I don't stop

people judging me, why shouldn't I judge other people? Is it even

possible to not be judgmental? If I didn't have to pack I would start

quoting Gadamar at you! Aren't you really saying we should keep it to

ourselves? And what good would that do, things would not be aired and

discussed, we would fester in our own prejudices rather than have them

challenged and become better people. Not to mention the contradiction

that comes from telling someone not to be judgmental, who are you to

judge or should judge? You should be less judgmental! See!

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

I just think vegans should stick together and be a bit nicer to one another. I don't give a flying fig about Gadamar whoever he or she is! Why should I? Was/is this Gadamar person an ethical vegan? If not, then I am likely to have little respect.

I thought the nastiness was all on the other list! You could have disagreed with Simon politely and respectfully without labelling him mad.

 

Lesley

 

 

mavreela [nec.lists]31 March 2003 23:20 Subject: Re: How far do you take your ethics?> I think Oliver and Michael have been very mean to him... As a vegan I > don't think see Simon as that odd just because he wants utopia where > no animals kill one another. Other vegans should be a bit less > judgemental of him, we should know better!And why should we know better than to be judgmental? I don't stop people judging me, why shouldn't I judge other people? Is it even possible to not be judgmental? If I didn't have to pack I would start quoting Gadamar at you! Aren't you really saying we should keep it to ourselves? And what good would that do, things would not be aired and discussed, we would fester in our own prejudices rather than have them challenged and become better people. Not to mention the contradiction that comes from telling someone not to be judgmental, who are you to judge or should judge? You should be less judgmental! See!Michael~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to -

[Guest guest]

> I just think vegans should stick together and be a bit nicer to one

> another.

 

Why should I stick together with someone because they are vegan if I

don't agree with them? Should I stick together with all people with

hazel eyes too? We've discovered often enough that the label 'vegan'

covers a number of different but overlapping beliefs and so it is as

arbitrary as any other characteristic on which we should group together.

 

> I don't give a flying fig about Gadamar whoever he or she is! Why

> should I?

 

Kind of not the point there. The point isn't who or what Gadamer was

but what they said. And Gadamer's contribution to the world (or at

least the one I think important) is the idea that we are all necessary

prejudiced, and it is this that allows us to understand the world.

This is of course using the concept of prejudice properly, as being an

underlying idea and not necessarily a discriminating one. For example

- you see a whale for the first time and think it is a very large fish.

Your prejudice is that it lives in the sea, has fish like qualities

(it's not too dissimilar from a shark) therefore it's a fish, at least

until you learn otherwise. By learning each others prejudices and

merging with our own we get a better understanding of the world (he

would call this merging horizons).

 

> Was/is this Gadamar person an ethical vegan? If not, then I am likely

> to have little respect. 

 

Honestly, I don't know. I haven't really considered it important

enough to find out. Why reject something worthwhile just because the

person who said it wasn't a vegan? Then that is a small minded

prejudice. If we were to disregard areas where out lives had been

impacted by non vegans then we might as well go and live in caves, but

I don't see many people turning their backs on those non-vegans. Not

to mention the obvious cultural and contextual differences that make

going vegan a lot easier for us in this country, now, than in Germany

at the turn of the last century.

 

> I thought the nastiness was all on the other list! You could have

> disagreed with Simon politely and respectfully without labelling him

> mad.

 

I don't consider " mad " to be nastiness, maybe we understand the word

very differently. I consider mad to be flippant. Nasty is not allowed

on this list, flippancy is.

 

Not to mention it got some interesting discussions going, is almost as

if there was a master plan to keep the list active...

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

we're all human ... let's stick together... we're all on this earth together let's stick to it ... to each other ... to the fly paper... etc...

 

 

 

mavreela [nec.lists] > I just think vegans should stick together and be a bit nicer to one > another.Why should I stick together with someone because they are vegan if I don't agree with them? Should I stick together with all people with hazel eyes too? We've discovered often enough that the label 'vegan' covers a number of different but overlapping beliefs and so it is as arbitrary as any other characteristic on which we should group together.

[Guest guest]

I think you probably did just call Simon mad to wind some of us up as part of your plan to keep this list active. I don't care if I have certain prejudices, I don't think all my prejudices are unreasonable, I'm not racist or homophobic, but I vastly prefer people according generally to the level of respect for life they have, so I prefer to respect and like and listen to vegans. Pro-life vegans I like even more. Hazel eyes is not such an important thing to have in common, don't be so absurd Michael, now you are being mad (flippant or crazy depending on how you meant it) and if you really can't see the difference between hazel-eyed people sticking together and vegans sticking together, I'd be very surprised. My prejudice is that Ethical Vegans (not necessarily health vegans though) are obviously nicer and more compassionate people than animal eaters, and I'm happy to stick by that prejudice! I respect you as well as I respect Simon even though you don't agree with me on this.

You definitely spelled it Gadamar in the other posting and now you say it's Gadamer so if I had bothered to Google search for this name, I might have had little success if the spelling was wrong. I assumed this person must be a philosopher though, coming from you, although it sounds a bit like one of those invented names from Lord of the Rings. My prejudice about you because of what I know of you and your interest in philosphy is that if you quote a strange name, it will be most likely a philosopher! I'm right though aren't I? I also tend to assume such people are male, but that is a prejudice I don't like myself having and I deliberately tried not to reply in such a way as to show I had that prejudice. Maybe most philosophers are male because men tend to sit on their backsides talking and thinking up abstract stuff while women just get on with things and are unfortunately all too often left to the real hard work. Again these are a few my prejudices about life, but I suspect some people (Angie maybe?) would agree there is some accuracy to them.

At least I am aware of my own prejudices, and very much so, I hope I have convinced you that I understand a bit about the concept of prejudice, although I am not as intellectual or intelligent as you, but that some of my prejudices are not ones I am going to change easily. How can ethical vegans not be generally more compassionate and caring and therefore nicer people than meat-eaters? Sorry but I simply can't see how my prejudice can be wrong on this point.

You will probably pick out some other prejudices I am unaware of from this posting, as I'm not infallible, so that may be interesting.

 

Lesley

 

 

mavreela [nec.lists]01 April 2003 09:11 Subject: Re: How far do you take your ethics?> I just think vegans should stick together and be a bit nicer to one > another.Why should I stick together with someone because they are vegan if I don't agree with them? Should I stick together with all people with hazel eyes too? We've discovered often enough that the label 'vegan' covers a number of different but overlapping beliefs and so it is as arbitrary as any other characteristic on which we should group together.> I don't give a flying fig about Gadamar whoever he or she is! Why > should I?Kind of not the point there. The point isn't who or what Gadamer was but what they said. And Gadamer's contribution to the world (or at least the one I think important) is the idea that we are all necessary prejudiced, and it is this that allows us to understand the world. This is of course using the concept of prejudice properly, as being an underlying idea and not necessarily a discriminating one. For example - you see a whale for the first time and think it is a very large fish. Your prejudice is that it lives in the sea, has fish like qualities (it's not too dissimilar from a shark) therefore it's a fish, at least until you learn otherwise. By learning each others prejudices and merging with our own we get a better understanding of the world (he would call this merging horizons).> Was/is this Gadamar person an ethical vegan? If not, then I am likely > to have little respect. Honestly, I don't know. I haven't really considered it important enough to find out. Why reject something worthwhile just because the person who said it wasn't a vegan? Then that is a small minded prejudice. If we were to disregard areas where out lives had been impacted by non vegans then we might as well go and live in caves, but I don't see many people turning their backs on those non-vegans. Not to mention the obvious cultural and contextual differences that make going vegan a lot easier for us in this country, now, than in Germany at the turn of the last century.> I thought the nastiness was all on the other list! You could have > disagreed with Simon politely and respectfully without labelling him > mad.I don't consider "mad" to be nastiness, maybe we understand the word very differently. I consider mad to be flippant. Nasty is not allowed on this list, flippancy is.Not to mention it got some interesting discussions going, is almost as if there was a master plan to keep the list active...Michael~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to -

[Guest guest]

Did someone mention fly paper...

I work as a cashier in a supermarket, and while I learnt to be able to cope

with having to sell meat and dairy products (except when I get blood on my

hands), the thing I find it almost impossible to sell is fly paper (and ant

killer) - I suppose it is the horrible knowledge of the unstoppable future

usage. Indeed on occassion I have been tempted to 'lose' it when helping

them pack, but I have never been and never will be brave/foolish enough!

Cath

 

 

 

 

 

 

> " Oliver Slay " <oliver

>

>

>RE: How far do you take your ethics?

>Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:41:50 +0100

>

>we're all human ... let's stick together... we're all on this earth

>together let's stick to it ... to each other ... to the fly paper...

>etc...

>

>

>

> mavreela [nec.lists]

>

>

> > I just think vegans should stick together and be a bit nicer

>to one

> > another.

>

> Why should I stick together with someone because they are vegan

>if I

> don't agree with them? Should I stick together with all people

>with

> hazel eyes too? We've discovered often enough that the label

>'vegan'

> covers a number of different but overlapping beliefs and so it

>is as

> arbitrary as any other characteristic on which we should group

>together.

>

>

>

>

>**

 

 

_______________

Get Hotmail on your mobile phone

http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile/mobilehotmail

[Guest guest]

hmm ... well that counts out 6.3 billion other people who choose to eat meat...

 

 

 

Lesley Dove [Lesley] 01 April 2003 10:49 Subject: RE: How far do you take your ethics?

I can't stick with other humans who believe in completely unnecessary mass murder and torture of animals, sorry Oliver.

 

Lesley

[Guest guest]

We are obviously better people than those of that 6.3 million who live in rich countries and who have a real choice. It's different in much of the third world where the choices are limited, because people need to try their best to survive, I can't really judge them for eating meat if it is a matter of survival, but that still leaves many millions who have a choice to live compassionately and choose not to care. I cannot, absolutely cannot, relate to them. I feel lucky that in the developed world I can be vegan without too much difficulty, I would not abuse that privilege by choosing to be an animal murderer!

 

Lesley

 

 

Oliver Slay [oliver]01 April 2003 12:27 Subject: RE: How far do you take your ethics?

hmm ... well that counts out 6.3 billion other people who choose to eat meat...

 

 

 

Lesley Dove [Lesley] 01 April 2003 10:49 Subject: RE: How far do you take your ethics?

I can't stick with other humans who believe in completely unnecessary mass murder and torture of animals, sorry Oliver.

 

Lesley~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to -

[Guest guest]

> You definitely spelled it Gadamar in the other posting and now you say

> it's Gadamer so if I had bothered to Google search for this name, I

> might have had little success if the spelling was wrong.

 

Crikey O'Reilly, you're not forgiving to typos are you! As I said last

night I was busy and had to rush through my email. That said if you

HAD Googled " Gadamar " it would have told you that you probably meant

" Gadamer " and all would have been well.

 

> if you quote a strange name, it will be most likely a philosopher! I'm

> right though aren't I?

 

You are indeed right.

 

> I also tend to assume such people are male

 

Hans-Georg Gadamer was male, but twentieth century European philosophy

features a lot of women, and Gadamer is well liked by Feminist

philosophers I believe.

 

> Maybe most philosophers are male because men tend to sit on their

> backsides talking and thinking up abstract stuff while women just get

> on with things and are unfortunately all too often left to the real

> hard work.

 

Hmm, is that nastiness? Most philosophers are men because over the

course of human history women were not given that opportunity and were

oppressed, of course. In recent history it is fair to say there is a

large number of female philosophers, probably to the extent of a 40/60

split. Your abstract stuff vs hard work concept does show a vast

misunderstanding of philosophy (not that it isn't the sitting on the

backside, but that a person has to be one or the other and not both,

take Betrand Russell who was president of CND yet came up with very

abstract stuff, he was obsessed with a non-existent person having hair!)

 

> I understand a bit about the concept of prejudice

 

I never doubted you would? I was only explaining it in light of

Gadamer, what he did was not offer some abstract stuff but pointed out

something so obvious that most people don't realize it.

 

> although I am not as intellectual or intelligent as you

 

Aren't you? You give me too much credit, being able to quote names is

not something that marks any intellect or intelligence, I only offer

names because if people are interested they can look into something for

themselves.

 

> How can ethical vegans not be generally more compassionate and caring

> and therefore nicer people than meat-eaters? Sorry but I simply can't

> see how my prejudice can be wrong on this point.

 

Vegan sees someone drowning and walks by thinking someone else would

help and they don't want to be late, then a non-vegan sees someone

drowning and helps without thinking of their appointments. Example

from the top of my head, and non-entirely unrealistic either. It

doesn't prove anything though, and that's my point. Take someone who

believes veganism is incompatible with environmentalism (and people

like that do exist, Graham would probably be able to offer a good

example of how that could be), they are a lot more compassionate than

an " aww fluffly bunnies " vegan.

 

Also if I'm considered nasty then I will count myself as a

counter-example also. after all the point was that I shouldn't be

nasty to Simon, now it is that I am not nasty to Simon by virtue of

being a vegan. Abstract stuff.

 

> You will probably pick out some other prejudices I am unaware of from

> this posting, as I'm not infallible, so that may be interesting.

 

Honestly, I wasn't looking, I never do, if someone brings up a subject

then that subject is open for debate and evaluation, I don't go hunting

to find flaws in people.

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

Mary Midgely...

 

she's done a lot about animals, humans and morals etc... good stuff... search on Amazon for a full list of works ...

 

 

mavreela [nec.lists] > Maybe most philosophers are male because men tend to sit on their > backsides talking and thinking up abstract stuff while women just get > on with things and are unfortunately all too often left to the real > hard work.Hmm, is that nastiness? Most philosophers are men because over the course of human history women were not given that opportunity and were oppressed, of course. In recent history it is fair to say there is a large number of female philosophers, probably to the extent of a 40/60 split. Your abstract stuff vs hard work concept does show a vast misunderstanding of philosophy (not that it isn't the sitting on the backside, but that a person has to be one or the other and not both, take Betrand Russell who was president of CND yet came up with very abstract stuff, he was obsessed with a non-existent person having hair!)

[Guest guest]

I believe ghosts /fairies are fictitious I may offend someone by

saying so ,but that shouldn't mean we cant say we don't believe in

someones beliefs for fear of upsetting someone That would mean some of

us having to lie to keep others happy . What is the point of talking if

some of us on here have been told to lie !!!!!. Who decides who can tell

the truth (as they see it ), and who must lie ?

 

 

 

 

Hey now...do we have to start attacking each other's regligions? I am

not

Christian, or a member of any organized religion for that matter, but I

don't

know that it's ok to start calling other's beliefs " ficticious " ...seems

a

little uncalled for and off topic...I just joined this group, and it

seems as

if someone is always being attacked...

 

 

---

 

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release 27/01/2003

[Guest guest]

I've found I have very little in common with other vegans. Another thing I've found is that those who "demand" affiliation with other vegans are the ones with the least, or the least inclination, to give.

Me? I don't give a shit about anyone I don't know and find I'm rarely disappointed...

 

Viv

 

mavreela [nec.lists]Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:11 AM Subject: Re: How far do you take your ethics?> I just think vegans should stick together and be a bit nicer to one > another.Why should I stick together with someone because they are vegan if I don't agree with them? Should I stick together with all people with hazel eyes too? We've discovered often enough that the label 'vegan' covers a number of different but overlapping beliefs and so it is as arbitrary as any other characteristic on which we should group together.

[Guest guest]

Hello

I think it is a shame to not associate with people purely because they are

not vegetarian/vegan. Then we would not have the opportunity to convert

them by the method of just quietly and methodically getting on with being

vegan ourselves - setting a good example if you like. And if you do start

talking with them about it, they are more likely to take notice of the views

of a friend than a stranger saying the same things. If you took every

controversial issue out there eg abortion, political support, it is unlikely

that you would agree with all your friends on every issue, but you would be

unlikely to decide not to associate with them anymore because of one thing.

My meat eating friends - I detest their eating choices but I don't detest

them. I hope that one day they will change, either a little way to buying

organic/free range stuff (yes i know there are still welfare issues with

them) or a big way to becoming vegetarian. Them merely being friends with a

vegan has got to make them think! Also, it dispells the myth that vegans

are all weird people generally, for example one of a group of people I was

with the other week was laughing (not maliciously) about some 'weird vegans'

she knew and I told her that I am vegan. She was very surprised (indeed it

took a while to convince her that I wasn't winding her up), but now

hopefully she doesn't still associate veganism with weirdness (that's

assuming I come accross as quite a 'normal' person :-) )

Cath

 

 

_______________

On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/mobile

[Guest guest]

Men are lazy sods . we should dispose of them and have sperm banks . A few could be kept as honorary women to keep the banks full . No rape -no wars great

 

angie

 

 

Lesley Dove [Lesley] 01 April 2003 10:49 Subject: RE: How far do you take your ethics?

 

... Maybe most philosophers are male because men tend to sit on their backsides talking and thinking up abstract stuff while women just get on with things and are unfortunately all too often left to the real hard work. Again these are a few my prejudices about life, but I suspect some people (Angie maybe?) would agree there is some accuracy to them.

At least I am aware of my own prejudices, and very much so, I hope I have convinced you that I understand a bit about the concept of prejudice, although I am not as intellectual or intelligent as you, but that some of my prejudices are not ones I am going to change easily. How can ethical vegans not be generally more compassionate and caring and therefore nicer people than meat-eaters? Sorry but I simply can't see how my prejudice can be wrong on this point.

You will probably pick out some other prejudices I am unaware of from this posting, as I'm not infallible, so that may be interesting.

 

Lesley

 

 

 

---

 

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release 27/01/2003

[Guest guest]

Berger off Angie! You know as well as I do you wouldn't want to live in a world without men.

And s*d the banks too, I prefer my sperm fresh!

 

Viv

 

Angie Wright [angiewright]Thursday, April 03, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: RE: How far do you take your ethics?

Men are lazy sods . we should dispose of them and have sperm banks . A few could be kept as honorary women to keep the banks full . No rape -no wars great

 

angie

 

 

Lesley Dove [Lesley] 01 April 2003 10:49 Subject: RE: How far do you take your ethics?

 

... Maybe most philosophers are male because men tend to sit on their backsides talking and thinking up abstract stuff while women just get on with things and are unfortunately all too often left to the real hard work. Again these are a few my prejudices about life, but I suspect some people (Angie maybe?) would agree there is some accuracy to them.

At least I am aware of my own prejudices, and very much so, I hope I have convinced you that I understand a bit about the concept of prejudice, although I am not as intellectual or intelligent as you, but that some of my prejudices are not ones I am going to change easily. How can ethical vegans not be generally more compassionate and caring and therefore nicer people than meat-eaters? Sorry but I simply can't see how my prejudice can be wrong on this point.

You will probably pick out some other prejudices I am unaware of from this posting, as I'm not infallible, so that may be interesting.

 

Lesley

 

 

[Guest guest]

You and I would be looking after the honorary women (chosen men ) Did I forget to mention that ?

 

 

 

Berger off Angie! You know as well as I do you wouldn't want to live in a world without men.

And s*d the banks too, I prefer my sperm fresh!

 

Viv

 

 

Men are lazy sods . we should dispose of them and have sperm banks . A few could be kept as honorary women to keep the banks full . No rape -no wars great

 

angie

 

 

 

 

---

 

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release 27/01/2003

[Guest guest]

And bugger that as well - I wasn't put on this earth to look after

men.

 

C

 

, " Angie Wright " <angiewright@n...>

wrote:

> You and I would be looking after the honorary women (chosen men )

Did

> I forget to mention that ?

>

> Angie