Martha Seagoe <[log in to unmask]>:
>No, hostility is a form of human nature.  Let me ask you this:  would
>you display hostility if you saw somebody beating a defenseless baby?
>It*s just that the vegans don*t greatly differentiate between this and
>killing for meat, since they don*t believe that meat is a necessary food
>for humans (very broad generalization, granted--people have different
>reasons for being vegan).  All that aside, I don*t agree with you
>because, with the exception of Rene Beresford, all the ruckus *sprouted*
>from NFL, who were more often arguing about health issues (or more
>specifically non-health [of cooked food] issues).  Bob Avery & Ric
>Lambart were defending NFL*s right to have their own abrasive style.
>Did I forget anybody?  I mostly objected to the treatment Bob & Ric got,
>so I was sort of 3rd generation. Oh yeah, the Colonel.  Well now, that
>was just embarrassing.  That guy is wigged out.  BTW Tom, I wasn*t sure
>if you were including me in your characterization or not.  Also BTW I*ve

Tom:
Re: the baby. Interesting question; I suspect I would try to defend the baby.
Whether that would involve hostility (towards the villain) or not is hard to
say. I can be quite emotion-free at times, and my mind often overrides my
emotions. (I am also human, and do have emotions.)

Given that, I find the baby beating analogy to be an inappropriate analogy.
I am a veggie; I don't eat meat (or eggs or fish or poultry). However, I cannot
compare someone eating animals for food, with some low-life (a zealot, perhaps?)
beating a baby for fun.

I was not including you in my characterization of the zealot vegans who
think hostility = 'vegan compassion'. As a vegan, you should be more
concerned with this topic than I, for it is the hostile zealots who give
veganism (and vegans) a very bad name.

People often talk about "rights" and "censorship" to defend the zealots.
Unfortunately, such concerns are exploited by the zealots. Censorship is,
by definition, an act of government. This list is a private entity, and we
are here at the grace of the list owners. They can remove people who use
the list as a forum for hostility, and that is what happened when certain
zealots were excluded. It's not censorship - it is removing people who violated
the rules of the list, and who were abusing and attacking others.  Removing
the zealots was a civil act of defense against UNcivil, hostile zealots.
If you were the target of the zealots, would you defend their "right" (actually,
a breach of the rules of the list) to attack, harass, and insult you?

I have been the target of zealots before the incidents you refer to. Let me
assure you that zealots are immune to the truth, and will lie freely if it
serves their cause; their true cause, by the way, is promoting themselves
and making money, not converting others to the joys of the "religion" of
rawism. Because of this, if you argue with zealots, you will burn out long
before they do. The result is that the field of discussion is eventually
dominated by hostile zealots - in which case, we all lose, because when
rawism is dominated by zealots, it will become/remain a cult of food faddists.

Martha Seagoe <[log in to unmask]>:
>sometimes seen what appears to be early stages of hostility going on
>among the omnis which is going uncommented-upon.  If the early hostility
>of the vegans had been handled in this way (with silence), it probably
>never would have escalated as it did.  I can assure you that*s true in
>my case.  But then again, I*m not a vegan, so who can say for sure?

Tom:
No one is perfect, and there may be some truth in your comment. I also don't
expect vegans to be perfect. However, one must ask how someone who claims to
be motivated by compassion can act in the nasty, hostile manner of the vegan
zealots. It is an obvious contradiction of the ideals of vegan compassion.
Further, because it is so common, it gives people a *valid* reason to ignore
the message of veganism, because after all, it makes vegans appear to be a
bunch of hypocrites and zealots - "cranks and crazies".

Anyway, welcome back to the list!

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]