vegetarians aren't hypocrites
larrylook
eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
find this terribly distasteful.
But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less and
have good intentions. Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the killing and
should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to minimize
death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly
about the GFC label and it's validity would certainly matter greatly to the
vegetarian. So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC. How
can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it? You
guys need to come up with a better argument.
I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing some
good and that bothers you. But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
of animals is worthwhile? I don't really get that impression.
I'd like you anti's to state your opposition to:
1. Greyhound racing (where old and poor performing dogs aren't well cared
for).
2. They running of the bulls in Spain (where animals are taken of advantage
of)
3. Hunting methods like trapping which are very painful.
4. Cock and dog fighting.
5. Canned hunting (for trophy animals in fenced preserves)
I certainly hope your against these activities. If your not, than it's
hardly worth discussing things with you.
rick
"larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote in message
news:pMadneF7ucu...@comcast.com...
> Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly
> kill more by eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows
> (GFC), even though they find this terribly distasteful.
>
> But vegans don't knowingly kill more.
Yes, you do..
They think they are killing less and
> have good intentions.
===========================
I'm sure all the dead animals are proud of your 'intentions'
killer.
Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
> out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the
> killing and should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if
> they want to minimize death. But the concerns that Derek
> brings up so eloquently and honestly about the GFC label and
> it's validity would certainly matter greatly to the vegetarian.
=====================
ROTFLOMAO Twits has continued to post lys, and rather
inelquently at that. Like I pointed out, the so-called "organic"
industry dupes you fools far more than any meat producers do.
Afterall, how many ignorant vegan fools have you seen here
declare that organic means no pesticides? Its's hilarious!
So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
> death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so
> muddled and unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths
> associated with GFC. How can we be accused of knowingly
> causing more deaths if we don't know it? You guys need to come
> up with a better argument.
=======================
Yes, you do know fool. Pretending that your are still ignorant
is amusing...
>
> I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they
> are doing some good and that bothers you.
========================
Nope. What SHOULD bother you is knowing that being vegan isn't
the automatic utopia for animals that your believed it was. That
you continue to delude yourself is the point of the posts, fool.
But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
> and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about
> us feeling we're doing something good. Do you think that
> lessing death and suffering of animals is worthwhile? I don't
> really get that impression.
==============================
Why should we care whether it is or not when YOU prove that you
don't care with each inane post, hypocrite?
You go on and on about some supposed caring yet continu with the
same actions that you have learned cause death and suffering to
animals. Why is that? Do you just like leaving your bloody
footprints all over the place?
>
> I'd like you anti's to state your opposition to:
> 1. Greyhound racing (where old and poor performing dogs aren't
> well cared for).
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment.
> 2. They running of the bulls in Spain (where animals are taken
> of advantage of)
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment.
> 3. Hunting methods like trapping which are very painful.
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment.
> 4. Cock and dog fighting.
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment.
> 5. Canned hunting (for trophy animals in fenced preserves)
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment, and far more brutally.
> I certainly hope your against these activities. If your not,
> than it's hardly worth discussing things with you.
========================
It's a bunch of strawmen, fool. No one here has claimed to
support these actions. YOU, on the other hand have declared your
willingness to brutally and inhumanely cause the death and
suffering of animals unnecessaryly just for your selfishness and
entertainment.
Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/news/archives/ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/notebook/agriculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/default.cfm?exec=Page.View&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/Licensed2Killexecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_map/articles/article_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy/project_fact_sheets/500-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/envImp/04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public_Affairs/Policy_Statements/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/articles/2004/cleanup012012004.html
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pubs/Natures_Toxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/pdf/ma_reding_annex1.pdf
Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm
To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kmPMnV7pZC4C:www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
And, an extra, just because it's 'organic' doesn't make it safe.
Special potatoes and celery were bred to increase their
resistance
pest, and create one where pesticides were not needed. The
results
were good, as to not needing extra pesticides, however....
"...Breeding methods and other "substitutes" used as
alternatives to pesticide chemicals can expose consumers to
greater risks. This is a recognized problem particularly in
cases where farmers breed plants to become more
insect-resistant, a "natural" substitute to using synthetic
pesticides. In one particular case, breeders grew a special
type of highly insect-resistant celery to avoid using
pesticides. It wasn't until after the people handling the
celery developed a serious rash that it was discovered the
special celery contained 6,200 parts per billion of
carcinogenic psoralens, a natural chemical that heightens
sensitivity to the sun's rays; conventionally grown celery
protected with synthetic pesticides contains approximately
800 parts per billion. The same occurred when scientists
bred a "pest-free" potato. The breeders found that the
potato "was so full of natural pesticides that it was acutely
poisonous to humans." By using synthetic pesticides, therefore,
farmers and food producers often are indirectly protecting
consumers from potential risks from natural pesticides which
scientists have found can be carcinogenic..."
http://www.consumeralert.org/pubs/research/CRFeb00.htm
>
>
larrylook
prevent 10 hen deaths, I'm not sure I'd do it. I don't enjoy killing foxes.
In addition I'd have to be convinced of the proof the hens would die also.
I don't think you've proven to me that if my boss takes me to dinner at a
restaurant and I order veggies, I've killed less than if I ordered a bacon
burger. Derek has raised all kinds of legitimate concerns about the label
GFC (grass fed cow). I don't think people can be practically expected to
research what went in to the production of every meal. The restaurant isn't
providing a facts sheet with with burger telling me about the cow's life and
what it was fed - this isn't realistic. You live in a dreamworld - not the
real world. You haven't convinced me vegetarians are hypocrites if they
believe they are killing less.
Besides you haven't answered the question as to what you'd do if scientists
came up with tasty healthy artificial food that involved no CD's. Would you
still eat your bacon burger? Would you eat a dolphin if this practice were
socially acceptable. I hope not!
Dutch
"larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote
> Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
> eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
> find this terribly distasteful.
That's not it, vegan are hypocritical because they bitterly condemn
non-vegans for the deaths of livestock animals yet deny or pay no attention
to all the deaths they cause themselves.
> But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less
> and have good intentions. Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might
> point out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the
> killing and should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to
> minimize death.
No, that's not it, they don't need to change their diets, they need to
modify their claims, adjust their perspectives. Killing animals in the
course of obtaining food is something all humans do, vegan attempts to place
themselves *above* the rest of us are bogus.
> But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly about the
> GFC label and it's validity would certainly matter greatly to the
> vegetarian. So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
> death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
> unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC. How
> can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it?
> You guys need to come up with a better argument.
There's plenty of evidence of cds in agriculture, you're being willfully
blind.
> I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing
> some good and that bothers you. But it's not clear that *you* want to
> do good and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us
> feeling we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and
> suffering of animals is worthwhile? I don't really get that impression.
Yes, it is worthwhile, but vegans need to stop posing like they hold a
monopoly on compassion, it's self-serving and insulting, and nonsense.
> I'd like you anti's to state your opposition to:
> 1. Greyhound racing (where old and poor performing dogs aren't well cared
> for).
> 2. They running of the bulls in Spain (where animals are taken of
> advantage of)
> 3. Hunting methods like trapping which are very painful.
> 4. Cock and dog fighting.
> 5. Canned hunting (for trophy animals in fenced preserves)
> I certainly hope your against these activities. If your not, than it's
> hardly worth discussing things with you.
I'm opposed to those activities because they are activities which use
animals in callous ways for nothing more than tittilation. Keeping animals
humanely for food is not comparable to them.
Dutch
"larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote
> If you tell me that there's a fox in backyard and by shooting it I'll
> prevent 10 hen deaths, I'm not sure I'd do it. I don't enjoy killing
> foxes.
So your enjoyment trumps the suffering of animals, but we knew that.
> In addition I'd have to be convinced of the proof the hens would die also.
> I don't think you've proven to me that if my boss takes me to dinner at a
> restaurant and I order veggies, I've killed less than if I ordered a bacon
> burger. Derek has raised all kinds of legitimate concerns about the label
> GFC (grass fed cow). I don't think people can be practically expected to
> research what went in to the production of every meal.
Nobody forces vegans to make unsupportable claims about their lifestyles, or
unsupportable attacks on non-vegans. Tough titty if it's too hard.
The restaurant isn't
> providing a facts sheet with with burger telling me about the cow's life
> and what it was fed - this isn't realistic. You live in a dreamworld -
> not the real world. You haven't convinced me vegetarians are hypocrites
> if they believe they are killing less.
I believe they are killing less, than *some people* but that's not enough to
warrant the extreme moral position that vegans take.
> Besides you haven't answered the question as to what you'd do if
> scientists came up with tasty healthy artificial food that involved no
> CD's. Would you still eat your bacon burger?
The question is, would you eat lab-raised meat if it caused fewer death than
vegetables?
> Would you eat a dolphin if this practice were socially acceptable. I
> hope not!
How do you know what *you* would do if different social mores existed? You
don't, that's why such hypothetical questions are meaningless, and you rely
heavily on them.
Dutch
commerically grown produce, manufactured meat substitutes like tofu and
tempeh, and by modern supplements. It's an artificial environment. If a
vegan were plopped down in the wilderness to survive, he'd either die or
he'd quickly learn to fish and hunt.
Rudy Canoza
> Derek has raised all kinds of legitimate concerns about the label
> GFC (grass fed cow).
He hasn't raised ONE legitimate "concern", you
imbecile. He's told a bunch of lies and done his usual
deny-the-obvious schtick. Grass-fed beef is not fed
any grain.
rick
> If you tell me that there's a fox in backyard and by shooting
> it I'll prevent 10 hen deaths, I'm not sure I'd do it. I don't
> enjoy killing foxes.
You really love strawmen, don't you hypocrite? Keeps you from
actually discussing the real impacts you have, right, killer?
> In addition I'd have to be convinced of the proof the hens
> would die also. I don't think you've proven to me that if my
> boss takes me to dinner at a restaurant and I order veggies,
> I've killed less than if I ordered a bacon burger.
============================
Bingo, thanks for the admission, fool. I'm not trying to prove
that you kill less by being vegan, dolt. That's nthe point,
veganism isn't about killing less, it's all about your
'feelings', fool.
Derek has raised all kinds of legitimate concerns about the
label
> GFC (grass fed cow).
========================
No, he has not, fool.
I don't think people can be practically expected to
> research what went in to the production of every meal.
===========================
Really? Then why do you claim that all your veggies are better
than any meat, hypocrite? You've obviously done NO reseaqrch
into the death and suffering your veggies cause. Why is that?
Ignorance, stupidity, or hypocrisy?
The restaurant isn't
> providing a facts sheet with with burger telling me about the
> cow's life and what it was fed - this isn't realistic.
===========================
It's not telling you the facts about your veggies either, fool.
They could be the most sprayed, processed veggies around and you
wouldn't know it, nor would you care since you have your ignorant
simple rule for your simple mind.
You live in a dreamworld - not the
> real world. You haven't convinced me vegetarians are
> hypocrites if they believe they are killing less.
=================================
ROTFLMAO Do you read what you write, idiot? What you think you
are doing has no bearing on what actually happens, and you have
been told what your diet causes. I have to think you just love
having blood on your hands, hypocrite..
>
> Besides you haven't answered the question as to what you'd do
> if scientists came up with tasty healthy artificial food that
> involved no CD's.
============================
You never asked it fool. But it would still cause far more death
and suffering than grass-fed beef or game! It would still be a
processed nightmare of the petro-chemical industry.
Would you
> still eat your bacon burger? Would you eat a dolphin if this
> practice were socially acceptable. I hope not!
====================
You just love those strawmen, don't you fool. It's already
proven that YOU love to kill animals for no more reason than you
selfishness and entertainment, hypocrite
>
>
dh
>Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
>eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
>find this terribly distasteful.
>
>But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less and
>have good intentions.
I've noticed that often when the truth is pointed out, vegans will lie
about it.
>Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
>out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the killing and
>should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to minimize
>death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly
>about the GFC label and it's validity
If Derek cared he would encourage people to find out if the animals had
been fed grain, and how much, etc. Instead he dishonestly pretends that
grass raised beef is not available, because he doesn't care and does NOT
want people to deliberately contribute to fewer cds by eating grass raised
animal products. I know it. You know it. And I know that you know it.
>would certainly matter greatly to the
>vegetarian.
Here are some "vegetarian" products which contain egg whites, contributing
to the cds involved with raising chickens as well as those involved with the
grain in the products, and also contributing to battery farming:
Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
and Prosage Patties
Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties
Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties
Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets
Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties, Chick Patties,
Chik'n Nuggets, Corn Dogs
>So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
>death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
>unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC.
It's for people who actually care about human influence
on animals that the info is really posted. We see that Etter
cares more about livestock than any vegans posting to
these ngs, and spends most of his posts pointing out how
vegans are lying about things related to human influence
on animals, afaik.
>How
>can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it?
You don't care. That's the point. So of course you surely
won't care enough to make any changes that promote life
and death for livestock, even if it would reduce the number
of overall deaths which you contribute to. Right? Right!!
>You guys need to come up with a better argument.
You don't care. You won't care. It's for people who might
care that the info is presented, and it's for people who might
care that you oppose the info. You don't care, and you don't
want anyone else to care.
>I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing some
>good and that bothers you.
It's that you don't care, and can't be made to care, though
you dishonestly pretend that you do care. That has bothered
me for most of my life.
>But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
>and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
>we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
>of animals is worthwhile?
Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident that I'm much
more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you are. And
so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
>I don't really get that impression.
That's because you can't care about the animals, so you can't
imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate livestock,
not provide decent lives for them, even in situations where doing
so would significantly reduce the number of animals deaths per
serving of food. You can't be made to care.
Dutch
>You want to eliminate livestock,
> not provide decent lives for them
That's an invalid choice fallacy, he may want both.
xpurgatoryx
big yo yo yo out to tha homies in news:pMadneF7ucu...@comcast.com
on the date Wed 14 Sep 2005 06:49:22p:
blah blah blah another troll
--
"Don't take life too serious. You'll never escape it alive anyway."
Elbert Hubbard
----------------------------------------
http://www.xpurgatoryx.com
http://www.xpurgatoryx.com/contact.html
EMAIL: imc...@hotmail.com
xpurgatoryx
on the date Wed 14 Sep 2005 10:25:24p:
take your troll ass to another usenet group
larrylook
news:11ik6j3...@news.supernews.com...
Of course I do. I'd like decent lives for the livestock that goes into
making food for my family and others that aren't vegans. If I heard some
animals (say pigs for example) where generally treated poor on farms, I'd
try to dissuade family members from eating them. But I'd try to be nice
about it.
larrylook
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5i2ki19jebpqgkt8f...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:49:22 -0400, "larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
>>eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
>>find this terribly distasteful.
>>
>>But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less
>>and
>>have good intentions.
>
> I've noticed that often when the truth is pointed out, vegans will lie
> about it.
The truth regarding what? That the myth of the grass fed cow (GFC) is
correct? Most people are eating factory farmed meat and could care less.
So what the vegetarian is doing is an impovement and creates less CD's.
>
>>Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
>>out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the killing and
>>should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to minimize
>>death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly
>>about the GFC label and it's validity
>
> If Derek cared he would encourage people to find out if the animals had
> been fed grain, and how much, etc. Instead he dishonestly pretends that
> grass raised beef is not available, because he doesn't care and does NOT
> want people to deliberately contribute to fewer cds by eating grass raised
> animal products. I know it. You know it. And I know that you know it.
If Derek cares, he would point out to people here that if they eat
vegetarian they are killing less, since you guys are telling them that
vegetarianism doesn't accomplish anything and they should eat GFC's to
reduce CD's. But this is impractical since everyone is busy making a living
and can't be researching everything on their plate. They need some basic
guidelines to follow. They need "Ethical eating for Dummies".
>
>>would certainly matter greatly to the
>>vegetarian.
>
> Here are some "vegetarian" products which contain egg whites,
> contributing
> to the cds involved with raising chickens as well as those involved with
> the
> grain in the products, and also contributing to battery farming:
>
> Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
> and Prosage Patties
>
> Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties
>
> Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties
>
> Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets
>
> Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties, Chick Patties,
> Chik'n Nuggets, Corn Dogs
Explain to me how egg whites makes any difference? I really don't
understand? Explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old please.
>
>>So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
>>death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
>>unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC.
>
> It's for people who actually care about human influence
> on animals that the info is really posted. We see that Etter
> cares more about livestock than any vegans posting to
> these ngs, and spends most of his posts pointing out how
> vegans are lying about things related to human influence
> on animals, afaik.
It's not very clear to me that Rick would give a darn about what's on his
dinner plate (in terms of ethics). It's not an expressed goal of his. It's
not clear to me that if he found out veal cows weren't treated well in his
area he's stop eating them, or if chicken weren't raised ethically he's stop
eating them. He keeps talking about the myth of the GFC, but it's not
clear that if he moved somewhere where you couldn't get CFG he wouldn't
switch to factory farmed meat.
>
>>How
>>can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it?
>
> You don't care.
How do you know I don't care? You presume too much. You must have a degree
in psychology knowing that all the vegetarians out there don't care about
animals. This is so preposterous.
That's the point. So of course you surely
> won't care enough to make any changes that promote life
> and death for livestock, even if it would reduce the number
> of overall deaths which you contribute to. Right? Right!!
>
>>You guys need to come up with a better argument.
>
> You don't care. You won't care. It's for people who might
> care that the info is presented, and it's for people who might
> care that you oppose the info. You don't care, and you don't
> want anyone else to care.
Maybe if you say it enough you'll believe it.
>
>>I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing
>>some
>>good and that bothers you.
>
> It's that you don't care, and can't be made to care, though
> you dishonestly pretend that you do care. That has bothered
> me for most of my life.
I'll give you something else you can let bother you. That the majority of
people don't care a bit about pain and suffering when they eat a meat.
They could care less. Look at the audience at a bullfight. They're having
a grand time. Why don't you worry about that? You have missplaced worries.
>
>>But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
>>and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
>>we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
>>of animals is worthwhile?
>
> Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident that I'm much
> more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you are. And
> so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
How much do you expect this CFG thing to catch on with the public? Is there
a huge public outcry for GCF's. I don't know.
>
>>I don't really get that impression.
>
> That's because you can't care about the animals, so you can't
> imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate livestock,
> not provide decent lives for them, even in situations where doing
> so would significantly reduce the number of animals deaths per
> serving of food. You can't be made to care.
Have a little faith in me, Mr. Optimistic ;-)
larrylook
> I don't think people can be practically expected to
>> research what went in to the production of every meal.
> ===========================
> Really? Then why do you claim that all your veggies are better than any
> meat, hypocrite? You've obviously done NO reseaqrch into the death and
> suffering your veggies cause. Why is that? Ignorance, stupidity, or
> hypocrisy?
I'm not a researcher. But I'm saying that the average vegetarians diet
causes less suffering and death (S &D) than the average meat eaters, so a
lot has been accomplished. You claim there's some theoretical, researched,
meat containing diet that causes less S&D. So I'm supposed to believe you
on this? Are you some kind of authority? And that Stephen Davis looks
rather shifty eye'd to me. I'm waiting for more proof than just your word
for it.
Noone is a hypocrite if they're trying to do the right thing and are taking
steps it the direction they think will accomplish the right thing. You guys
make it look like I can go to the cafeteria at work and find little tags on
the hamburgers there, sitting in their buns, saying "CFG". Where do you get
this idea anyway? All of this obfuscation just to make vegetarians feel
bad. I don't get it.
rick
>
>> I don't think people can be practically expected to
>>> research what went in to the production of every meal.
>> ===========================
>> Really? Then why do you claim that all your veggies are
>> better than any meat, hypocrite? You've obviously done NO
>> reseaqrch into the death and suffering your veggies cause.
>> Why is that? Ignorance, stupidity, or hypocrisy?
>
> I'm not a researcher.
No, you're a propagandized fool.
But I'm saying that the average vegetarians diet
> causes less suffering and death (S &D) than the average meat
> eaters, so a lot has been accomplished.
=============================
That's not the claim. vegans claim to do "all they can" to
eliminate death and suffering. It's a ly. A hypocritical ly.
As you continue to prove with each post.
You claim there's some theoretical, researched,
> meat containing diet that causes less S&D.
=========================
No fool, it is not theoritical. The meat exists. That YOU are
too stupid and agenda driven to understnad is your problem.
Well, and that of all the animals you kill unnecessarily because
of your lack of braincells. I also know that ALL your veggies
are far nore blood-splattered than you'd like to accept, so you
just ignore your impact and focus only on what you think others
are doing.
So I'm supposed to believe you
> on this? Are you some kind of authority?
====================
Yes. Just ask the resident fool here....
And that Stephen Davis looks
> rather shifty eye'd to me. I'm waiting for more proof than
> just your word for it.
======================
Where have I even mentioned Davis, killer? Another of your
strawmen, hypocrite?
>
> Noone is a hypocrite if they're trying to do the right thing
> and are taking steps it the direction they think will
> accomplish the right thing.
============================
Yes, they are hnypocrites, fool. "thinking" they are doing
something despite facts to the contrary is hypocritical, killer.
You guys
> make it look like I can go to the cafeteria at work and find
> little tags on the hamburgers there, sitting in their buns,
> saying "CFG". Where do you get this idea anyway? All of this
> obfuscation just to make vegetarians feel bad. I don't get it.
=====================
Where do you get the false idea that all your veggies are clean
as te wind driven snow? Again, you prove that YOUR life is all
about your convience. If animals were a real concern of yours
you wouldn't be eating at the cafeteria at work anyway,
hypocrite. You'd take your own food, that you grew yourself, eh
killer?
>
>
rick
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message
> news:5i2ki19jebpqgkt8f...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:49:22 -0400, "larrylook"
>> <noe...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly
>>>kill more by
>>>eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even
>>>though they
>>>find this terribly distasteful.
>>>
>>>But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are
>>>killing less and
>>>have good intentions.
>>
>> I've noticed that often when the truth is pointed out,
>> vegans will lie
>> about it.
>
> The truth regarding what? That the myth of the grass fed cow
> (GFC) is correct?
It is no myth fool. Just try a little research on your own.
Won't do it though, will you because it would burst your little
propaganda bubble, eh killer?
Most people are eating factory farmed meat and could care less.
> So what the vegetarian is doing is an impovement and creates
> less CD's.
====================
So what. Another little strawman, fool. We aren't talking about
what others are eating, we are talking about what the people who
"claim" to care are eating. YOU could do better. YOU don't want
to because all you have is your simple rule for your simple mind,
'eat no meat,' regardless of the consequences of your own bloody
footprints.
>
>>
>>>Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
>>>out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the
>>>killing and
>>>should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to
>>>minimize
>>>death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently
>>>and honestly
>>>about the GFC label and it's validity
>>
>> If Derek cared he would encourage people to find out if the
>> animals had
>> been fed grain, and how much, etc. Instead he dishonestly
>> pretends that
>> grass raised beef is not available, because he doesn't care
>> and does NOT
>> want people to deliberately contribute to fewer cds by eating
>> grass raised
>> animal products. I know it. You know it. And I know that you
>> know it.
>
> If Derek cares, he would point out to people here that if they
> eat vegetarian they are killing less, since you guys are
> telling them that vegetarianism doesn't accomplish anything and
> they should eat GFC's to reduce CD's.
====================
Another strawman, fool. No one says vegetarianism doesn't "DO"
anything. The point is that it is not the magic, automatic
paridise for animals that you like to delude yourself about.
But this is impractical since everyone is busy making a living
> and can't be researching everything on their plate. They need
> some basic guidelines to follow. They need "Ethical eating for
> Dummies".
=======================
Dummies is right, fool.
>
>>
>>>would certainly matter greatly to the
>>>vegetarian.
>>
>> Here are some "vegetarian" products which contain egg
>> whites, contributing
>> to the cds involved with raising chickens as well as those
>> involved with the
>> grain in the products, and also contributing to battery
>> farming:
>>
>> Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
>> and Prosage Patties
>>
>> Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties
>>
>> Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties
>>
>> Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets
>>
>> Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties, Chick Patties,
>> Chik'n Nuggets, Corn Dogs
>
> Explain to me how egg whites makes any difference? I really
> don't understand? Explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old
> please.
=====================
Come back in 2 years when you've advanced to a 4yo, killer.
>
>>
>>>So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
>>>death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so
>>>muddled and
>>>unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated
>>>with GFC.
>>
>> It's for people who actually care about human influence
>> on animals that the info is really posted. We see that Etter
>> cares more about livestock than any vegans posting to
>> these ngs, and spends most of his posts pointing out how
>> vegans are lying about things related to human influence
>> on animals, afaik.
>
> It's not very clear to me that Rick would give a darn about
> what's on his dinner plate (in terms of ethics).
===========================
There is no ethics involved in what is on my plate, fool.
It's not an expressed goal of his.
===============================
Really?
It's
> not clear to me that if he found out veal cows weren't treated
> well in his area he's stop eating them, or if chicken weren't
> raised ethically he's stop eating them.
===============================
I already don't eat veal, stupid. And the chickens roaming
around my backyard seem quite alright to me.
You really like your little strawmen, don't you fool?
He keeps talking about the myth of the GFC, but it's not
> clear that if he moved somewhere where you couldn't get CFG he
> wouldn't switch to factory farmed meat.
==============================
Again, if you would dare to do 'any' research fool, you'd
discover that grass fed beef is not a myth. In fact it is
growing far faster than any vegan craze is. Also, if you really
were concerned about how beef cattle are treated now, you would
wnat grass-fed beef to be a growing concern. That is, if you
weren't such a hypocrite. If you were really concerned about
beef cattle, you'd support an industry that provided incentives
to farmers to treat their animals differently. Instead, you just
continue to kill them in far more brutal, inhumane ways than ANY
meat aniaml indures.
>
>>
>>>How
>>>can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't
>>>know it?
>>
>> You don't care.
>
> How do you know I don't care? You presume too much.
====================
Nope. You prove that you really don't care with each inane post
to usenet, hypocrite.
You must have a degree
> in psychology knowing that all the vegetarians out there don't
> care about animals. This is so preposterous.
==============================
Another strawman, fool. We aren't talking about 'every' veg*n
'out there', just the hypocitical ones spewing their ignorance on
usenet. Like you.
>
> That's the point. So of course you surely
>> won't care enough to make any changes that promote life
>> and death for livestock, even if it would reduce the number
>> of overall deaths which you contribute to. Right? Right!!
>>
>>>You guys need to come up with a better argument.
>>
>> You don't care. You won't care. It's for people who might
>> care that the info is presented, and it's for people who might
>> care that you oppose the info. You don't care, and you don't
>> want anyone else to care.
>
> Maybe if you say it enough you'll believe it.
=================
LOL You keep proving it, fool.
>
>>
>>>I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they
>>>are doing some
>>>good and that bothers you.
>>
>> It's that you don't care, and can't be made to care, though
>> you dishonestly pretend that you do care. That has bothered
>> me for most of my life.
>
> I'll give you something else you can let bother you. That the
> majority of people don't care a bit about pain and suffering
> when they eat a meat.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Hey, what a coincidence, killer. You don't care about
the far more brutal, inhumane death and suffering of animals that
die for your veggies!
> They could care less. Look at the audience at a bullfight.
> They're having a grand time. Why don't you worry about that?
> You have missplaced worries.
> ===============================
LOL Again, the strawmen fall like crazy... YOU kill far more
animals than all the bulls combined every year, hypocrite. Yet
you never even bat an eye at all that blood. Why is that,
hypocrite?
>>
>>>But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
>>>and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about
>>>us feeling
>>>we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death
>>>and suffering
>>>of animals is worthwhile?
>>
>> Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident
>> that I'm much
>> more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you
>> are. And
>> so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
>
> How much do you expect this CFG thing to catch on with the
> public? Is there a huge public outcry for GCF's. I don't
> know.
==============================
Yes, there is. If you'd even try to educate yourself you find
that out, but like all vegan fools here on usenet, you prefer
your willful ignorance.
>
>>
>>>I don't really get that impression.
>>
>> That's because you can't care about the animals, so you
>> can't
>> imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate
>> livestock,
>> not provide decent lives for them, even in situations where
>> doing
>> so would significantly reduce the number of animals deaths per
>> serving of food. You can't be made to care.
>
> Have a little faith in me, Mr. Optimistic ;-)
==========================
I do. I have faith that you will never slow the unnecessary
killing you do for no more reasons that your selfishness and
entertainment.
>
>
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:5i2ki19jebpqgkt8f...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:49:22 -0400, "larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
>>>eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
>>>find this terribly distasteful.
>>>
>>>But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less
>>>and
>>>have good intentions.
>>
>> I've noticed that often when the truth is pointed out, vegans will lie
>> about it.
>
>The truth regarding what?
Human influence on animals.
>That the myth of the grass fed cow
That's one.
>(GFC) is
>correct? Most people are eating factory farmed meat and could care less.
>So what the vegetarian is doing is an impovement and creates less CD's.
>
>>
>>>Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
>>>out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the killing and
>>>should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to minimize
>>>death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly
>>>about the GFC label and it's validity
>>
>> If Derek cared he would encourage people to find out if the animals had
>> been fed grain, and how much, etc. Instead he dishonestly pretends that
>> grass raised beef is not available, because he doesn't care and does NOT
>> want people to deliberately contribute to fewer cds by eating grass raised
>> animal products. I know it. You know it. And I know that you know it.
>
>If Derek cares,
If 2goo cared about animals he would lie less, and very possibly not at all.
But he does lie, and he lies about animals, and he does it all the time.
>he would point out to people here that if they eat
>vegetarian they are killing less, since you guys are telling them that
>vegetarianism doesn't accomplish anything and they should eat GFC's to
>reduce CD's. But this is impractical since everyone is busy making a living
>and can't be researching everything on their plate. They need some basic
>guidelines to follow. They need "Ethical eating for Dummies".
>
>>
>>>would certainly matter greatly to the
>>>vegetarian.
>>
>> Here are some "vegetarian" products which contain egg whites,
>> contributing
>> to the cds involved with raising chickens as well as those involved with
>> the
>> grain in the products, and also contributing to battery farming:
>>
>> Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
>> and Prosage Patties
>>
>> Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties
>>
>> Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties
>>
>> Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets
>>
>> Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties, Chick Patties,
>> Chik'n Nuggets, Corn Dogs
>
>Explain to me how egg whites makes any difference? I really don't
>understand?
It's hard to believe you could be as inconsiderate as you claim
to be.
>Explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old please.
They are contributing to the cds involved with raising chickens AS
WELL AS the cds involved with the grain used in making the products.
They are also contributing to battery farming laying hens, which some
of us feel is a poor method of keeping chickens.
>>>So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
>>>death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
>>>unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC.
>>
>> It's for people who actually care about human influence
>> on animals that the info is really posted. We see that Etter
>> cares more about livestock than any vegans posting to
>> these ngs, and spends most of his posts pointing out how
>> vegans are lying about things related to human influence
>> on animals, afaik.
>
>It's not very clear to me that Rick would give a darn about what's on his
>dinner plate (in terms of ethics).
It's very clear that human influence on animals is much more significant
to him than it is to you, and almost certainly than it ever could be to you.
If it ever could be significant to you, how do you think that could possibly
come about?
>It's not an expressed goal of his. It's
>not clear to me that if he found out veal cows weren't treated well in his
>area he's stop eating them, or if chicken weren't raised ethically he's stop
>eating them. He keeps talking about the myth of the GFC, but it's not
>clear that if he moved somewhere where you couldn't get CFG he wouldn't
>switch to factory farmed meat.
>
>>
>>>How
>>>can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it?
>>
>> You don't care.
>
>How do you know I don't care?
You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your opposition to
humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
products.
>You presume too much. You must have a degree
>in psychology knowing that all the vegetarians out there don't care about
>animals. This is so preposterous.
>
> That's the point. So of course you surely
>> won't care enough to make any changes that promote life
>> and death for livestock, even if it would reduce the number
>> of overall deaths which you contribute to. Right? Right!!
>>
>>>You guys need to come up with a better argument.
>>
>> You don't care. You won't care. It's for people who might
>> care that the info is presented, and it's for people who might
>> care that you oppose the info. You don't care, and you don't
>> want anyone else to care.
>
>Maybe if you say it enough you'll believe it.
Maybe you could say or do something to change my mind,
but I doubt you ever will. I invite you to try.
>>>I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing
>>>some
>>>good and that bothers you.
>>
>> It's that you don't care, and can't be made to care, though
>> you dishonestly pretend that you do care. That has bothered
>> me for most of my life.
>
>I'll give you something else you can let bother you. That the majority of
>people don't care a bit about pain and suffering when they eat a meat.
I know that. But those people don't lie and pretend to care about
animals like you do. They admittedly don't care. You prove that you
don't care either, but dishonestly say you do. You are worse imo,
because of your incredible dishonesty.
>They could care less. Look at the audience at a bullfight. They're having
>a grand time. Why don't you worry about that?
Those people don't lie and pretend to care about animals like you do.
Your dishonesty is contemptible.
>You have missplaced worries.
>
>>>But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
>>>and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
>>>we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
>>>of animals is worthwhile?
>>
>> Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident that I'm much
>> more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you are. And
>> so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
>
>How much do you expect this CFG thing to catch on with the public?
I have no expectations, but we can see that you do NOT want it to
happen. So we can very safely say that I would like to see it happen,
and you would like to prevent it.
>Is there
>a huge public outcry for GCF's. I don't know.
>
>>
>>>I don't really get that impression.
>>
>> That's because you can't care about the animals, so you can't
>> imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate livestock,
>> not provide decent lives for them, even in situations where doing
>> so would significantly reduce the number of animals deaths per
>> serving of food. You can't be made to care.
>
>Have a little faith in me, Mr. Optimistic ;-)
How could I? I would like to see food animals deliberately
provided with decent lives. You would like to see food animals
prevented from existing. How could I possibly have faith that
you want something good for the animals we raise to eat, when
we both know very well that you don't want them to exist at all?
dh
>No one says vegetarianism doesn't "DO"
>anything.
A good way to think about it is that if vegans could do what
they try to do, they would be "doing" for animals what dead
people do. Nothing.
>The point is that it is not the magic, automatic
>paridise for animals that you like to delude yourself about.
Which animals could vegetarians think they're providing
anything for?
ban...@hotmail.com
We're still waiting for photgraphic evidence of the "slaughter by
vegans" that you keep pretending exists.
>
>
> >
> >
rick
<ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127091695....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip...
>
> We're still waiting for photgraphic evidence of the "slaughter
> by
> vegans" that you keep pretending exists.
======================
Walk the fields yourself you lazy wannbe... Thanks for once
again proving that killing animals is your desire...
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>
ban...@hotmail.com
So *that* explains all the dead deer, coyotes, rabbits, gophers, moose,
elk, buffalo, bears, etc. I found in my garden this morning!
I, and my vegan food choices killed them.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
larrylook
>> > We're still waiting for photgraphic evidence of the "slaughter
>> > by
>> > vegans" that you keep pretending exists.
>> ======================
>> Walk the fields yourself you lazy wannbe... Thanks for once
>> again proving that killing animals is your desire...
>>
>
>
>
> So *that* explains all the dead deer, coyotes, rabbits, gophers, moose,
> elk, buffalo, bears, etc. I found in my garden this morning!
You are so right. If you believed these guys you'd expect a horde of dead
animals in your garden. You'd be just stepping over myriads of carcasses.
Many of these animals dart away at the first hint of danger. They go into
the next field and come back when it's safe.
larrylook
>
> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
> opposition to
> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
> products.
I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find the
act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be repugnant.
rick
ROTFLMAO You really are this stupid, aren't you, killer?
>
>
rick
You really love your ignorant strawmen, don't you killer? Who
here eats chimp, dog, or dolphin?
On the other hand, you do kill far more mammals, birds, reptiles,
fish and amphibians than necessary, hypocrite
But then, you have continued to prove that you must love all that
blood dripping on your hands...
>
Dutch
Dutch
"larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote
So saving animal lives is not your main priority, it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?
Dave
dh@. wrote:
> >But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
> >and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
> >we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
> >of animals is worthwhile?
>
> Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident that I'm much
> more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you are. And
> so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
Veganism does not encourage the inhumane treatment of factory farmed
animals any more than eating GFC's does.
> >I don't really get that impression.
>
> That's because you can't care about the animals, so you can't
> imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate livestock,
> not provide decent lives for them,
I'm sure Larry does not have a problem with cattle, pigs, sheep,
chickens
and other such animals existing as wild animals that experience
decent lives.
Dave
Dutch wrote:
> Veganism is made possible by the ready availability of a wide variety of
> commerically grown produce, manufactured meat substitutes like tofu and
> tempeh, and by modern supplements. It's an artificial environment. If a
> vegan were plopped down in the wilderness to survive, he'd either die or
> he'd quickly learn to fish and hunt.
Excuse me if this sounds like a stupid question but why is the above
relevant to the question of whether veganism is justified?
rick
> "rick" <st...@stop.net> wrote
>
>> Veganism does discourage any improvement in animals lives.
>
> How? ========================
Just how I said, except that I might add 'improvement' only as
seen by a vegan loon. They provide nothing but lip service to
the status quo. Producers aren't going to respond to those that
never have, and never will purchase their product, which is the
same as discouraging change. However, those that do buy the
alternatives, or at least promote the alternative, provide an
incentive for producers to provide a product which, in the eyes
of those that claim to care about animals, treats their animals
better. In otherwords, veganism isn't part of the solution to
what they see as poorly treated animals. In a different sense,
if somehow vegans were somehow able to make a noticble impact on
beef consumption, that still wouldn't improve the lives of those
animals, and in fact may worsen them. Farming is first and
foremost, a business. If product consumption goes down, and they
still have product, they will then try forcing more animals
through even more cheaply, and in the eyes of vegans, more
inhumanely, to make up the difference in cost vs sales, just the
same as anyother business. Reduce costs. So, either way,
veganism is not an answer. Well, except to self-serving
hypocrisy. It does that very well.
>
dh
>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>
>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>> opposition to
>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>> products.
>
>I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>when she died.
You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
which is something you would hate to do.
>But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find the
>act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be repugnant.
I sure do pitty your kids...and probably so do their friends. You
would have to work really hard to get a grip on reality, and this little
exercise in the truth about human influence on animals *could* be
a great help to you. But you can't get yourself to care, and of
course no one else can make you. So you remain in the twisted
grotesque world of your own creation, no doubt at the expense of
others who must put up with you. You probably won't admit it, but
I'll bet other people tell you that.
dh
You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you think
it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.
>it's aesthetics, so what
>else is new?
It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
animals by being vegan or by eating meat. All they can do is contribute
to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it deliberately.
People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock. People
can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the same
time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of vegetable
products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.
Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:
Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food to
raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: Time for you to throw in the towel, fuckwit
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
Message-ID: <108m9om...@news.supernews.com>
Speak for yourself please fuckwit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.
"This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and
what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher? Revered moralist, he
might plead, fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and tomorrow
but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine
intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me,
thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray
thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If,
then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."
Hear that fuckwit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.
Spare all of us, fuckwit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
At one time he pretended to understand that:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
obviously did.
Dutch
> The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
> which is something you would hate to do.
"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until* you
agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
issue. Vegans' stance that they should never be born is NOT a source of
criticism of veganism any more than it would be a source of moral criticism
of a farmer who decides for economic reasons to have a smaller herd of
cattle. It's high time you get off that kick David, it's an absurd argument.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote
>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>>
>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>>> opposition to
>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>>> products.
>>>
>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>>> repugnant.
>>
>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
>
> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
> think
> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.
Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through that
process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim to,
neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.
>>it's aesthetics, so what
>>else is new?
>
> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.
Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
prevent future animals from being born, or as they see it, they *save* the
animals from being born into an abbreviated life marked by suffering,
deprivation and exploitation.
> All they can do is contribute
> to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
> deliberately.
They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is nothing
worthy of criticism.
> People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.
Only by consuming selectively, simply consuming does not do that. You are
pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't you
stop lying fuckwit?
> People
> can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
> same
> time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
> vegetable
> products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.
I have no reason to be opposed to it fuckwit. I am opposed to one thing in
this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of the
Larder, and I will continue to oppose it.
> Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:
>
> Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
> to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
> to
> raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
> a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
> fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?
You are one confused, fucked-up redneck fuckwit.
Dutch
"Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote
Relevance? I made the observation in order to introduce some more context
into the current discussion about veganism. I think it's worthy to note how
we survive when we are stripped of the support system that we all take so
much for granted. As to the rest of your question specifically, it is
necessary to thoroughly and clearly define the terms "veganism" and
"justified" as you understand them before I can respond in more detail.
rick
"Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127150191....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> dh@. wrote:
>
>> >But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
>> >and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about
>> >us feeling
>> >we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death
>> >and suffering
>> >of animals is worthwhile?
>>
>> Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident
>> that I'm much
>> more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you
>> are. And
>> so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
>
> Veganism does not encourage the inhumane treatment of factory
> farmed
> animals any more than eating GFC's does.
Veganism does discourage any improvement in animals lives. Those
that eat grass-fed beef on the other hand are actively providing
an incentive for farmers to raise their cattle in a different
way. Those are the people that are doing something about what
you regard as the 'evil' of factory farmed beef. Vegans do
nothing, except ignore their own bloody footprints in regards to
the factory-farming of veggies. There is a far more 'factory'
like setting than beef.
rick
It goes right ot the heart of whether or not veganism is even
plausible. Like he said, without your modern infratsructure of
manufacturing, convenience, and ease, a vegan would not be able
to survive practically anywhere in the world. In short, it is a
feel-good, do-nothing delusion for people with too much time and
not enough brains.
>
Dutch
"rick" <st...@stop.net> wrote
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
That's a load of bull, meat producers and consumers are culpable for poor
conditions for livestock animals. That problem cannot be laid at the
doorstep of vegans, or anyone else who abstains from using those products.
Dutch
rick
No, I never claimed they were responsible for the conditions.
All I'm saying is that they are not contributing to 'better'
conditions that they claim to care about, or even alleviating any
of the 'poor' conditions they rant about. All I said is that
they have NO impact on making the conditions better. No where
did I claim that users of the product are not culpable. The
'problem' I'm talking about is the one in which vegans pretend
that they are doing something to alleviate those problems. They
are not. Explain to me how being vegan alleviates the conditions
of farm animals. I've explained how providing farmers with an
alternative way to make money, AND do something about animals
conditions will work. No vegan has ever explained how being
vegan automatically makes any difference at all.
>
>
>
Dutch
The statement of yours that I take issue with is, "Veganism does discourage
any improvement in animals lives."
You say that people who abstain from using a product are somehow implicated
in abuses that occur in the production of that product because they place an
economic burden on those producers. That is bad logic. Poor conditions, or
any kind of conditions, are the responsibility of the producers and those
who support them, nobody else.
> All I'm saying is that they are not contributing to 'better' conditions
> that they claim to care about, or even alleviating any of the 'poor'
> conditions they rant about. All I said is that they have NO impact on
> making the conditions better.
That's not their claim, it's a strawman. The point of veganism is to *take
no part* in the animal industry, not to reform it. Those same people may and
often do participate in reform or welfare actions also, but that is a
separate issue.
"Veganism does discourage any improvement in animals lives." If you reword
that statement you are left with "Veganism encourages deterioration in
conditions for animals."
> No where did I claim that users of the product are not culpable.
I didn't say you said that, but you did imply more than once that abstaining
from animal products is somehow implicated in poor conditions for animals.
That is an unfair criticism of vegetarianism.
> The 'problem' I'm talking about is the one in which vegans pretend that
> they are doing something to alleviate those problems. They are not.
> Explain to me how being vegan alleviates the conditions of farm animals.
> I've explained how providing farmers with an alternative way to make
> money, AND do something about animals conditions will work. No vegan has
> ever explained how being vegan automatically makes any difference at all.
It's very simple, abstaining from using a product removes the economic
incentive for that product to be produced, to the extent that one person can
do so.
Dutch
> take your troll ass to another usenet group
Listen joker, this group doesn't need a netcop, so take your lame comments
elsewhere.
Dutch
rick
I made it only in relation to the fact that they claim to make a
difference just by being vegan. Basically they ignore the plight
of animals in any real sense. Not doing something positive, like
an incentive to make a change is, to me, the same as actively
promoting the status quo.
>
> You say that people who abstain from using a product are
> somehow implicated in abuses that occur in the production of
> that product because they place an economic burden on those
> producers. That is bad logic. Poor conditions, or any kind of
> conditions, are the responsibility of the producers and those
> who support them, nobody else.
============================
I never claimed otherwise. I never claimed that vegan were
responsible for those actions. I claimed they are doing nothing
to alleviate those actions.
>
>> All I'm saying is that they are not contributing to 'better'
>> conditions that they claim to care about, or even alleviating
>> any of the 'poor' conditions they rant about. All I said is
>> that they have NO impact on making the conditions better.
>
> That's not their claim, it's a strawman. The point of veganism
> is to *take no part* in the animal industry, not to reform it.
===========================
They go to great lengths to rant about their perception of the
meat industry, and how they would stop all production given the
chance. You cannot say that noone here on usenet has not said
that before.
Those same people may and
> often do participate in reform or welfare actions also, but
> that is a separate issue.
=================
What reform actions? The actions they decry are basically seen
as fine and dandy animal production. The only real reforms will
take place when there is a monetary reward for doing so.
>
> "Veganism does discourage any improvement in animals lives." If
> you reword that statement you are left with "Veganism
> encourages deterioration in conditions for animals."
========================
Not the same statement, nor the same implication. I used the
term in regards to their lack of any real action to make any
difference.
>
>> No where did I claim that users of the product are not
>> culpable.
>
> I didn't say you said that, but you did imply more than once
> that abstaining from animal products is somehow implicated in
> poor conditions for animals. That is an unfair criticism of
> vegetarianism.
========================
No, I did not. I claimed that they are part of the status quo if
they do nothing to provide for change to occur. That applies to
the buyers of 'typical' meat products as well. The only
difference is that they have not claimed that they want a change,
or that they care about the way animals are treated. vegans here
make that claim all the time, but they really do nothing to
effect a change.
>
>> The 'problem' I'm talking about is the one in which vegans
>> pretend that they are doing something to alleviate those
>> problems. They are not. Explain to me how being vegan
>> alleviates the conditions of farm animals. I've explained how
>> providing farmers with an alternative way to make money, AND
>> do something about animals conditions will work. No vegan has
>> ever explained how being vegan automatically makes any
>> difference at all.
>
> It's very simple, abstaining from using a product removes the
> economic incentive for that product to be produced, to the
> extent that one person can do so.
==============================
And as I said, they have no impact, therefore they provide no
incentive for change. If they truely wanted a change in the way
meat animals are raised, then abstention does nothing, providing
an alternative does.
>
>
Dutch
>> It's very simple, abstaining from using a product removes the economic
>> incentive for that product to be produced, to the extent that one person
>> can do so.
> ==============================
> And as I said, they have no impact, therefore they provide no incentive
> for change. If they truely wanted a change in the way meat animals are
> raised, then abstention does nothing, providing an alternative does.
That's just false, all consumers who pursue alternatives are doing something
to cause change. If consumers opt for free-range products they will cause a
shift from conventional production to free-range production, if consumers
opt for abstaining from products they will cause a shift towards less
production. Which action is better is a matter of opinion, but each has the
same type of ripple effect on production.
larrylook
<dh@.> wrote in message news:1sqti1dqo0v1p0fke...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0400, "larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>
>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>> opposition to
>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>> products.
>>
>>I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>>when she died.
>
> You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
> they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
> don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
> lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
> which is something you would hate to do.
So the farmer who acts to create more future animals is morally better than
the one who doesn't? The person who has 4 kids is better than the person
who has 2 who is better than the person who has 0. This seems absurd to me.
If someone sterilizes his dog he is less moral because he prevents future
lives. I don't think you can put future lives into the equation like this.
It makes no sense to me. I beef farmer is not doing something noble or
commendable simply because he takes steps to create further cow lives. If I
don't want more rabbits around my garden and I feed the rabbits a food that
makes them unable to breed, I don't think I've done something unethical. I
haven't killed these future lives and I'm not morally resposible for them.
You need to think this over a bit.
larrylook
"rick" <st...@stop.net> wrote in message
news:LGEXe.653$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127149496....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> Veganism is made possible by the ready availability of a wide variety of
>>> commerically grown produce, manufactured meat substitutes like tofu and
>>> tempeh, and by modern supplements. It's an artificial environment. If a
>>> vegan were plopped down in the wilderness to survive, he'd either die or
>>> he'd quickly learn to fish and hunt.
>>
>> Excuse me if this sounds like a stupid question but why is the above
>> relevant to the question of whether veganism is justified?
> ========================
> It goes right ot the heart of whether or not veganism is even plausible.
> Like he said, without your modern infratsructure of manufacturing,
> convenience, and ease, a vegan would not be able to survive practically
> anywhere in the world.
The fact that he wouldn't be able to survive in a very primitive environment
means nothing. Many people in this modern world wouldn't. I don't think
I'd survive if I had to go back to Windows 98 from XP. The question is,
what can we do in this modern world we live in to reduce suffering and
death, in a practical way, and still get everyone fed. Also many eat on the
run and can't research if our meat was from GFCs that are non-flatulant, and
fed on rotated fields. It's impractical. I'm presently writing "Ethical
Eating for Dummies" base on all I've learned here.
rick
Try reading for comprehesion, fool. I never said that he had to
go primitive. I said that it is the modern convenineces that he
enjoys that allows him the ease in which to pretend to be vegan.
Without his modern convenineces and lifestyle, it wouldn't be
possible.
I don't think
> I'd survive if I had to go back to Windows 98 from XP. The
> question is, what can we do in this modern world we live in to
> reduce suffering and death, in a practical way, and still get
> everyone fed.
==============================
Well factory farmed veggies won't cut the mustard using those
criteria, killer.
Also many eat on the
> run and can't research if our meat was from GFCs that are
> non-flatulant, and fed on rotated fields. It's impractical.
================================
So how do you have all the time to research the veggies you eat.
Where do they come from. How much fertilizer is used. How much
pesticides are used, and how often? How much processing is
required for different products? Oh, yeah, you haven't even
researched that, have you hypocrite. It's quite easy to find
grass-fed beef that you know was grass-fed. I can drive right
down the road and see them anytime I want.
I'm presently writing "Ethical
> Eating for Dummies" base on all I've learned here.
===========================
LOL You haven't demostrated that you have learned anything
except delusion and propaganda, killer.
>
>
>
>
Dutch
>
> "rick" <st...@stop.net> wrote
>>
>> "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Veganism is made possible by the ready availability of a wide variety
>>>> of
>>>> commerically grown produce, manufactured meat substitutes like tofu and
>>>> tempeh, and by modern supplements. It's an artificial environment. If a
>>>> vegan were plopped down in the wilderness to survive, he'd either die
>>>> or
>>>> he'd quickly learn to fish and hunt.
>>>
>>> Excuse me if this sounds like a stupid question but why is the above
>>> relevant to the question of whether veganism is justified?
>> ========================
>> It goes right ot the heart of whether or not veganism is even plausible.
>> Like he said, without your modern infratsructure of manufacturing,
>> convenience, and ease, a vegan would not be able to survive practically
>> anywhere in the world.
>
> The fact that he wouldn't be able to survive in a very primitive
I didn't say he wouldn't be able to survive, I said he would hunt and fish.
This goes directly to the core of the misonception that veganism is somehow
more "natural".
> I don't think I'd survive if I had to go back to Windows 98 from XP. The
> question is, what can we do in this modern world we live in to reduce
> suffering and death, in a practical way, and still get everyone fed. Also
> many eat on the run and can't research if our meat was from GFCs that are
> non-flatulant, and fed on rotated fields. It's impractical.
Modern western cities comprise only a small component of the world's
population. Are you presenting a morality that applies only to hurried
western urbanites? What about rural Saskatchewan or Montana? What about
Asia, Africa, South America?
> I'm presently writing "Ethical
> Eating for Dummies" base on all I've learned here.
You haven't learned a thing here, as far as I can see, and you aren't
writing any books.
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
>> which is something you would hate to do.
>
>"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until* you
>agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
>issue.
It's not like that for everyone. You "ARAs" decide in advance that
you believe the animals morally should not be born regardless of the
quality that their lives would have. I believe the quality of their lives
should be taken into consideration.
dh
Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing something
to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.
>or as they see it, they *save* the
>animals from being born into an abbreviated life
· Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not
being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised
and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
they get as a result of it. ·
>marked by suffering,
>deprivation
Some have horrible lives. Some have decent lives. Some have
good lives. To you it makes no difference what the quality of
their lives are...it is all exploitation to you.
>and exploitation.
To me that is an ignorant, shallow way to think.
>> All they can do is contribute
>> to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
>> deliberately.
>
>They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is nothing
>worthy of criticism.
>
>> People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.
>
>Only by consuming selectively,
Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>simply consuming does not do that.
I never said it does.
>You are
>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't you
>stop lying fuckwit?
I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point out.
For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
contribute to their elimination.
5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
some vegetable products.
6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.
7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.
>> People
>> can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
>> same
>> time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
>> vegetable
>> products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.
>
>I have no reason to be opposed to it fuckwit. I am opposed to one thing in
>this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of the
>Larder,
And of course I'm opposed to the Logic of the Fantastic Singing Pig.
>and I will continue to oppose it.
>
>> Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:
>>
>> Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
>> to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
>> to
>> raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
>> a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
>> fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
>
>How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
>ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?
1. Your insistence that we can't take the lives of animals into consideration
when we contemplate human influence on animals.
2. Your insistence that raising animals for food is like raising children for
sex slaves.
3. Your insistence that a speech by an imaginary talking pig written by a
founder of "AR", somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals
benefit from farming.
4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
for "AR" organizations.
5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than deliberately
contribute to decent lives for food animals.
6. Things like this:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:17:31 -0800
it *is* pure exploitation. The fact that animals are alive (ie. "get to experience
life" as you put it) does not offset that fact, in fact it arguably adds to it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700
Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800
My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800
I am an animal rights believer.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[...]
>> At one time he pretended to understand that:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
>>
>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
>> or negative value to the animal.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
>> about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
>> anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
>> and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
>> obviously did.
>
>You are one confused, fucked-up redneck fuckwit.
Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy to
understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> >But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
>> >and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
>> >we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
>> >of animals is worthwhile?
>>
>> Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident that I'm much
>> more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you are. And
>> so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
>
>Veganism does not encourage the inhumane treatment of factory farmed
>animals any more than eating GFC's does.
A person could consider the influence on wildlife as well
as livestock.
>> >I don't really get that impression.
>>
>> That's because you can't care about the animals, so you can't
>> imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate livestock,
>> not provide decent lives for them,
>
>I'm sure Larry does not have a problem with cattle, pigs, sheep,
>chickens
>and other such animals existing as wild animals that experience
>decent lives.
· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begin their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.
Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:1sqti1dqo0v1p0fke...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0400, "larrylook" <noe...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>>
>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>>> opposition to
>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>>> products.
>>>
>>>I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>>>when she died.
>>
>> You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
>> they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
>> don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
>> lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
>> which is something you would hate to do.
>
>So the farmer who acts to create more future animals is morally better than
>the one who doesn't?
He certainly provides life for more animals, whether it's "morally better"
or not. Of course a person like yourself who hates the animals could never
feel it's morally better, regardless of the quality of life.
>The person who has 4 kids is better than the person
>who has 2 who is better than the person who has 0. This seems absurd to me.
>If someone sterilizes his dog he is less moral because he prevents future
>lives. I don't think you can put future lives into the equation like this.
I can because I can also consider quality of life, and that a decent life
is a positive thing. I can believe that sometimes it's good to encourage life
and sometimes it's not. You can't do either.
>It makes no sense to me.
I believe you.
>I beef farmer is not doing something noble or
>commendable simply because he takes steps to create further cow lives. If I
>don't want more rabbits around my garden and I feed the rabbits a food that
>makes them unable to breed, I don't think I've done something unethical.
Neither do I.
>I haven't killed these future lives and I'm not morally resposible for them.
>You need to think this over a bit.
It's quite obvious that I've thought it over a lot, and consider more aspects
of the situation than you do, and probably more than you'll ever be able to.
dh
>The statement of yours that I take issue with is, "Veganism does discourage
>any improvement in animals lives."
That sure sounds familiar. We know that "AR" would make better
AW impossible, and we know you do NOT want people to think about
that extremely significant aspect of the situation:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:18:51 GMT
dh wrote:
>you hate it when I point out that "AR" would not provide better
>lives, longer lives, rights, or anything at all for farm animals.
True, I hate that argument
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 06:07:48 GMT
dh wrote:
> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.
Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you can find.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
We also know that one reason you don't want people to think about
it is because you're afraid it could result in less financial support for
"AR" organizations, if everyone really understands and thinks about
the situation:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:15:41 -0800
The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
The question of course is: Why would anyone who is in favor of
decent AW, want to prevent people from keeping in mind the huge
difference between AW and the gross mi$nomer "AR"?
The answer of course is: They would not.
The conclusion is: Etter is in favor of decent AW. You are not.
That's what I've been pointing out for years, and it still remains true today.
Dutch
I'm not saying that there's no doubletalk in veganism, but you don't fight a
dishonest movement by trying to outdo their level of duplicity. When vegans
claim to be helping animals, it makes no sense to take that to mean some
specific animals in barns somewhere. It means livestock animals *in
general*, it means that veganism means fewer livestock and that is a more
moral state of affairs.
>>or as they see it, they *save* the
>>animals from being born into an abbreviated life
>
> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
> didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
> fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
> that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not
> being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised
> and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
> they get as a result of it. ·
That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep them
in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.
>>marked by suffering,
>>deprivation
>
> Some have horrible lives. Some have decent lives. Some have
> good lives. To you it makes no difference what the quality of
> their lives are...it is all exploitation to you.
For it to be exploitation it does not depend on whether or not the animals
suffer, it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.
>>and exploitation.
>
> To me that is an ignorant, shallow way to think.
Exploitation is exploitation, if you treat a slave well, you're still
exploiting him.
>>> All they can do is contribute
>>> to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
>>> deliberately.
>>
>>They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is
>>nothing
>>worthy of criticism.
>>
>>> People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.
>>
>>Only by consuming selectively,
>
> Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can
> deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.
>>simply consuming does not do that.
>
> I never said it does.
It's implied in your position.
>>You are
>>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
>>you
>>stop lying fuckwit?
>
> I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point
> out.
You don't "point out truth" fuckwit, you spin a shabby sophistry.
> For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
>
> 1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
Being born is not a benefit.
> 2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
Only if the animals are born.
> 3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
No, it would make it irrelevant.
> 4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
> contribute to their elimination.
Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.
> 5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
> livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
> some vegetable products.
There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted with your
spinny rhetoric.
> 6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
> than their deaths.
"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.
> 7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.
Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. We
raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.
>>> People
>>> can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
>>> same
>>> time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
>>> vegetable
>>> products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.
>>
>>I have no reason to be opposed to it fuckwit. I am opposed to one thing in
>>this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of
>>the
>>Larder,
>
> And of course I'm opposed to the Logic of the Fantastic Singing Pig.
We were opposing LoL years before Salt's essay came along.
>>and I will continue to oppose it.
>>
>>> Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:
>>>
>>> Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
>>> to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
>>> to
>>> raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy
>>> about
>>> a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
>>> fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
>>
>>How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
>>ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?
>
> 1. Your insistence that we can't take the lives of animals into
> consideration
> when we contemplate human influence on animals.
You can't take a moral credit because they are living creatures.
> 2. Your insistence that raising animals for food is like raising children
> for
> sex slaves.
No, your sophism MAKES it like taking credit for raising children for the
sex trade.
> 3. Your insistence that a speech by an imaginary talking pig written by a
> founder of "AR", somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals
> benefit from farming.
It completely refutes your position.
> 4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
> difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
> for "AR" organizations.
I don't even understand that one.
> 5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
> deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for food animals.
Those are not the only two options, it's a fase choice fallacy.
I didn't unlearn anything fuckwit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:52:34 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
>>> which is something you would hate to do.
>>
>>"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until*
>>you
>>agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
>>issue.
>
> It's not like that for everyone.
That is how it is.
> You "ARAs" decide
You know I'm not an ARA, stop embarrassing yourself.
in advance that
> you believe the animals morally should not be born regardless of the
> quality that their lives would have.
So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
> I believe the quality of their lives
> should be taken into consideration.
So do I, *if* they are going to be raised. This idea of yours that they
ought to be born so that we can apply AW principles to them is at the core
of your position and it is moronic.
Dutch
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:04:28 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>The statement of yours that I take issue with is, "Veganism does
>>discourage
>>any improvement in animals lives."
>
> That sure sounds familiar. We know that "AR" would make better
> AW impossible,
That doesn't matter, "better AW" is irrelevant unless there are animals to
receive it.
> and we know you do NOT want people to think about
> that extremely significant aspect of the situation:
It's an absurdity fuckwit, YOU are an absurdity.
Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills
> So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
>
you mean animals that are not conceived? what if they're aborted? there's
a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)
Dutch
"Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills" <nae_spa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
message news:f0uYe.6537$lB4....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
>>
>
> you mean animals that are not conceived? what if they're aborted?
> there's a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)
Yes, that's more precise, thank you.
Dave
larrylook wrote:
Investigating the farms in your locality to see if you can find
one that rears ethically acceptable meat doesn't sound that impractical
to me, although for those of us who are happy living without, the time
may not be worth the effort.
> It's impractical. I'm presently writing "Ethical
> Eating for Dummies" base on all I've learned here.
That sounds like a worthy project. My advice would be not to
present avoiding animal produce as an essential requirement
for two reasons. To do so would be a major over-simplification.
Also many people would find the idea of giving up meat rather
daunting and dairy even more so. Giving them some information
to help them make ethical comparisons between different meats
seems more productive than turning them off the idea of
ethical eating altogether.
Dave
dh@. wrote:
None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).
Your failure to take these facts into consideration
is the real distortion of reality.
[snip]
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
>> didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
>> fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
>> that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not
>> being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised
>> and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
>> they get as a result of it. ·
>
>That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep them
>in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.
They gain life from it. Remember? Or did you unlearn that too?
They gain life from it, and you want very badly to PREVENT people
from considering that aspect. Remember? That's the main reason
for the hundreds or thousands of posts you've made to me, in your
attempts to make the lives of billions of animals appear to be
insignificant to me. Remember?
[···]
>>>marked by suffering,
>>>deprivation
[···]
> it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.
[···]
>>>and exploitation.
[···]
>Exploitation is exploitation,
[···]
>>>Only by consuming selectively,
>>
>> Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can deliberately
>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>
>That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.
I was hoping you might somehow understand the second time. Let's
try it this way: How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute
to decent lives for farm animals, without consuming selectively?
>>>simply consuming does not do that.
>>
>> I never said it does.
>
>It's implied in your position.
I am very curious to see how.
>>>You are
>>>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>>>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
>>>you
>>>stop lying fuckwit?
>>
>> I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point
>> out.
>
>You don't "point out truth"
If I were going to lie, I wouldn't say the things I do you stupid
moron. I'd say things that I thought would make people like me
better. You dumbass.
>fuckwit, you spin a shabby sophistry.
>
>> For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
>>
>> 1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>
>Being born is not a benefit.
The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has
positive or negative value to the animal. How did you unlearn that?
>> 2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>
>Only if the animals are born.
How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?
>> 3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
>
>No
Liar.
>it would make it irrelevant.
>
>> 4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
>> contribute to their elimination.
>
>Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.
How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
AW for farm animals, if the animals are never born?
>> 5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
>> livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
>> some vegetable products.
>
>There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted
How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute fewer wildlife
deaths and to decent lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?
>with your
>spinny rhetoric.
>
>> 6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
>> than their deaths.
>
>"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.
How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?
>> 7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.
>
>Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
>taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets.
Explain how a farmer taking credit for the life of his favorite cow, is
analagous to him whoring out his daughter.
>We
>raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
>but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
>"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.
When considering whether or not it's cruel to the animals to do so,
I will not attempt to avoid considering their life.
[...]
>> 4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
>> difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
>> for "AR" organizations.
>
>I don't even understand that one.
You want me to kill myself because I point out the difference between
AW and "AR". The reason you want me to kill myself is because you
believe, as I do, that the vast majority of the financial support for "AR"As
comes from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of
animal use. We agree about that. The difference is that I want people
to understand the difference, so they will stop contributing to your elimination
objective. Of course, you do NOT want them to stop. You understood better
than I did before I explained it, and we both damn well know it. I understand
that is the way it is, but don't understand why. You do understand why, and
also why you created the situation.
>> 5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
>> deliberately
>> contribute to decent lives for food animals.
>
>Those are not the only two options,
What's the other one?
>it's a fase choice fallacy.
[...]
>> Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
>> significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy
>> to
>> understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!
>
>I didn't unlearn anything fuckwit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
>point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.
Well, I don't really give a fuck whether you consider it a moral brownie
point or any other imaginary damn stupid thing. No brownie points. No
gold stars. No lollipops or any other stupid ass thing. How's that?
Here is where you can't go, but I won't forget about it. The method of
husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative
value to the animal. That means TO THE ANIMAL you selfish bastard.
Not to you. You are too selfish to understand the truth of your own
words, and Salt's imaginary singing pig was correct when it said in its
final moments:
It is not for their sake but for thine, that you would
rather prevent their lives than see them deliberately
provided with decent lives and humane deaths.
dh
I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.
>Your failure to take these facts into consideration
>is the real distortion of reality.
I most certainly take them into consideration. I've pointed out
more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
crop filds. I have also more than once asked: why should we only
contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> You "ARAs" decide
>
>You know I'm not an ARA
How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.
dh
wrote:
>
>> So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
>>
>
>you mean animals that are not conceived?
They are too stupid to take that into consideration to any extent.
I call their fantasy idea ines (imaginary nonexistent "entities") for
convenience. The heart of their argument is totally dependant on
assigning some significance to ines. Dutch's hero, Goo, who
began this campaign to prevent consideration of the lives of
billions of animals, says that animals can't benefit because ines
don't, which seems absurd to me:
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:18:19 GMT
"Life" cannot be a benefit, or something "better" than
what was in place before, TO a being that doesn't
exist. But before they are conceived and then born,
animals don't exist. Thus, "life" CANNOT be a
"benefit" to animals, as stupid illogical Fuckwit would
have it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1110306884.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NO animal "benefits" from coming into existence
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com>
Date: 8 Mar 2005 10:32:48 -0800
An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to that entity.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jay Santos <j...@philhendrieshow.con>
Message-ID: <dLbwd.780$Z47...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Life itself is not a benefit.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@noneofyourbusiness.com>
Message-ID: <3D29D986...@noneofyourbusiness.com>
Animals "getting to experience life", per se, is not worthy of
moral consideration.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1110311850.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Wilson Woods <liber...@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 16:26:04 GMT
Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit" to them
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1110309762.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Initial existence
CANNOT be a benefit to the entity that comes into existence
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1110311932.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
No animal "benefits" from coming into existence.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: mortons.s...@chicago.not
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:40:51 GMT
Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Dieter <d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:15:23 GMT
Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living
thing, for very well documented and tightly logical
reasons that have been explained THOUSANDS of times
here, and that you, of course, cannot refute.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>what if they're aborted?
What if? The Goos believe that their lives are not a benefit anyway,
so what do they lose whenever they are killed? By the Goobal argument
nothing, regardless of quality of life or anything else.
>there's
>a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)
Here's an interesting idiocy: I pointed out a number of times that
if unborn animals are not born it would kill the unborn and the mother,
but still Goo continued to insist that:
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:59 GMT
NO animals "benefit" from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:49 GMT
No animal benefits from being born. Period.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:12:48 GMT
NO animals benefit from being born, Fuckwit. None.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:16:38 GMT
NO animals benefit from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:33:07 GMT
NO animal benefits from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:53:46 GMT
Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:20:32 GMT
NO animals 'benefit' from being born, Fuckwit. Not a
single one.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:53:53 GMT
Being born is not a benefit, FUCKWIT; it cannot be.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>
>>> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
>>> didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
>>> fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
>>> that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not
>>> being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised
>>> and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
>>> they get as a result of it. ·
>>
>>That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep
>>them
>>in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.
>
> They gain life from it. Remember? Or did you unlearn that too?
We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them to
use as food.
> They gain life from it, and you want very badly to PREVENT people
> from considering that aspect. Remember? That's the main reason
> for the hundreds or thousands of posts you've made to me, in your
> attempts to make the lives of billions of animals appear to be
> insignificant to me. Remember?
No, I am not concerned with preventing anyone except you from using The
Logic of the Larder, since in case you hadn't noticed virtually nobody but
you is using the argument, nor will they ever. It's stupid, circular
sophistry that I am quite sure most 10-year-olds could see through.
> [···]
>>>>marked by suffering,
>>>>deprivation
> [···]
>> it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.
> [···]
>>>>and exploitation.
> [···]
>>Exploitation is exploitation,
> [···]
>>>>Only by consuming selectively,
>>>
>>> Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can
>>> deliberately
>>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can
>>>deliberately
>>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>>
>>That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.
>
> I was hoping you might somehow understand the second time. Let's
> try it this way: How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute
> to decent lives for farm animals, without consuming selectively?
That's what I said, idiot. Simply consuming does NOT "contribute to decent
lives for farm animals". Your false choice is presented as a/b, we can a)
"contribute to decent lives for farm animals" OR b) we can be vegans. In
order for that dichotomy to be logical a) must refer to simply consuming
animal products, not consuming selectively, because that *is* the opposite
of veganism. I fear however that you use this sophistry unconsciously and
don't even know what I'm saying. See again below..
>>>>simply consuming does not do that.
>>>
>>> I never said it does.
>>
>>It's implied in your position.
>
> I am very curious to see how.
The paragraph right above explained it.
>>>>You are
>>>>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>>>>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
>>>>you
>>>>stop lying fuckwit?
>>>
>>> I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I
>>> point
>>> out.
>>
>>You don't "point out truth"
>
> If I were going to lie, I wouldn't say the things I do you stupid
> moron. I'd say things that I thought would make people like me
> better. You dumbass.
Would you? I think you have so much of your pride invested in the LoL now
that you can't let it go.
>>fuckwit, you spin a shabby sophistry.
>>
>>> For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
>>>
>>> 1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>
>>Being born is not a benefit.
>
> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has
> positive or negative value to the animal. How did you unlearn that?
I didn't. AW only applies *after* the fact.
>>> 2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>>
>>Only if the animals are born.
>
> How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
> lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?
They wouldn't need to, no issue.
>>> 3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
>>
>>No
>
> Liar.
>
>>it would make it irrelevant.
Correct.
>>> 4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
>>> contribute to their elimination.
>>
>>Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.
>
> How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
> AW for farm animals, if the animals are never born?
They contribute to AW for the only ones that matter, the ones who *are*
born.
>>> 5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
>>> livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
>>> some vegetable products.
>>
>>There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted
>
> How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute fewer wildlife
> deaths and to decent lives for farm animals, if the animals are never
> born?
See above.
>>with your
>>spinny rhetoric.
>>
>>> 6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more
>>> consideration
>>> than their deaths.
>>
>>"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.
>
> How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
> lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?
See above.
>>> 7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.
>>
>>Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous
>>to
>>taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets.
>
> Explain how a farmer taking credit for the life of his favorite cow, is
> analagous to him whoring out his daughter.
Farmer fuckwit: "I gave my cow Betsy the life she now enjoys, that should
count for something against the fact I am going to kill her and eat her."
Father fuckwit: "I gave my daughter Betsy the life she now enjoys, that
should count for something against the fact I am going to sell her to
pimps."
In both those cases the exploiter attempts to use the fact of *life* to
mount a justification for his actions. This attempt at self-justification is
not "consideration" for the animal/person, it's taking the exploitation to
another level, in effect adding insult to injury. This is not ethical
thinking.
Killing an animal for food is judged on it's own merits regardless if the
animal "lived". I judge it to be moral.
Pimping out your children is judged on it's own merits, regardless if the
child "lived", and I judge *that* to be immoral.
The fact the animal or the child "experienced life" because of some prior
action by you has no effect on those moral determinations.
>>We
>>raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
>>but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
>>"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.
>
> When considering whether or not it's cruel to the animals to do so,
> I will not attempt to avoid considering their life.
In doing so you are doing what the people in the examples above are doing.
> [...]
>>> 4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
>>> difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less
>>> support
>>> for "AR" organizations.
>>
>>I don't even understand that one.
>
> You want me to kill myself because I point out the difference between
> AW and "AR".
You don't point out anything useful, you spin self-serving sophistry.
>The reason you want me to kill myself is because you
> believe, as I do, that the vast majority of the financial support for
> "AR"As
> comes from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of
> animal use. We agree about that.
That's right.
> The difference is that I want people
> to understand the difference, so they will stop contributing to your
> elimination
> objective. Of course, you do NOT want them to stop. You understood better
> than I did before I explained it, and we both damn well know it. I
> understand
> that is the way it is, but don't understand why. You do understand why,
> and
> also why you created the situation.
I don't want people to stop contributing to PeTA because right now there are
not very many groups out there supporting the cause of animals. I am not
worried about the "elimination agenda" because it's a pipe dream. Martha
Stewart just signed on as a supporter of PeTA, that's a "good thing", she
doesn't support elimination, she cooks veal cutlets. The PeTA elimination
agenda is almost as out to lunch as your taking credit for their lives
agenda.
>>> 5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
>>> deliberately
>>> contribute to decent lives for food animals.
>>
>>Those are not the only two options,
>
> What's the other one?
Deliberately contributing to the lives of livestock by consuming animal
products, period, with no regard for their welfare, and/or including
consuming *with* regard for welfare. From a strict semantic point of view
*that* is the logical opposite to veganism. "Decent lives" introduces an
extraneous element which unbalances the comparison, and therefore it is
sophistry. You do it all the time, and god help you, I don't think you even
know you're doing it.
>>it's a fase choice fallacy.
>
> [...]
>>> Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
>>> significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very
>>> easy
>>> to
>>> understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!
>>
>>I didn't unlearn anything fuckwit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
>>point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.
>
> Well, I don't really give a fuck whether you consider it a moral
> brownie
> point or any other imaginary damn stupid thing. No brownie points. No
> gold stars. No lollipops or any other stupid ass thing. How's that?
Excellent, then your position is lost, we can't "consider that the animal
experienced life" when we evaluate the use of animals as products.
> Here is where you can't go, but I won't forget about it. The method of
> husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative
> value to the animal. That means TO THE ANIMAL you selfish bastard.
I know, I said it.
> Not to you. You are too selfish to understand the truth of your own
> words, and Salt's imaginary singing pig was correct when it said in its
> final moments:
>
> It is not for their sake but for thine, that you would
> rather prevent their lives than see them deliberately
> provided with decent lives and humane deaths.
What's morally wrong with <gag> "preventing" livestock from existing? Every
farmer who adjusts his production to suit demand in a slow market does it.
Is he doing something immoral?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
You know I'm not an ARA fuckwit, you know Jonathan Ball is not an ARA, you
know that our objections to your position have nothing to do with AR, admit
it and move on.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:34:19 GMT, "Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills"
> <nae_spa...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
>>>
>>
>>you mean animals that are not conceived?
>
> They are too stupid to take that into consideration
I acknowledged this clarification fuckwit. When we talk about "being born",
we mean to come into existence, which more accurately refers to conception.
Jonathan has also agreed to this stipulation in the past, and you know it.
That doesn't change the fact that The Logic of the Larder is morally
reprehensible thinking, grow up and stop wasting everyone's time on it.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Dutch wrote:
> We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them to
> use as food.
Yeah and I would only eat vegetarian cows.
Michael Gordge
Dutch
Derek
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>
>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>
>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>
>You know I'm not an ARA
Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us, which means
Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
[A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;
"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp
In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;
"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
and
"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
and
"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn
and
"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz
and
"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb
When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.
Dutch
"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>
>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>
>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>
>>You know I'm not an ARA
>
> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
> that animals do hold rights against us,
Yes, they do.
which means
> Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
> [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;
No, I'm not, not in the way he means it, i.e. I do NOT advocate the
elimination of animal farming.
You're deliberately obtuse Dreck, go away.
Derek
>"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>
>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>
>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>
>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>
>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>
>Yes, they do.
Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
an ARA, liar Ditch.
>> which means
>> Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
>> [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;
>
>No, I'm not
Yes, you are, and snipping your quotes away
wont get you off the hook, either. Look at the
statement you wrote only a couple of days ago;
<restore>
and
and
and
and
<end restore>
Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
matters worse for you, liar Ditch.
Dutch
"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>
>>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>>
>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>
>>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>>
>>Yes, they do.
>
> Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
> that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
> an ARA, liar Ditch.
An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..
You can't have it both ways Derek, you claim I'm lying when I deny I'm an
ARA, and I'm lying when I say I recognize rights in animals. The more you
spin the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.
How's Aristotle doing these days btw?
Derek
>"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>>>
>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>
>>>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>>>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>>>
>>>Yes, they do.
>>
>> Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
>> that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
>> an ARA, liar Ditch.
>
>An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..
Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
means you're lying again, Ditch.
>You can't have it both ways
That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.
and
and
and
and
Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
matters worse for you, liar Ditch.
<end restore>
Dutch
"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rt27j1pkot5r538th...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:23:37 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>>>>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>>>>
>>>>Yes, they do.
>>>
>>> Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
>>> that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
>>> an ARA, liar Ditch.
>>
>>An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..
>
> Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
> can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
> means you're lying again, Ditch.
Many people who consume animal products hold the belief that animals have
rights. Martha Stewart just signed on as a spokesperson for PeTA, she cooks
veal cutlets.
>>You can't have it both ways
>
> That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
> you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.
I don't abuse any animals Derek.
Those statements are all consistent with a belief that animals possess
rights, yet who is not an ARA.
I signed the South African petition for "sentience" also, twice.
The fact that I confuse and enrage you is very satisfying.
> <end restore>
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Dutch wrote:
... when I say I recognize rights in animals.
Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
weird.
Michael Gordge
Derek
Then she's as misguided and as hypocritical as
you are, for no one can have rights-holders
farmed and slaughtered for their own gains
without deluding themselves. How very typical
of you to try justifying your own sad hypocrisy
by referring to another's.
>Martha Stewart just signed on as a spokesperson for PeTA, she cooks
>veal cutlets.
Ray Slater and Zakhar supported vivisection
and still tried to convince others that they
promoted animal rights, too, but they were
soon made to see the error of their ways
and left here in utter disgrace. Martha
Stewart is obviously of the same thin cloth if
what you claim about her has any truth to it.
She's a drooling wolf in sheep's clothing and
a hypocrite, just like you.
>>>You can't have it both ways
>>
>> That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
>> you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.
>
>I don't abuse any animals Derek.
You have them farmed and slaughtered for you,
and that is abuse. You know it, too, and Google
shows that you do;
"Because farm animals are sentient beings, and
forcing them through this mass production
assembly line "concentration camp" process is
cruel. We put innocent farm animals through
processes of suffering and early death that we
wouldn't subject the most heinous human
criminal to."
Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz
Then why have you made statements claiming the
belief and proponents of that belief are absurd
all these years, hypocrite? Below are just two
statements from you attacking the proposition
out of literally hundreds during the time you've
been trolling here;
"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc
and
"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4
You either lying now or you were lying then,
but that's nothing new where you're concerned.
>, yet who is not an ARA.
An [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate is someone who
advocates rights for animals, and being that you've
been posting here on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
for over five years on a daily basis, feigning an
ignorance over the acronym to escape being seen
as a lying hypocrite is absurd.
>I signed the South African petition for "sentience" also, twice.
>
>The fact that I confuse and enrage you is very satisfying.
What makes you believe that you enrage me in any
way, and what does your obvious efforts to enrage
your opponents say about your general participation
as a meat-eater on vegetarian news groups, Ditch?
Dave
dh@. wrote:
The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support
cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to
support other forms of life. If you wish to take moral credit
for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral
debit for these lives that are prevented from existing.
BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount
of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come
back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze
there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist!
> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration
> >is the real distortion of reality.
>
> I most certainly take them into consideration.
So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence
of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without
human help?
> I've pointed out
> more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
> have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
> crop filds.
That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are
considering the wrong eqaution. If some of the land used to graze
cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in
crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably
result in more wildlife in total. YMMD.
> I have also more than once asked: why should we only
> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
> life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?
I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any
ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your
premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a
loan to its farmer.
Dave
Dutch wrote:
I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
provided didn't he?
Dave
rick wrote:
> "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127150191....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> >But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
> >> >and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about
> >> >us feeling
> >> >we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death
> >> >and suffering
> >> >of animals is worthwhile?
> >>
> >> Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident
> >> that I'm much
> >> more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you
> >> are. And
> >> so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
> >
> > Veganism does not encourage the inhumane treatment of factory
> > farmed
> > animals any more than eating GFC's does.
> ==========================
> Veganism does discourage any improvement in animals lives.
BS. By eliminating factory farmed meats from one's
diet, one automatically reduces the commercial incentive
for such inhumane treatment of animals. This argument holds,
whether the consumer in question replaces the factory farmed
with more ethical meats or with different foods altogeher.
> Those
> that eat grass-fed beef on the other hand are actively providing
> an incentive for farmers to raise their cattle in a different
> way.
Right. And those who eat no beef are removing the incentive to
raise cattle at all.
> Those are the people that are doing something about what
> you regard as the 'evil' of factory farmed beef.
Yes. They are removing the commercial incentive to
factory farm beef. Exactly what vegans are doing.
> Vegans do
> nothing, except ignore their own bloody footprints in regards to
> the factory-farming of veggies. There is a far more 'factory'
> like setting than beef.
A dubious claim but in any case factory reared cattle consume
more calories of 'factory' grown vegetables than they produce in
meat.
> >> >I don't really get that impression.
> >>
> >> That's because you can't care about the animals, so you
> >> can't
> >> imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate
> >> livestock,
> >> not provide decent lives for them,
> >
> > I'm sure Larry does not have a problem with cattle, pigs,
> > sheep,
> > chickens
> > and other such animals existing as wild animals that experience
> > decent lives.
> >
> >> even in situations where doing
> >> so would significantly reduce the number of animals deaths per
> >> serving of food. You can't be made to care.
> >
Sleepyhead
And what a rational counter-argument you have, Liar Divvy-Derek.
Derek
>
>I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
>us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
>meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
>provided didn't he?
If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
terms accurately and clearly. If you still have a problem
understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?
Derek
>> Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes matters worse for you, liar Ditch.
>
>And what a rational counter-argument you have, Liar Divvy-Derek.
It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the
issue, not a counter-argument, stupid.
Sleepyhead
1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their
minds because of the Law of Derek
> , not a counter-argument, stupid.
That, at least, is true.
Derek
>> It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue
>
>1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their
>minds because of the Law of Derek
The problem isn't that he's changed his mind, the
problem is that he keeps changing it back and forth
while at the same time criticising those who do
promote animal rights genuinely.
Over the years, since venturing onto animal-related
groups pretending to promote the proposition of
animal rights, he's changed his stance on this
proposition so many times that it's difficult to know
when he's actually telling the truth. All his quotes
below come with a date and a link, and I've
arranged them in chronological order so you can
see his changes in position yourself.
He first came here claiming to be a believer in
the proposition of animal rights.
"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
and
"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
But within just a few months he started writing
things like;
"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc
and
"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4
But then he switched back again, accepting the
proposition of animal rights, and claiming to have
signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian
government.
"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn
and, even more recently;
"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz
and, only a couple of days ago
> "sentient" <carol...@xnets.co.za> wrote
> No, I believe that animals should have rights.
> Currently they have none in the eyes of the law....
[Dutch]
That is incorrect. I measure my right to be free
from physical assault by looking if laws and
sanctions exist against anyone who would assault
me. Such laws and sanctions exist to protect
domestic animals from abuse, so I must conclude
that they hold rights against humans who would
abuse them.
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp
And he's still insisting today that he doesn't support
the proposition.
>> , not a counter-argument, stupid.
>
>That, at least, is true.
Yor damn right it is.
Sleepyhead
you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess!
So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is
confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his
audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for
changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing
with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed
set of arguments about animal-rights et al.
Derek
Exactly, Simon. That's my only gripe. If he at last rests
on one side of the debate instead of changing it when
asked to explain his current position, I wouldn't mind
at all, but as things stand I can never get him to commit,
and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer
promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very
frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about
that proposition and would like to argue it honestly.
Sleepyhead
Sounds to me like he's going for the "quick-win" approach to
philosophy, and when it doesn't work he switches tack or gives up and
goes off to bother someone else.
Just out of interest - which side of the debate are you on? Are you a
carnivore or an herbivore?
Derek
I've been vegan for over dozen years if we overlook
the anchovies found in Worcester sauce, which I
subsequently dropped since finding out about them
a couple of years ago.
Sleepyhead
spectacular fashion by getting pissed and rolling home to my strict
veggie g/f while eating a kebab!
Derek
Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like
you told her, or did she believe her lying eyes
instead? They have a habit of doing that.
Sleepyhead
Let's just say there was a long pause. And then (fortunately for me)
some hysterical laughter!
Derek
Fortunately for her, rather, because if I were in that
position I would argue;
1) If Derek was eating a kebab, then there would be
evidence of kebabs about him.
2) There is evidence of kebabs about him
therefore
3) Derek was eating a kebab.
You should have told her she was affirming the
consequent! ;-)
Dutch
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic animal has
a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse. Failure to respect
these rights will result in sanctions and legal penalties just as if you
violated the right of a human.
Dutch
Dutch
"Sleepyhead" <simonh...@usa.net> wrote
> Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged
> you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess!
You didn't misjudge him, you had him dead to rights.
> So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is
> confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his
> audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for
> changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing
> with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed
> set of arguments about animal-rights et al.
Don't be persuaded by Derek's spinology. There is a rational explanation for
every quote. I don't bother to refute them any more because everyone who
knows Derek and I knows it already.