Human Farming - Society cannot be rationally understood until it is seen for what it is -- a series of farms where human farmers own and benefit from human livestock
Immortalist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkdur94d5Z8
The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to
make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most
common theme in dystopian science fiction. Why is this fear so
universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our
toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords? Of
course not. This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are
already living.
Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and
safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity. That which we
create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.
The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions,
takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes,
tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows
governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the
currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts. That
which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.
The problem with the "state as servant" thesis is that it is
historically completely false, both empirically and logically. The
idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance
their own security is utterly untrue.
Before governments, in tribal times, human beings could only produce
what they consumed -- there was no excess production of food or other
resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave
could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master. If a
horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed
the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a
horse.
However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of
excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human
beings. When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows
became worthwhile.
The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of
slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce
more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking
in - and owning.
The earliest Egyptian and Chinese empires were in reality human farms,
where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any
other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological
improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor
involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset
of their total productivity. The ruling class - the farmers - kept a
large portion of that excess, while handing out gifts and payments to
the brutalizing class - the police, slave hunters, and general sadists
- and the propagandizing class - the priests, intellectuals, and
artists.
This situation continued for thousands of years, until the 16-17th
centuries, when again massive improvements in agricultural
organization and technology created the second wave of excess
productivity. The enclosure movement re-organized and consolidated
farmland, resulting in 5-10 times more crops, creating a new class of
industrial workers, displaced from the country and huddling in the new
cities. This enormous agricultural excess was the basis of the capital
that drove the industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution did
not arise because the ruling class wanted to free their serfs, but
rather because they realized how additional "liberties" could make
their livestock astoundingly more productive. When cows are placed in
very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls,
resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more
room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather
because they want greater productivity and lower costs.
The next stop after "free range" is not "freedom." The rise of state
capitalism in the 19th century was actually the rise of "free range
serfdom." Additional liberties were granted to the human livestock not
with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of
increasing their productivity.
Of course, intellectuals, artists and priests were - and are - well
paid to conceal this reality. The great problem of modern human
livestock ownership is the challenge of "enthusiasm." State capitalism
only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and
productivity in the economy.
However, excess productivity always creates a larger state, and swells
the ruling classes and their dependents, which eats into the
motivation for additional productivity. Taxes and regulations rise,
state debt (future farming) increases, and living standards slow and
decay. Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being
owned sets in for the general population. The solution to this is
additional propaganda, antidepressant medications, superstition, wars,
moral campaigns of every kind, the creation of "enemies," the
inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, paranoia about
"outsiders" and "immigrants," and so on.
It is essential to understand the reality of the world. When you look
at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.
You are allowed certain liberties - limited property ownership,
movement rights, freedom of association and occupation - not because
your government approves of these rights in principle - since it
constantly violates them - but rather because "free range livestock"
is so much cheaper to own and so more productive.
It is important to understand the reality of ideologies. State
capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy - these are all
livestock management approaches. Some work well for long periods -
state capitalism - and some work very badly - communism.
[...]The recent growth of "freedom" in China, India and Asia is
occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their
livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the
cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.
Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the
farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the
most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must
provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most
effectively. Thus you are "allowed" to leave - but never to real
freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They
will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in
endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you
are "free" to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do
leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of
1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises
the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the
farmer.
You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive
livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an
electronic dog collar called a "license," which only allows them to
practice their trade on their own farm.
To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the
livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the
investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they
are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm,
and be truly free.
Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train
children to "love" the farm, and to fear true freedom and
independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of
human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals
that state propaganda so relies on.
The ridiculous contradictions of statism -- like religion -- can only
be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless
children. The idea that democracy and some sort of "social contract"
justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is
patently ridiculous. If you say to a slave that his ancestors "chose"
slavery, and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply
say: "If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave." This
is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why
they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it.
Statism is not a philosophy. Statism does not originate from
historical evidence or rational principles. Statism is an ex post
facto justification for human ownership. Statism is an excuse for
violence. Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on
human livestock management practices. Religion is pimped-out
superstition, designed to drug children with fears that they will
endlessly pay to have "alleviated." Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry,
designed to provoke a Stockholm Syndrome in the livestock.
----
[...]Like all animals, human beings want to dominate and exploit the
resources around them. At first, we mostly hunted and fished and ate
off the land - but then something magical and terrible happened to our
minds. We became, alone among the animals, afraid of death, and of
future loss. And this was the start of a great tragedy, and an even
greater possibility...
You see, when we became afraid of death, of injury, and imprisonment,
we became controllable -- and so valuable -- in a way that no other
resource could ever be. The greatest resource for any human being to
control is not natural resources, or tools, or animals or land -- but
other human beings.
You can frighten an animal, because animals are afraid of pain in the
moment, but you cannot frighten an animal with a loss of liberty, or
with torture or imprisonment in the future, because animals have very
little sense of tomorrow. You cannot threaten a cow with torture, or a
sheep with death. You cannot swing a sword at a tree and scream at it
to produce more fruit, or hold a burning torch to a field and demand
more wheat. You cannot get more eggs by threatening a hen - but you
can get a man to give you his eggs by threatening him.
Human farming has been the most profitable -- and destructive --
occupation throughout history, and it is now reaching its destructive
climax. Human society cannot be rationally understood until it is seen
for what it is: a series of farms where human farmers own human
livestock.
Some people get confused because governments provide healthcare and
water and education and roads, and thus imagine that there is some
benevolence at work. Nothing could be further from reality. Farmers
provide healthcare and irrigation and training to their livestock.
Some people get confused because we are allowed certain liberties, and
thus imagine that our government protects our freedoms. But farmers
plant their crops a certain distance apart to increase their yields --
and will allow certain animals larger stalls or fields if it means
they will produce more meat and milk. In your country, your tax farm,
your farmer grants you certain freedoms not because he cares about
your liberties, but because he wants to increase his profits. Are you
beginning to see the nature of the cage you were born into?
There have been four major phases of human farming.
The first phase, in ancient Egypt, was direct and brutal human
compulsion. Human bodies were controlled, but the creative
productivity of the human mind remained outside the reach of the whip
and the brand and the shackles. Slaves remained woefully
underproductive, and required enormous resources to control.
The second phase was the Roman model, wherein slaves were granted some
capacity for freedom, ingenuity and creativity, which raised their
productivity. This increased the wealth of Rome, and thus the tax
income of the Roman government - and with this additional wealth, Rome
became an empire, destroying the economic freedoms that fed its power,
and collapsed. I'm sure that this does not seem entirely unfamiliar.
After the collapse of Rome, the feudal model introduced the concept of
livestock ownership and taxation. Instead of being directly owned,
peasants farmed land that they could retain as long as they paid off
the local warlords. This model broke down due to the continual
subdivision of productive land, and was destroyed during the Enclosure
movement, when land was consolidated, and hundreds of thousands of
peasants were kicked off their ancestral lands, because new farming
techniques made larger farms more productive with fewer people.
The increased productivity of the late Middle Ages created the excess
food required for the expansion of towns and cities, which in turn
gave rise to the modern Democratic model of human ownership. As
displaced peasants flooded into the cities, a huge stock of cheap
human capital became available to the rising industrialists - and the
ruling class of human farmers quickly realized that they could make
more money by letting their livestock choose their own occupations.
Under the Democratic model, direct slave ownership has been replaced
by the Mafia model. The Mafia rarely owns businesses directly, but
rather sends thugs around once a month to steal from the business
"owners." You are now allowed to choose your own occupation, which
raises your productivity - and thus the taxes you can pay to your
masters. Your few freedoms are preserved because they are profitable
to your owners.
The great challenge of the Democratic model is that increases in
wealth and freedom threaten the farmers. The ruling classes initially
profit from a relatively free market in capital and labor, but as
their livestock become more used to their freedoms and growing wealth,
they begin to question why they need rulers at all.
Ah well. Nobody ever said that human farming was easy.
Keeping the tax livestock securely in the compounds of the ruling
classes is a three phase process.
The first is to indoctrinate the young through government "education."
As the wealth of democratic countries grew, government schools were
universally inflicted in order to control the thoughts and souls of
the livestock.
The second is to turn citizens against each other through the creation
of dependent livestock. It is very difficult to rule human beings
directly through force -- and where it can be achieved, it remains
cripplingly underproductive, as can be seen in North Korea. Human
beings do not breed well or produce efficiently in direct captivity.
If human beings believe that they are free, then they will produce
much more for their farmers. The best way to maintain this illusion of
freedom is to put some of the livestock on the payroll of the farmer.
Those cows that become dependent on the existing hierarchy will then
attack any other cows who point out the violence, hypocrisy and
immorality of human ownership. Freedom is slavery, and slavery is
freedom. If you can get the cows to attack each other whenever anybody
brings up the reality of their situation, then you don't have to spend
nearly as much controlling them directly. Those cows who become
dependent upon the stolen largess of the farmer will violently oppose
any questioning of the virtue of human ownership -- and the
intellectual and artistic classes, always and forever dependent upon
the farmers -- will say, to anyone who demands freedom from ownership:
"You will harm your fellow cows." The livestock are kept enclosed by
shifting the moral responsibility for the destructiveness of a violent
system to those who demand real freedom.
The third phase is to invent continual external threats, so that the
frightened livestock cling to the "protection" of the farmers. [...]
http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/blogs/freedomain/
Derek
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[]
>moment, but you cannot frighten an animal with a loss of liberty, or
>with torture or imprisonment in the future, because animals have very
>little sense of tomorrow.
cannot anticipate and act toward the satisfaction of a future need not
currently experienced or cued by their present motivational state.
[]
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian who used to promote animal rights
while attacking the livestock industry now believes conscientious
omnivorism provides a better outcome.
"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they
live that life than that they not live at all."
Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28
Paraphrasing that gives, "I accept that some []human animals who are
raised for food on farms have lives which are such that it is better
that they live that life than that they not live at all."
Of course, he refuses to say what outcome he's referring to, and he's
refusing to indicate who or what benefits from the better outcome but,
nevertheless, it's easy to see how a person's changed view can make
life for those already oppressed far more so if that tyranny is done
out of respect for the oppressed.
Michael Gordge
> Human farming ...
"The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
humans become"
I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.
MG
George Plimpton
It's bumper sticker logic - catchy-sounding but wrong.
Jeff M
Animals have no rights. But people have responsibilities. The word
"humane" is used advisedly in the title "Humane Society."
Cruelty to animals is corrosive to *human* character, and the
suppression and punishment of it is a worthy mark of a civilized people.
Jeff M
Yep, but isn't "animal rights" more of a PETA thing?
Personally, I love animals -
they're delicious.
George Plimpton
allies - lots of overlap in membership. SPCA is an animal welfare
outfit; HSUS is the bunch of animal rights lunatics.
Jeff M
Dutch
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in message
news:i4mdnUNTrepNKwnT...@giganews.com...
It also hurts the animals.
Jeff M
Of course. Hurting animals unnecessarily is cruel. Just because
animals lack legal rights doesn't mean they can't feel, e.g., pain and
fear, or experience discomfort, want, suffering and misery.
Frisbieinstein
like a milk cow. But no one else seemed to feel this way.
While I did not like it, I would hesitate to say that it is a bad
thing. It could very well be the best that can be done under the
circumstances. The US system isn't my favorite, but it is much better
than most of the others throughout the world and throughout history.
The people really do have a lot of power, though they have to get
fairly riled to exercise it.
> On Oct 12, 12:23 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Human Farminghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkdur94d5Z8
>
> Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and
> safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity. That which we
> create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.
>
density. That changes everything.
Big organizations naturally result from high population. I don't see
how it makes any difference whether it is government, business,
religion, media, etc. Big organizations all seem to have the same
problems.
> The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions,
> takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes,
> tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows
> governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the
> currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts. That
> which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.
>
days.
> The problem with the "state as servant" thesis is that it is
> historically completely false, both empirically and logically. The
> idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance
> their own security is utterly untrue.
>
government really is terribly. Believe me, the US government is a
band of angels compared with that.
> Before governments, in tribal times, human beings could only produce
> what they consumed -- there was no excess production of food or other
> resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave
> could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master.
had a recent history of being victims of cannibalism. The Stone Age
had its problems.
> If a
> horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed
> the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a
> horse.
>
> However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of
> excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human
> beings. When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows
> became worthwhile.
>
> The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of
> slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce
> more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking
> in - and owning.
>
this. Ugly scene.
prolific production produces general prosperity.
> Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being
> owned sets in for the general population.
complain about this.
Rupert
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
>
> []
>
> >You can frighten an animal, because animals are afraid of pain in the
> >moment, but you cannot frighten an animal with a loss of liberty, or
> >with torture or imprisonment in the future, because animals have very
> >little sense of tomorrow.
>
> Exactly. The Bischof-Köhler hypothesis holds that nonhuman animals
> cannot anticipate and act toward the satisfaction of a future need not
> currently experienced or cued by their present motivational state.
>
> []
>
> >Ah well. Nobody ever said that human farming was easy.
>
> Well that depends on how it's promoted. A long-time poster here
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian who used to promote animal rights
> while attacking the livestock industry now believes conscientious
> omnivorism provides a better outcome.
>
I do not believe that and never have.
> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
> on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they
> live that life than that they not live at all."
> Rupert 24 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28
>
> Paraphrasing that gives, "I accept that some []human animals who are
> raised for food on farms have lives which are such that it is better
> that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>
Except that human animals are not in fact raised for food on farms,
and if they were then the issues involved in determining whether the
outcome was better for their having been brought into existence would
be different.
Furthermore, just because I agreed with David that it made the outcome
better does not mean that I accept that we are justified in treating
another sentient being in any way we like so long as the outcome is
better for that sentient being having existed. I never endorsed that
view.
Furthermore, I do not currently accept this view, that was a position
I endorsed in the past. I am simply arguing that Ball's critique of
the possibility of an outcome being better simpliciter, as opposed to
better for any particular individual or entity, is not especially
cogent.
You are not very good at correctly interpreting my views.
> Of course, he refuses to say what outcome he's referring to,
I would have thought that was reasonably clear.
> and he's
> refusing to indicate who or what benefits from the better outcome
At the time I made that post, I was claiming that this is an example
of the outcome being better without its being correct to say that any
individual benefits from it.
Derek
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 12, 5:06 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[]
>>
>> Well that depends on how it's promoted. A long-time poster here
>> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian who used to promote animal rights
>> while attacking the livestock industry now believes conscientious
>> omnivorism provides a better outcome.
>
>I do not believe that and never have.
further toward it rather than away;
"While I am a vegan myself I do not have a very clear-cut
position on conscientious omnivorism and would have to
do some research about the farms which raise the animals
they eat if I were to attempt a critique of their current
practice."
Rupert 30 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5ah2p6
According to the logic of your position, and of David Harrison's,
conscientious omnivorism provides a better outcome because it allows
more animals to exist;
"However, there is also a good reason from the logic
of your own position as well: because it would allow
more animals with reasonably good lives to exist. I
don't understand why you ignore this reason."
Rupert to Harrison 10 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/58apkm
So stop lying, Rupert; you do promote conscientious omnivorism
on the basis that it would provide a 'better outcome' for the animals
that would exist by being farmed for human consumption.
>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
>> on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they
>> live that life than that they not live at all."
>> Paraphrasing that gives, "I accept that some []human animals who are
>> raised for food on farms have lives which are such that it is better
>> that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>
>Except that human animals are not in fact raised for food on farms,
>and if they were then the issues involved in determining whether the
>outcome was better for their having been brought into existence would
>be different.
animals hold a right against us not to be farmed for food;
"... it would not be that misleading to refer to
myself as an "animal rights advocate".
Rupert 7 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
According to your view humans and animals held a right against us not
to be farmed for food. It stands to reason, then, that you would also
countenance the farming of humans for food on the basis that it is
better that they live that life than that they not live at all, too.
>Furthermore, just because I agreed with David that it made the outcome
>better does not mean that I accept that we are justified in treating
>another sentient being in any way we like so long as the outcome is
>better for that sentient being having existed. I never endorsed that
>view.
beneficiaries of that so-called better outcome you refer to are not
the animals themselves. For you, and for Harrison, the better outcome
from raising farmed animals for food means you feel it is morally
justifiable to continue raising them in that fashion for that reason.
>Furthermore, I do not currently accept this view, that was a position
>I endorsed in the past.
be honest enough to admit that your reason is because it was an
indefensible error on your part to endorse it in the first place. "Ah,
the hubris of the defeated."
>> Of course, he refuses to say what outcome he's referring to,
>
>I would have thought that was reasonably clear.
referring to is, even though it's as plain as can be that you're
referring to the animals' existence itself.
>> and he's
>> refusing to indicate who or what benefits from the better outcome
>
>At the time I made that post, I was claiming that this is an example
>of the outcome being better without its being correct to say that any
>individual benefits from it.
because you "accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
provide an example of an outcome being better while being correct to
make it without indicating who or what benefits from that outcome. You
made that remark after being pushed to indicate who or what benefits
from the so-called 'better outcome'. Answer the questions being put to
you honestly. What outcome are you referring to? Why is it a better
one and contrary to what? Who or what benefits from that so-called
better outcome? Simply saying it's better without indicating for who
or what is merely stating as a premise the conclusion you want to
reach, and that won't do.
>> but,
>> nevertheless, it's easy to see how a person's changed view can make
>> life for those already oppressed far more so if that tyranny is done
>> out of respect for the oppressed.
noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine
George Plimpton
clearly does *not* ignore the reason. However, Fuckwit says it's better
for the animals themselves, while Woopert wants to pretend it's "just
better, period." Neither position is coherent.
>
>>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
>>> on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they
>>> live that life than that they not live at all."
>>> Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28
>>>
>>> Paraphrasing that gives, "I accept that some []human animals who are
>>> raised for food on farms have lives which are such that it is better
>>> that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>
>> Except that human animals are not in fact raised for food on farms,
>> and if they were then the issues involved in determining whether the
>> outcome was better for their having been brought into existence would
>> be different.
>
> How so? At the time of writing that you still held the view that
> animals hold a right against us not to be farmed for food;
>
> "... it would not be that misleading to refer to
> myself as an "animal rights advocate".
> Rupert 7 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
>
> According to your view humans and animals held a right against us not
> to be farmed for food. It stands to reason, then, that you would also
> countenance the farming of humans for food on the basis that it is
> better that they live that life than that they not live at all, too.
possibility that it could be "just better, period" if farm animals are
raised for food, then logically he must hold open the same possibility
regarding humans being farmed for food...unless he's going to introduce
a species difference. LOL!
Derek
wrote:
>On 10/12/2011 4:47 AM, Derek wrote:
>> on the basis that it would provide a 'better outcome' for the animals
>> that would exist by being farmed for human consumption.
>
>Woopert clearly doesn't understand Fuckwit's statements, because Fuckwit
>clearly does *not* ignore the reason. However, Fuckwit says it's better
>for the animals themselves, while Woopert wants to pretend it's "just
>better, period." Neither position is coherent.
his position. I think maybe I'd stick with the position he's taken by
not indicating who or what benefits, because I know I'd be crucified
if I did. He made the smart move.
[]
>> to be farmed for food. It stands to reason, then, that you would also
>> countenance the farming of humans for food on the basis that it is
>> better that they live that life than that they not live at all, too.
>
>Woopert is all tied up in knots, again. If he holds open the
>possibility that it could be "just better, period" if farm animals are
>raised for food, then logically he must hold open the same possibility
>regarding humans being farmed for food...unless he's going to introduce
>a species difference. LOL!
issue, because I've made pretty obvious attempts to steer him into
introducing one before on at least a couple of occasions. But it's the
only move he can make if he wants to defend his claim, and until he
does introduce a species difference, either by foolishness or my
design, I'm left watching the back of his head while he walks away.
George Plimpton
Singer does introduce the idea that we can increase total happiness by
increasing the number of happy people, he never explains why we should
be concerned about some absolute total amount of happiness in the first
place; he just thinks it's obvious. It leads to absurdities.
Suppose I can bring about a state of affairs in which there is one
person with a happiness of 1,000, or 1,001 people with a happiness of
one. Then in the second state of affairs there is a total happiness of
1,001. No one is going to think that's preferable.
Singer never says, and can't say, why we should care about total
happiness irrespective of the number of people sharing it, so it's no
surprise Woopert can't say why we should care about it, either - in
other words, Woopert *can't* say why it's better that cattle existing
with good lives is "better" than never existing, so it's no surprise
he's just walking away.
ZisntZ
> I basically agree with you. When I lived in the US I did indeed feel
> like a milk cow. But no one else seemed to feel this way.
Too occupied with feeling fleeced.
Mr.Smartypants
> I basically agree with you. When I lived in the US I did indeed feel
> like a milk cow.
Do you have large pendulous breasts?
Derek
to see him, a sworn deontologist, always falling back to a
consequentialist position? No, to make his claim stand up or at least
get to its knees he must introduce what *he* thinks is an
ethically-relevant disparity that allows animals to be farmed for
food: species difference.
George Plimpton
flip-flopping he does between deontology and utilitarianism. I tell
you, the human body just isn't made for that sort of wild gyration.
Quiffie
experiments must first take place.
For example, one test that Harvard sociologists recommend is for one
week to be set aside in which men are permitted to legally attack
women for sex.
Don't laugh.
Such a program would allow experts to determine whether the country
would be better off socially if males didn't have to constantly wonder
when and where their next piece of ass was coming from.
As things stand, men are psychologically handicapped and perpetually
stressed out by their natural horny state.
ZisntZ
> Society cannot be rationally understood until it is seen for what it
is -- a series of
.. movies. The first one was great, second not so much so but the last
one was pretty good ever.
> The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever.
OK but dang keep yours off the farm and out of history. Stay on
familiar turf like Hollywood or whatever is the greatest - ever.
> Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook
will > end up as our mechanical overlords?
No, we fear some of you want to become their mechanical peers.
If this is a typical example of the newer generation of anarchists ...
> Before governments, in tribal times,
dang. I get the "before governments" part being the time before humans
existed on earth but what or when is "in tribal times"?!? What time?
what tribe? Tribes have always had and still have laws. Laws are
government. What are 'governments'? The adults?
dh
wrote:
>On Oct 12, 5:06 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
You personally have declaired yourself unfit to even think about that
aspect:
"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
much MUCH less are you in any position to suggest how other people should think
about it.
>Furthermore, just because I agreed with David that it made the outcome
>better does not mean that I accept that we are justified in treating
>another sentient being in any way we like
Everyone agrees with that even if they won't admit it.
>so long as the outcome is
>better for that sentient being having existed.
You're mentally unable to comprehend that aspect, so you say.
>I never endorsed that
>view.
>
>Furthermore, I do not currently accept this view, that was a position
>I endorsed in the past.
What caused YOUR unlearning? You are aware that "Dutch" unlearned the same
thing, aren't you?
>I am simply arguing that Ball's critique of
>the possibility of an outcome being better simpliciter, as opposed to
>better for any particular individual or entity, is not especially
>cogent.
Goo can't distinguish between which animals benefit and which ones do not.
He is less than retarded about the subject because he's less than slow to the
point that he can't do anything with it at all. Then again, so are you since
your unlearning.
Think about the position you people are in: There is at least one huge
aspect of human influence on animals that you are mentally unable to think about
on even a grade school level. That's not just a random insult, but instead that
*is* the position you people *are in*. Again it's not an insult, or even an
exaggeration to refer to that mental handicap.
Michael Gordge
It was said during a debate about the function of the SPCA, ewe
useless cunt. The SPCA in NZ and Australia are a bunch of commie come
fascist inspired anti-human animal rights morons.
MG
George Plimpton
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:05:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert<rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 12, 5:06 am, Derek<usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>>
>>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> []
>>>
>>>> You can frighten an animal, because animals are afraid of pain in the
>>>> moment, but you cannot frighten an animal with a loss of liberty, or
>>>> with torture or imprisonment in the future, because animals have very
>>>> little sense of tomorrow.
>>>
>>> currently experienced or cued by their present motivational state.
>>>
>>> []
>>>
>>>> Ah well. Nobody ever said that human farming was easy.
>>>
>>> Well that depends on how it's promoted. A long-time poster here
>>> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian who used to promote animal rights
>>> while attacking the livestock industry now believes conscientious
>>> omnivorism provides a better outcome.
>>>
>>
>> I do not believe that and never have.
>>
>>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
>>> on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they
>>> live that life than that they not live at all."
>>> Rupert 24 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28
>>>
>>> Paraphrasing that gives, "I accept that some []human animals who are
>>> raised for food on farms have lives which are such that it is better
>>> that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>>
>>
>> Except that human animals are not in fact raised for food on farms,
>> and if they were then the issues involved in determining whether the
>> outcome was better for their having been brought into existence would
>> be different.
>
> You personally have declaired yourself unfit to even think about that
> aspect:
>
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>> Furthermore, just because I agreed with David that it made the outcome
>> better does not mean that I accept that we are justified in treating
>> another sentient being in any way we like
>
> Everyone agrees with that even if
George Plimpton
> On Oct 12, 6:13 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 2:04 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Human farming ...
>>
>>> "The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
>>> humans become"
>>
>>> I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
>>> and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.
>>
>> It's bumper sticker logic - catchy-sounding but wrong.
>
> It was said during a debate about the function of the SPCA,
really clever and it's wrong. It's illogical hogwash.
Michael Gordge
> Animals have no rights.
That's correct.
> But people have responsibilities.
Which is the flip side of rights, they are 'two sides of the same
coin', they cant be seperated even though the loony left and the
conservative right keep trying.
> Cruelty to animals is corrosive to *human* character,....
It takes a distant back seat to the corrosive *human* character that
the irrational loony fascist dishonest left and the equally as
irrational conservative fascist dishonest right are constantly
inflicting on human beings.
MG
Michael Gordge
> It sounds catchy and clever, but it isn't
> really clever and it's wrong. It's illogical hogwash.
In most western mobocracies animals now have, albethey, bogus rights
and the fascist loony fucking left and the conservative fascist
fucking right are behaving like anti-human animals with their dopey
anti-progress therefore anti-human laws and their draconian
regulations are treating human individuals as small brained animals,
which makes ewe wrong, fuckwit.
MG
Michael Gordge
> It sounds catchy and clever, but it isn't
> really clever and it's wrong. It's illogical hogwash.
The hysterically funny irony is watching ewe confirm what I am saying,
that you are acting like the animal the leftist government needs ewe
to be and treats ewe as being.
Your denial of reality and refusal to recognize yourself reminds of
the farmer I know who got home from holiday to find every glass ranch-
slider door and every floor level mirror and window in his house
smashed, after a bit of detective work (piles of goat crap everywhere
through the house) he found the culprit to be a billy goat with large
horns which did not recognize its own reflection in the glass and
mirrors and so began its smashing glass/mirror rampage.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Ah, I see. Thanks.
Ewe see nothing, especially ewe do not see how you're contradicting
yourself when you claim animals dont have rights and in the same
breath say a person should be punished for being cruel to their
animal.
Soooo in reality what ewe are saying, is, that when ewe see an idiot
kick a dog for no apparent reason then he should go to jail (be
punished) why? because he violated your belief that ewe have a right
not to be offended by his actions, which makes ewe the animalistic
fascist thug, and as I said, the more that humans treat animals like
humans the more like animals humans become.
MG
Dutch
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
> On Oct 12, 7:37 am, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I see. Thanks.
>
> Ewe see nothing, especially ewe do not see how you're contradicting
> yourself when you claim animals dont have rights and in the same
> breath say a person should be punished for being cruel to their
> animal.
"his" animal
>
> Soooo in reality what ewe are saying, is, that when ewe see an idiot
> kick a dog for no apparent reason then he should go to jail (be
> punished) why? because he violated your belief that ewe have a right
> not to be offended by his actions, which makes ewe the animalistic
> fascist thug, and as I said, the more that humans treat animals like
> humans the more like animals humans become.
Don't want to lose the right to beat your dog eh Mike? Damn slippery slope
that...
Jeff M
> On Oct 12, 7:37 am, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I see. Thanks.
>
> Ewe see nothing, especially ewe do not see how you're contradicting
> yourself when you claim animals dont have rights and in the same
> breath say a person should be punished for being cruel to their
> animal.
It's not about the animal, it's about the human. Being cruel to an
animal violates human standards of behavior, not the animal's rights.
> Soooo in reality what ewe are saying, is, that when ewe see an idiot
> kick a dog for no apparent reason then he should go to jail (be
> punished) why? because he violated your belief that ewe have a right
> not to be offended by his actions,
Societies establish a wide variety of behavioral standards, and punish
transgressions against those standards. It's not about my rights or
beliefs, either.
> which makes ewe the animalistic
> fascist thug, and as I said, the more that humans treat animals like
> humans the more like animals humans become.
Oh, I see. You're just another insult-spewing adolescent. Nevermind.
George Plimpton
> On Oct 13, 5:50 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> It sounds catchy and clever, but it isn't
>> really clever and it's wrong. It's illogical hogwash.
>
> The hysterically funny irony is watching ewe confirm what I am saying,
> that you are acting like the animal the leftist government needs ewe
> to be and treats ewe as being.
No, I'm not acting like an animal at all.
> [snip remaining rabid foam - sanitizer also applied]
Michael Gordge
> On 10/12/2011 4:41 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 7:37 am, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>
> >> Ah, I see. Thanks.
>
> > Ewe see nothing, especially ewe do not see how you're contradicting
> > yourself when you claim animals dont have rights and in the same
> > breath say a person should be punished for being cruel to their
> > animal.
>
> It's not about the animal, it's about the human. Being cruel to an
> animal violates human standards of behavior, not the animal's rights.
Oh, so you believe people should be punished if they treat their
animals in violation of the standards of human behaviour, so in
reality you're saying, treat animals according to human standards of
behaviour or go to jail, as I said, the more like humans, humans treat
animals the more like animals humans become.
You need to make up your mind, treat animals as animals OR treat
animals as humans, you cant have your cake and eat it too.
MG
Dutch
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:7a291257-c58d-43ee...@b16g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Little known fact, humans are animals. hth
Michael Gordge
> No, I'm not acting like an animal at all.
Repeating yourself several times is the evidence which contradicts
that.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Little known fact, humans are animals.
And ewe wonder where ewe comes from.
MG
Errol
>
> It takes a distant back seat to the corrosive *human* character that
> the irrational loony fascist dishonest left and the equally as
> irrational conservative fascist dishonest right are constantly
> inflicting on human beings.
>
Hey! You missed the irrational loony fascist dishonest middle
How must they feel?
bwaa haa haaa
Irony is obviously ONLY something you do to your shirty and your
pantsy on wash day
Errol
night in jail
Ewe really are the hate child of Ted Bundy and Ayn Rand, aren't ewe?
By the way I have a dog I would dearly like to see ewe try kick.
It's a rotweiller called Irony bru
Of course miserable fuckers like ewe typically avoid self injury and
reserve their cruelty for poodles, babies and little girls
George Plimpton
"Ewe"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
M Purcell
What possible reason could there be for kicking a dog that isn't
threatening? It demonstrates a lack of self control and a tendency
towards violence, such people belong in cages.
M Purcell
> Human Farminghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkdur94d5Z8
...
Generally farming applies to growing plants, husbandry applies to
raising animals and the herd needs to be culled.
Michael Gordge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh so ewe want to treat your dog like a human being because ewe want
to treat human beings like they're dogs?
Well I guuess explains why ewe are a left wing fuckwit.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Hey! You missed the irrational loony fascist dishonest middle
>
> How must they feel?
Stupid cunt, there is no such thing, politically / ethically either
you hold the human individual as the highest possible standard of all
moral values OR you dont, and you clearly dont, which makes ewe
politically irrational dishonest, left and loony and of course a
hypocrite.
What you forbid yourself doing, e.g. stealing and forcing your moral
values onto others agaiinst their will, you are quite happy to
sanction those actions into the hands of a third party, the
government.
MG
Michael Gordge
What funny about that?
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> - Show quoted text -
What possible reason could you have for treating dogs like humans if
not because you want to treat humans like dogs?
MG
George Plimpton
It's so utterly animal-like yet you can't see it.
George Plimpton
How is punishing gratuitous violence against non-human animals treating
those animals like humans?
> if not because you want to treat humans like dogs?
appeal to ignorance - the fact *you* can't think of some other reason
for treating dogs better doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
You really blow at this.
dh
Maybe that he doesn't believe it Goober, if he's really that clueless, but
he not right that it doesn't mean anything.
> - it is meaningless.
Only to the extremely stupid, Goob, only to the extremely stupid.
>>> Furthermore, just because I agreed with David that it made the outcome
>>> better does not mean that I accept that we are justified in treating
>>> another sentient being in any way we like
>>
>> Everyone agrees with that even if they won't admit it.
>
>No moral person agrees with it.
Everyone accepts that we are not justified in treating another sentient
being in any way we like even if they won't admit it Goo, including you.
M Purcell
I haven't come across a dog that talks and can hold things but I've
come across people behaving like dogs.
Michael Gordge
> What possible reason could there be for kicking a dog that isn't
> threatening?
What possible reason could ewe have to treat dogs like humans if not
because ewe want to treat humans like dogs?
MG
dh
wrote:
>On Oct 12, 7:37�am, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I see. �Thanks.
>
>Ewe see nothing, especially ewe do not see how you're contradicting
>yourself when you claim animals dont have rights and in the same
>breath say a person should be punished for being cruel to their animal.
>Soooo in reality what ewe are saying, is, that when ewe see an idiot
>kick a dog for no apparent reason then
What if the person had a reason for kicking it? I had lots of reasons to
kick my dog, and didn't kick him anywhere near as many times as he gave me
reason to.
>he should go to jail (be
>punished) why?
He should not be.
>because he violated your belief that ewe have a right
>not to be offended by his actions, which makes ewe the animalistic
>fascist thug,
There was a housefull of missnomer addicts that lived down the road when I
was a kid. Though the dog training class instructor discouraged it kicking the
dog was still part of my training program. The reason for not doing it was so
the dog didn't become afraid of the owner, or the owner's feet. My dog never
did, though sometimes I'd fake him off as a warning and then he would react. My
dog would come when I called him, and heel with or without a leash. Heeling
dissagreements where what resulted in him getting kicked. He would sit and lie
down and stay, like a good dog should do. I could let him off the leash and let
him run around for a while, then call him over and he would stay with me until I
told him it was okay to go again.
In contrast, the misnomer addicts' dog WAS a prisoner in their house and
whenever it got the chance it would escape, usually with the entire stupid
family amusingly running after it yelling "Fluffy!...Fluffy!...". It was
pathetic, and I pointed out to them that my dog could go with me because he was
my friend, and just because some times I punished him it didn't change that and
it wasn't cruel because the training allowed him to do other things their dog
could not do. I also pointed out that by not training their dog they were
putting him at great risk of being hit by a car, AND they were making him a true
prisoner where my dog was my friend who stayed with me because he loved me.
There dog eventually did get killed by a car, probably with the whole family
running after it yelling "Fluffy!...Fluffy!....oh no....FLUFFYYYYYYYYY!".
>and as I said, the more that humans treat animals like
>humans the more like animals humans become.
We can treat them well if we try to consider all the aspects, which includes
considering things from their position. I've noticed that misnomer addicts are
more opposed to doing that than any other group of people, because considering
the animals and their lives works *against* the elimination objective. Everyone
should appreciate that huge distinction between decent animal welfare and the
horribly gross misnomer "animal rights". Of course the biggest difference is:
the animals.
Michael Gordge
> How is punishing gratuitous violence against non-human animals treating
> those animals like humans?
So you can draw a distinct and unambiguous line between "gratuitous
violence" against animals and "gratuitous violence" against humans?
Sheeesh this will be interesting.
> appeal to ignorance -
The ignorance being on my part, which is why I asked.
> the fact *you* can't think of some other reason
> for treating dogs better doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
That's why I asked, if he / she / you have another or other reasons
then, (A) you would have already given it and (B) why dont you give
those reasons?
MG
M Purcell
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz>
Speaking of misnomers, there is also a difference between discipline
and cruelty and there are better ways of discipling a dog.
George Plimpton
> On Oct 14, 6:17 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> How is punishing gratuitous violence against non-human animals treating
>> those animals like humans?
>
> So you can draw a distinct and unambiguous line between "gratuitous
> violence" against animals and "gratuitous violence" against humans?
The reasons for prohibiting them are different.
> Sheeesh this will be interesting.
>
>> appeal to ignorance -
>
> The ignorance being on my part, which is why I asked.
>
>> the fact *you* can't think of some other reason
>> for treating dogs better doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
>
> That's why I asked, if he / she / you have another or other reasons
> then, (A) you would have already given it and (B) why dont you give
> those reasons?
Someone in the thread already did.
Michael Gordge
> The reasons for prohibiting them are different.
Arbitrary statements will be ignored and or treated as meaningless
trash.
> It's not about the animal, it's about the human. Being cruel to an
> animal violates human standards of behavior, not the animal's rights.
Oh, so what is or is not cruel to an animal is when the actions by the
human against the animal violates "human standards of behaviour"?
sheeeesh, soooo how is that not treating animals like humans?
MG
George Plimpton
>> He's right - it is meaningless.
>
> Maybe that he doesn't believe it Goober, if he's really that clueless, but
> he not right that it doesn't mean anything.
It is meaningless.
>> - it is meaningless.
>
> Only to the
To every normal right-thinking person.
>>>> Furthermore, just because I agreed with David that it made the outcome
>>>> better does not mean that I accept that we are justified in treating
>>>> another sentient being in any way we like
>>>
>>> Everyone agrees with that even if they won't admit it.
>>
>> No moral person agrees with it.
>
> Everyone accepts that
No moral person agrees with you on this.
Michael Gordge
> but I've
> come across people behaving like dogs.
Most likely the very same people who teach dogs to talk, to be like
humans, you'll find they'll also be socialists.
As I said, the more like humans humans treat animals, the more like
animals humans become.
MG
M Purcell
It's fairly easy to distinguish humans from other animals.
George Plimpton
The person you're wasting time trying to persuade that animal cruelty is
wrong is named Fuckwit David Harrison. Fuckwit used to breed animals
for animal combats; mostly fighting cocks. He's a lying ignorant
cracKKKer living in Georgia near Atlanta. Don't waste your time. He's
a sociopath who believes he may do whatever he likes.
M Purcell
I doubt anybody assigns any importance to what you say but equating
dog lovers with socialists is amusing.
George Plimpton
>
> We can treat them well if we try to consider all the aspects,
*NOT* that they "get to experience life" - that merits no consideration
at all.
> which includes considering things from their position.
Meaningless gibberish, and you don't even attempt it.
> I've noticed that misnomer addicts
No such thing. You have identified no "misnomer" [sic].
Michael Gordge
No I cant see it, I use 'ewe' when dealing with ewe sheeple, i.e.
those who treat humans as animals, e.g. socialists.
After decades of treating animals like humans, humans, through the
socialist's eyes, are now on a par with animals, hence they treat
humans as dogs and horses, e.g. state funded training sessions which
socialists bogusly refer to as "children's education".
The really weird thing, privately funded vetinary clinics, where sick
and injured animals are treated as sick and injured animals, are light
years ahead of any health service provided by nanny fucking state for
human beings.
MG
George Plimpton
> On Oct 14, 7:11 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> The reasons for prohibiting them are different.
>
> Arbitrary statements will be ignored and
There is nothing "arbitrary" about the statement.
>> It's not about the animal, it's about the human. Being cruel to an
>> animal violates human standards of behavior, not the animal's rights.
>
> Oh, so what is or is not cruel to an animal is when the actions by the
> human against the animal violates "human standards of behaviour"?
Those standards are predicated on a nearly universal human consideration
for the welfare of sentient beings. That concern does not translate to
the animals having rights, but it does create restrictions on human
behavior. You have to abide by them, and it is reasonable that you do.
> sheeeesh, soooo how is that not treating animals like humans?
How is it like it?
George Plimpton
> On Oct 14, 6:03 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 1:58 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 11:11 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2011 12:17 AM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 13, 9:38 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> No, I'm not acting like an animal at all.
>>
>>>>> Repeating yourself several times is the evidence which contradicts
>>>>> that.
>>
>>>> "Ewe"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
>>
>>> What funny about that?
>>
>> It's so utterly animal-like yet you can't see it.
>
> No I cant see it, I use 'ewe' when dealing with ewe sheeple, i.e.
*We* eee it. It's mindlessly repetitive - animal-like, in other words.
Michael Gordge
> There is nothing "arbitrary" about the statement.
It most certainly is an arbitrary statement when its left up to one's
imagination what the fuck ewe mean by it.
> Those standards are predicated on a nearly universal human consideration
> for the welfare of sentient beings.
WTF? You're making this crap up as you go along aren't ewe?
> That concern does not translate to
> the animals having rights, but it does create restrictions on human
> behavior. You have to abide by them, and it is reasonable that you do.
Oh so you believe that a person violently kicking a dog and a person
violently kicking a child should both end up in jail? sheeeesh what an
animal you've become.
You regard a human being no different and of no greater value than a
dog and vice versa?
As the evidence proves, "the more like humans humans treat animals the
more like animals humans become."
What a rotten scumbag, or perhaps you just haven't thought your ideas,
nor your standard of moral values, logically therefore rationally.
> > sheeeesh, soooo how is that not treating animals like humans?
>
> How is it like it?
Simple, ewe believe in sending a person to jail for violently kicking
a dog and sending a person to jail for violently kicking a child, i.e.
the exact same punishment for the exact same actions against both
animals and humans, thats how.
You really have become an animal haven't ewe?
As the evidence shows, "the more like humans humans treat animals, the
more like animals humans become."
Having the exact same ultimate punishment, the threat of death (The
rule of Law), for the exact same treatment of both animals and humans,
really does mean that you desperately need to check your standard of
moral values.
As the evidence shows, "the more like humans humans treat animals, the
more like animals humans become."
My guess, based on the evidence of your statements on the subject so
far, is, that you have never given any thought what so ever to what
YOUR standard is, of ALL your moral values.
MG
Michael Gordge
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:27:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
> younger days?
Shrug. Morally speaking, you lock em up ONLY when they threaten and or
harm humans beings.
MG
Errol
> On Oct 13, 8:20 pm, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Soooo in reality what ewe are saying, is, that when ewe see an idiot
> > > punished) why? because he violated your belief that ewe have a right
> > > not to be offended by his actions, which makes ewe the animalistic
> > > humans the more like animals humans become.
>
> > No! because he would be a cunt and deserves to experience a rough
> > night in jail
>
> > Ewe really are the hate child of Ted Bundy and Ayn Rand, aren't ewe?
> > By the way I have a dog I would dearly like to see ewe try kick.
> > It's a rotweiller called Irony bru
>
> > Of course miserable fuckers like ewe typically avoid self injury and
> > reserve their cruelty for poodles, babies and little girls- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> to treat human beings like they're dogs?
>
> Well I guuess explains why ewe are a left wing fuckwit.
>
Nice try numbnuts but I dont speak idiot as well as ewe do so please
explain
why having compassion towards animals then means having none towards
humans.
Avoid moronic sound bites from the school of Randspeak that mean
absolutely nothing.
Errol
> On Oct 13, 8:10 pm, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey! You missed the irrational loony fascist dishonest middle
>
> > How must they feel?
>
> Stupid cunt, there is no such thing, politically / ethically either
> you hold the human individual as the highest possible standard of all
> moral values OR you dont, and you clearly dont, which makes ewe
> politically irrational dishonest, left and loony and of course a
> hypocrite.
>
> What you forbid yourself doing, e.g. stealing and forcing your moral
> values onto others agaiinst their will, you are quite happy to
> sanction those actions into the hands of a third party, the
> government.
>
What other standard of moral values could there possibly be other than
human?
AFAIK aliens haven't landed yet.
What ewe don't seem to understand is that YOUR moral values differ
from the
other 6.5 billion people on planet Earth.
Just because Ayn whispers to you at night, doesn't make it OK to kick
dogs
Michael Gordge
> It's fairly easy to distinguish humans from other animals.
Shrug, when you throw a person in jail for violently kicking either a
dog or a child then you ARE sanctioning equal rights to dogs and
children which ought disgust any rational minded person, but then, as
the saying goes, "the more like humans humans treat animals the more
like animals humans become".
MG
Michael Gordge
> I doubt anybody assigns any importance to what you say but equating
> dog lovers with socialists is amusing.
The only people who would find no importance in what I am saying are
those who would sanction or embrace equal rights to dogs and children,
e.g. socialist GP, Dutch, Errol and obviously yourself.
GP has clearly stated that he wants to throw people in jail whether
they have violently kicked a dog or a child, which IS, treating a
child as a dog and a dog as a child, its disgusting beyond belief.
As the evidence supports, "the more like humans humans treat animals
the more like animals humans become."
MG
George Plimpton
> On Oct 14, 8:03 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> There is nothing "arbitrary" about the statement.
>
> It most certainly is an arbitrary statement when its left up to one's
> imagination what the fuck ewe mean by it.
What I meant by it was perfectly clear, and nonarbitrary.
>> Those standards are predicated on a nearly universal human consideration
>> for the welfare of sentient beings.
>
> WTF? You're making this crap up as you go along aren't ewe?
No, of course not.
>
>> That concern does not translate to
>> the animals having rights, but it does create restrictions on human
>> behavior. You have to abide by them, and it is reasonable that you do.
>
> Oh so you believe that a person violently kicking a dog and a person
> violently kicking a child should both end up in jail? sheeeesh what an
> animal you've become.
Yes, they could, but for different reasons. The child has rights; the
dog doesn't.
>>> sheeeesh, soooo how is that not treating animals like humans?
>>
>> How is it like it?
>
> Simple, ewe believe in sending a person to jail for violently kicking
> a dog and sending a person to jail for violently kicking a child, i.e.
> the exact same punishment for the exact same actions against both
> animals and humans, thats how.
First, not necessarily the same punishment, and not for the same reasons.
Secondly, that doesn't show that humans are treated like animals.
Errol
> On Oct 14, 6:23 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > but I've
> > come across people behaving like dogs.
>
> Most likely the very same people who teach dogs to talk, to be like
> humans, you'll find they'll also be socialists.
>
teach dogs to talk!!!!
bwaaahaaahaaa
I dub ewe the dog whisperer. Do they whisper back Mikey?
Errol
> On Oct 14, 7:35 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I doubt anybody assigns any importance to what you say but equating
> > dog lovers with socialists is amusing.
>
> The only people who would find no importance in what I am saying are
> those who would sanction or embrace equal rights to dogs and children,
> e.g. socialist GP, Dutch, Errol and obviously yourself.
What a great start to the weekend, watching Mikey paint himself into a
corner, then tipping the paint bucket over his head.
Thanks for the laughs Mikey
>
> GP has clearly stated that he wants to throw people in jail whether
> they have violently kicked a dog or a child, which IS, treating a
> child as a dog and a dog as a child, its disgusting beyond belief.
>
Does Aynnie whisper to ewe in your dreams?
> As the evidence supports, "the more like humans humans treat animals
> the more like animals humans become."
>
WTF Are your sheep making lewd suggestions to ewe now Mikey!
Payback time for all the sheep ewe have abused?
Michael Gordge
> Yes, they could, but for different reasons. The child has rights; the
> dog doesn't.
Wrong, when you send a person to jail for kicking a dog or a child
then that dog has the exact same right of protection as a child, which
is further evidence of the claim, "the more like humans humans treat
animals the more like animals humans become."
Here's the litmus test of your disgusting leftist loony ideation:
A policeman has been called to a situation where a person is holding a
gun while violently kicking a child in the head to a point where the
child's death is a real potential and the only immediate means to
protect the child the policeman has is draw his gun and scream out
"stop or I'll shoot"
Question - if the person continues kicking and the child's life is in
immediate and definite danger, does a moral case exist for the cop to
shoot the perpetrator?
Now repeat the situation but change the child for a dog and answer the
exact same question.
Question - if the person continues kicking and the dog's life is in
immediate and definite danger, does a moral case exist for the cop to
shoot the perpetrator?
Clue, if you believe a person should be sent to jail for violently
kicking both a child and dog then your only possible answer is "yes"
to both questions.
Why? "the rule of law" I suggest ewe study it.
MG
George Plimpton
> On Oct 14, 10:45 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> Yes, they could, but for different reasons. The child has rights; the
>> dog doesn't.
>
> Wrong, when you send a person to jail for kicking a dog or a child
> then that dog has the exact same right of protection as a child,
No, that's wrong.
> Here's the litmus test of your disgusting leftist loony ideation:
> A policeman has been called to a situation where a person is holding a
> gun while violently kicking a child in the head to a point where the
> child's death is a real potential and the only immediate means to
> protect the child the policeman has is draw his gun and scream out
> "stop or I'll shoot"
>
> Question - if the person continues kicking and the child's life is in
> immediate and definite danger, does a moral case exist for the cop to
> shoot the perpetrator?
>
> Now repeat the situation but change the child for a dog and answer the
> exact same question.
>
> Question - if the person continues kicking and the dog's life is in
> immediate and definite danger, does a moral case exist for the cop to
> shoot the perpetrator?
>
> Clue, if you believe a person should be sent to jail for violently
> kicking both a child and dog then your only possible answer is "yes"
> to both questions.
No, that does not follow.
Michael Gordge
> Society doesn't accept people skinning animals alive or setting them
> on fire to watch them run around in pain. There are indeed laws
> against it as there should be.
Oh so if ewe come across Errol or George Simpleton just beginning to
skin either a child, or a rat, or a snake alive, then you would
sanction a polieman drawing his gun and yelling "stop or I'll shoot"
and if they refuse to stop, shoot?
And then ewe wonder why ewe loony left pro-rat pro-snake fuckwits are
referred to as anti-human fascist scum?
MG
Michael Gordge
> teach dogs to talk!!!!
Go back and read what the stupid cunt said, ewe equally as dumb
context dropping leftist cunt, HE claimed dogs had been taught to
speak, I was responding to that, ewe fuckiing idiot.
MG
Michael Gordge
> so please
> explain
> why having compassion towards animals then means having none towards
> humans.
Maybe ewe should take a little test of your moral values too, ewe
stupid cunt.
Should a person skinning his pet rat alive be shot?
How about for skinning his pet cat alive?
What animal/s should a person be ultimately shot (SENT TO JAIL - THE
RULE OF LAW) for causing unjustified harm to?
You would agree no doubt that a moral case does exist to shoot dead a
person who is holding a gun while threatening to kill another peaceful
human being, now give a list of animals where ewe believe the same
moral case exists, where an animal's life, rather than a human being's
life is being threatened.
MG
Michael Gordge
> What other standard of moral values could there possibly be other than
> human?
Yes that is ALMOST the correct question, leftist fuckwit, your last
three words instead, should have been "the human individual" but of
course ewe deliberately didn't use them because ewe need an excuse to
remain a nauseating rat loving anti-human leftist fuckwit.
MG
Michael Gordge
> On 10/14/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 10:45 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, they could, but for different reasons. The child has rights; the
> >> dog doesn't.
>
> > Wrong, when you send a person to jail for kicking a dog or a child
> > then that dog has the exact same right of protection as a child,
>
> No, that's wrong.
Its correct, ewe can paint as many pretty pictures and light as many
smokey fires as ewe like, but ewe cant change or hide from the reality
of the fact that sending a person to jail for kicking a dog or a child
grants the exact same right of protection to dogs and children, the
more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals humans
become.
Leftist society:
Jailer to prisoner:
Why are you here?
Prisoner:
George Simpleton saw me violently kicking my dog.
Jailer to prisoner:
So where would they send you for violently kicking your child?
Prisoner:
The welfare centre for counciling
MG
George Plimpton
> On Oct 15, 12:48 am, Deucalion<some...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Society doesn't accept people skinning animals alive or setting them
>> on fire to watch them run around in pain. There are indeed laws
>> against it as there should be.
>
> Oh so if ewe come across Errol or George Simpleton just beginning to
> skin either a child, or a rat, or a snake alive, then you would
> sanction a polieman drawing his gun and yelling "stop or I'll shoot"
> and if they refuse to stop, shoot?
A policeman wouldn't shoot the person flaying an animal, but would shoot
the perp flaying a person.
George Plimpton
> On Oct 15, 4:45 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 14, 10:45 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, they could, but for different reasons. The child has rights; the
>>>> dog doesn't.
>>
>>> Wrong, when you send a person to jail for kicking a dog or a child
>>> then that dog has the exact same right of protection as a child,
>>
>> No, that's wrong.
>
> Its correct,
It's wrong.
> Leftist society:
You have a grotesque caricature of what's "leftist". It's far from reality.
Michael Gordge
> On 10/14/2011 1:34 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 4:45 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/14/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 14, 10:45 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> >>>> Yes, they could, but for different reasons. The child has rights; the
> >>>> dog doesn't.
>
> >>> Wrong, when you send a person to jail for kicking a dog or a child
> >>> then that dog has the exact same right of protection as a child,
>
> >> No, that's wrong.
>
> > Its correct,
>
> It's wrong.
of animals lovers and not the dog?
MG
Michael Gordge
> What a great start to the weekend, watching Mikey paint himself into a
> corner,
MG
Michael Gordge
> A policeman wouldn't shoot the person flaying an animal, but would shoot
> the perp flaying a person.
a moral question, so stop dropping context, its a question of
principle DOES A MORAL CASE EXIST to shoot a person who is skinning a
dog, a cat, a rat, a snake alive?
MG
George Plimpton
Here's one for you, fuckwit: what would we do with someone who went
into a public art museum and slashed a painting? Would we send him to
jail?
Here's another: if your neighbor blasts his stereo at high volume at
2:00am, or starts mowing his lawn with a gas-powered mower at that time,
can he be prosecuted? Your "rights" certainly aren't being violated, so
why would you call the cops?
There are lots of perfectly reasonable laws that even true libertarians
- not frenzied jackballs like you - deem acceptable and good, that
specify jail time if violated, and they are not predicated on the
violation of a person's rights. You wouldn't have it any other way.
George Plimpton
Nonetheless, the person can subsequently be arrested, prosecuted,
convicted and imprisoned, and that is proper.
Michael Gordge
>
> Not to protect any feelings of sentimentality about animals.
children are protected? treat dogs as children and children as dogs,
how disgusting.
Sheeeeeesh, why didn't ewe just say so back at the beginning? So in
reality ewe regard a child's life as equal to that of a dog's life,
how about a rat's life?
> Here's one for you, Mr Gordge: what would we do with someone who went
> jail?
musems, its a moral subject about treating dogs as humans and humans
as dogs.
> There are lots of perfectly reasonable laws that even true libertarians
And treating dogs as children e.g. by placing a human being in jail
for kicking a dog, which is where they DO belong for kicking a child,
is most certainly not one of those laws, clearly ewe know nothing
about libertarian ideas.
Ewe see, fuckwit, libertarians regard "the human individual" and NOT a
fucking rat, or a dog, or a cat, as the highest possible standard of
all his/her moral values.
In a libertarian society there will be people who would regard ewe
being cruel to animals as irrational behaviour and as a reason to
choose never to deal with you and or to try and persuade ewe
peacefully and rationally to stop, they would NOT and NEVER would send
you to jail for being a complete and utterly useless and pathetic
little leftist fascist animal hater, why? Because a libertarian's
standard of all moral values is the human individual, thats YOU,
fuckwit, and that is what scares the living shit out of leftist
retards, they NEVER want to be held responsible for their own ideas
and actions.
MG
George Plimpton
> On Oct 15, 6:47 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>> Not to protect any feelings of sentimentality about animals.
>
> Oh so you want to throw a person in jail to protect dogs, just like
> children are protected? treat dogs as children and children as dogs,
> how disgusting.
>> Here's one for you, fuckwit: what would we do with someone who went
>> jail?
>
> Nice try, this is not a subject nor thread about property rights and
Answer the question, fuckwit: would you send him to jail? I know you
would; I just want to hear you say it.
>> There are lots of perfectly reasonable laws that even true libertarians
>> - i.e. rational human loving people like you - deem acceptable and good,
>
> And treating dogs as children e.g. by placing a human being in jail
> Ewe see, Prof. Plimpton, libertarians regard "the human individual" and NOT a
> all his/her moral values.
eminently good reason punish someone for committing cruelty to sentient
non-human animals. Even though animals do not have and *cannot* have
rights, we nonetheless universally feel that we have certain moral
duties to them, and we do. Not all moral duties are contingent on
rights by the entity to whom the duties are owed. Keep banging away at
it, bitch - someday you'll figure it out.
Michael Gordge
> Even though animals do not have and *cannot* have
> rights, we nonetheless universally feel that we have certain moral
> duties to them, and we do.
violating your loony leftist whimsical and invented moral duties
towards animals, then ewe want to lock them in jail, just like ewe'd
want to lock them in jail if they kicked a child, and soooooooo, ewe
need to believe that locking a person in jail for failing to perform
according to your whimsical invented moral duties towards animals, is
somehow different to locking them in jail for kicking a child?
Ewe're kidding (pun intended) no-one but yourself and of course that
other loony as all fuck leftist twat calling itself Errol.
Explain, these subjective whimsical moral duties ewe have invented for
animals, what standards are they based upon and where do you draw the
lines, e.g. what animals are included and excluded and why?
MG
Michael Gordge
> Nonetheless, the person can subsequently be arrested, prosecuted,
> convicted and imprisoned,
defend their lives rather than go to jail".
Ewe choose to fail to understand, because ewe dont want, "the rule of
law", google it, fuckwit, without the ultimate threat of death ANY LAW
of man is utterly powerless and meaningless.
> and that is proper.
Yeah, proper fascist disgusting anti-human crap, it is NEVER proper
that any human being be threatened with death (the rule of law) for
skinning an animal alive.
In a moral society rapists, child molesters, murderers, robbers,
vandals, fraudsters, violent thugs causing human victims belong in
jail, live animal skinners DONT fuckwit, why? Because human beings are
the standard of all moral values, NOT fucking animals.
The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals humans
become.
MG
Michael Gordge
> *We*........
No, *ewe*, on here, in reality, there is no *we* -- ewe can only think
and then speak for ewe -- and I guess for all other leftist fuckwits,
like that useless brain dead dopey prick calling itself Errol who
wants and needs ewe to parrot his mindless trash for him.
Ewe still haven't explained how or where it is illogical to say, 'the
And ewe still haven't explained what standard YOU use to determine
YOUR whimsical invented "moral duties" that you are wanting enforced
on the dog, cat, mouse and rat's behalf.
MG
Jeff M
repeatedly and explained or established all he needs to, and no matter
how snide hostile you behave, you can't change that.
Michael Gordge
> I'm no fan of Mr. Plimpton, but you're done here. He's bested you
> repeatedly and explained or established all he needs to, and no matter
> how snide hostile you behave, you can't change that.
behaviour doesn't change the simple fact that GP wants to throw a
person in jail, threaten them with death, whether they have violently
kicked a dog or violently kicked a child (treat dogs as children as
equals) and clearly ewe sanction or endorse such evil anti-human
behaviour.
MG
Michael Gordge
named Jeff and George.
Jeff:
Whotchu infor George?
George:
Raping my wife's dog bro, whotchu infor Jeff?
Jeff:
Raping a child in church bro.
Summary, in Georgieland there are whimsical laws invented by George on
behalf of dogs, where the rapist of a dog is treated no differently to
the rapist of children, (both end up in jail threatened with death) --
(the rule of law) meaning Geogieianlanders regard a child's life no
different in meaning nor value to that of a dog.
In Georgieland its a dog's life to be human.
In Georgieland, the more like humans humans treat animnals the more
like animals Georgielanders and now Jeff have become.
MG
George Plimpton
>
>> Even though animals do not have and *cannot* have
>> rights, we nonetheless universally feel that we have certain moral
>> duties to them, and we do.
>
> Oh, so if ewe see a person failing to perform according to, or who is
> violating your loony leftist whimsical
> moral duties
> towards animals, then ewe want to lock them in jail, just like ewe'd
> want to lock them in jail if they kicked a child,
kicking a child, but the cases are different.
George Plimpton
> On Oct 15, 6:48 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> Nonetheless, the person can subsequently be arrested, prosecuted,
>> convicted and imprisoned,
>
> Ewe forgot to add "and ultimately shot dead should they choose to
> defend their lives rather than go to jail".
>> and that is proper.
>
> Yeah, proper fascist