Re: The ethics of Eating life?

[dh]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>
>> > > What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>
>> > > For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>
>> > > When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>
>> > You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>
>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>
>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>
>
>You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>benefited?

If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
would never have lived at all. They wouldn't have lived as different animals or
anything like that. Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
what's important since it's that or NOTHING for livestock, not that or something
else.

[George Plimpton]

On 7/3/2012 9:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>
>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>
>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>
>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>
>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>
>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>>
>>
>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>> benefited?
>
> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> would never have lived at all.

Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
"benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
animals if we stop breeding livestock.

> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> what's important

No. It has *ZERO* importance.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 4, 2:53 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 7/3/2012 9:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>

The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.

Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
the human race has to wear.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[George Plimpton]

That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.

[Arindam Banerjee]

I don't think so. Rather it is humans who yearn for slavery, both as
master and slave, for the comforts of slavery. Animals can do without
all the things that humans need slavery to provide for them. Of
course, when animals are domesticated over time, they are enslaved and
are nothing like free animals.

Jack London explores such issues in his novels, which were very
popular in his time when there was natural jungle around as opposed to
the moden concrete jungles.

Humans in the state of nature, value freedom most as they cannot think
in terms of making jails and living in jails. So much is evident from
those acquainted with tribal cultures.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[George Plimpton]

You have no basis for thinking that.

> Rather it is humans who yearn for slavery,

No.

[Arindam Banerjee]

If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
and you are not I.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> >  Rather it is humans who yearn for slavery,
>

> No.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[George Plimpton]

That was not a meaningful statement.

[Arindam Banerjee]

It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.

[George Plimpton]

It was meaningless.

[Arindam Banerjee]

No.

[George Plimpton]

It was. Really, it was.

[Father Haskell]

On Jul 3, 12:42 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>

Fairness dictates that we balance eating animals with
eating humans. I have a leg of Scotsman in the
freezer left over since last Robert Burns Day if you'd
care for a nosh.

[Delma T. Ivey]

> eating humans. I have a Scotsman's prick in the

> freezer left over since last Robert Burns Day if you'd
> care for a nosh.

Uh...you can nosh on that by yourself, bitch.

[Father Haskell]

On Jul 4, 9:05 pm, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
wrote:

Sure you wouldn't care for some kidney pie?

[Ben Kaufman]

Animals don't understand the concept of freedom. However, they do experience
suffering.

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

Actually, there are animals who make other animals their slaves. Check out
Kleptoparasitism.

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

Aye, and with a scraggly beard so you get enough roughage.

Ben

[Mr.Smartypants]

Do you yearn for freedom from your abject stupidity, Goo?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 5, 10:49 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-

More obviously humans sold other humans in the markets in highly
developed and religious societies till very recently, and I doubt if
K* could do that!
>
> Ben-

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 5, 10:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-

But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or bonds
that restrict their movements.

However, they do experience
> suffering.

Hurrah for progress, they certainly thought differently once.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -

[George Plimpton]

No, they don't. Most animals remain quite happily within enclosures.
Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate doesn't appear
distressed or unhappy.

Why do you run your mouth about things of which you are entirely ignorant?

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:14:27 -0700

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 7:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 10:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> > doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> >> <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 4, 2:53 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

[snip]

> >>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> >>
> >>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for
> >>> slaughter have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over
> >>> wild animals is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short
> >>> time.
> >>
> >>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of
> >>> freedom in general and is thus responsible for the chains
> >>> (visible or invisible) the human race has to wear.
> >>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Arindam Banerjee
> >>
> >> Animals don't understand the concept of freedom.
> >
> > But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or bonds
> > that restrict their movements.
>
> No, they don't. Most animals remain quite happily within enclosures.
> Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate doesn't appear
> distressed or unhappy.

[snip]

That's partially true. It seems to depend partially on a combination of
the nature and personality of the animal.

There are many animals who don't like captivity, such as cats: Ever
try putting a cat in a cage (the bigger the better)? Most of them
dislike this experience very much as is made obvious by the fact that
not only do they make a fuss once while in the cage, they usually
resist being forced into it in the first place.

There are also some people who enjoy captivity under certain conditions
(this may seem strange to many people, but I know some people who are
like this).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Dogs have owners; cats have staff."
-- Don Kresch

[Mr.Smartypants]

On Jul 5, 9:46 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

Goo is like that. He's a captive of his own stupidity......and he
loves it.

[George Plimpton]

That's not always true. When I take my cats to the vet, they're very
unhappy going into the pet carriers to make the trip to the vet. Once
they're at the vet, I can barely get them out of the carriers, and once
the vet has finished with them, they can't wait to go back into them.

In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock animals
raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry - none of
them have a big problem with being confined in anything except the most
restrictive enclosures.

[Mr.Smartypants]

You stupid prick! It's obvious that the kitties are more scared of the
vet than the cage.

>
> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock animals
> raised for human consumption.  Cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry - none of
> them have a big problem with being confined in anything except the most
> restrictive enclosures.
>

How the f*** would you know?

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

> Goo is like that. He's a captive of his own stupidity......and he
> loves it.

Ha ha! For some reason I hadn't considered applying the aspect of
intellectual bondage (I was thinking of a physical form with some
powerful psychological aspects).

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"The history of saints is mainly the history of insane people."
-- Benito Mussolini

[dh]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:31:25 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee

<banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 4, 10:27 am, Goo wrote:
>> On 7/3/2012 5:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Animals who have been free certainly do, Goo.

>I don't think so.

Livestock animals can't yearn for freedom because they have no way of
knowing it exists for one thing, much less what it has to offer. And often what
it has to "offer" them when they get free is death. So it would be good for you
to get comfortable with the idea that livestock animals don't know anything
about much less yearn for freedom. But! That's not saying they can't suffer from
overcrowding or overly restrictive confinement. Some do and some don't. Most
cattle appear to have it ok imo, and most chickens as well except for caged
commercial laying hens. I encourage you to buy some cage free eggs to support
that method, and even if you don't eat eggs yourself you could give them to
someone else who does. Doing that might encourage someone else to start buying
them too...

>Rather it is humans who yearn for slavery, both as
>master and slave, for the comforts of slavery. Animals can do without
>all the things that humans need slavery to provide for them. Of
>course, when animals are domesticated over time, they are enslaved and
>are nothing like free animals.

It is the lives they experience or nothing for them. Some of their lives
appear to be of postive value for the animals themselves, and some of them
appear to be of negative value for them.

[dh]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:29:40 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 7/3/2012 10:23 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>> On Jul 4, 3:07 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2012 10:00 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Animals who never experience freedom can't be aware of it and therefore
can't yearn for it Goo, but animals who have been free certainly can and often
do yearn for freedom.

[dh]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:53:31 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:42:37 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>> what's important
>

>No. It has *ZERO* importance.

ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination Goo. To people who
favor the animals continuing to exist there's no reason not to give their lives
as much or more consideration than their deaths.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon and parolee living in Buford, GA
lied:

> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:31:25 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On Jul 4, 10:27 am, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2012 5:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>>>> On Jul 4, 2:53 am, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon and parolee living in Buford, GA lied:

They don't place any value on "getting to experience life" for the same
reason.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon and parolee living in Buford, GA
lied:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:29:40 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2012 10:23 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>>> On Jul 4, 3:07 pm, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2012 10:00 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>>>>> On Jul 4, 1:53 pm, George B. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2012 6:31 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 10:27 am, George C. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>>>> You have no basis for thinking that.
>>>>
>>>>> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
>>>>> and you are not I.
>>>>
>>>> That was not a meaningful statement.
>>>
>>> It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
>>
>> It was meaningless.
>
> Animals who never experience freedom can't be aware of it and therefore
> can't yearn for it

Animals who never "get to experience life" aren't aware of it and
therefore don't miss it.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon and parolee living in Buford, GA
lied:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:53:31 -0700, George X. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon and parolee living in Buford, GA lied:
>>

>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>> what's important
>>
>> No. It has *ZERO* importance.
>
> ONLY to people who

It has *ZERO* importance, period. It has no importance at all. It
cannot have any importance.

[Immortalist]

So whatever the animal doesnt appear to be suffering from is
allowable?

(Two baboon allies show their commitment by fondling each other’s
genitalia)
Published onDecember 11, 2011 by Dario Maestripieri, Ph.D. in Games
Primates Play
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201112/testify-comes-the-latin-word-testicle

[George Plimpton]

Straw man

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:54:28 -0700

I wasn't referring to torture (at least from a cat's perspective), just
captivity. Torture has a different psychological impact on its
subjects than captivity, and the familiarity of captivity is often
preferred when the only other option is torture, so I'm not at all
surprised that your cat willingly returns to captivity in these
circumstances (particularly since your cat likely has memories of
previous incidents where freedom was made available again after
returning home). People will also often perform similarly when their
ability to acutely express themselves is severely inhibited.

> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock animals
> raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry - none of
> them have a big problem with being confined in anything except the
> most restrictive enclosures.

Technically, cats qualify as livestock:

livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially farm
animals kept for use and profit.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock

There are also some people who enjoy the flavour of cat meat, so even
with the qualification of "for human consumption" cats still qualify.

> > There are also some people who enjoy captivity under certain
> > conditions (this may seem strange to many people, but I know some
> > people who are like this).

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Dogs are pets. Cats are little killers you share your house with."
-- Dr. Richard Wiseman

[George Plimpton]

I wasn't referring to torture, either. How do you get 'torture' out of
what I wrote? Did you even read it?

I was referring to captivity. You wrote about cats not wanting to go
into cages. I wrote about an instance in which cats willingly go into
cages.

> Torture has a different psychological impact on its
> subjects than captivity, and

We weren't talking about torture.

>> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock animals
>> raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry - none of
>> them have a big problem with being confined in anything except the
>> most restrictive enclosures.
>
> Technically, cats qualify as livestock:
>
> livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially farm
> animals kept for use and profit.
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock

Cats are not considered livestock as most people typically use the word.
Most people do not think of livestock as including pets.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:59:20 -0700

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 5:19 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:54:28 -0700
>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2012 8:46 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>>> goddess wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:14:27 -0700
>>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2012 7:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 5, 10:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>>>>>> doll...@pobox.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>>>>>> Animals don't understand the concept of freedom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or
>>>>>> bonds that restrict their movements.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they don't. Most animals remain quite happily within
>>>>> enclosures. Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate
>>>>> doesn't appear distressed or unhappy.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> That's partially true. It seems to depend partially on a
>>>> combination of the nature and personality of the animal.
>>>>
>>>> There are many animals who don't like captivity, such as cats:
>>>> Ever try putting a cat in a cage (the bigger the better)? Most
>>>> of them dislike this experience very much as is made obvious by
>>>> the fact that not only do they make a fuss once while in the
>>>> cage, they usually resist being forced into it in the first place.
>>>
>>> That's not always true. When I take my cats to the vet, they're
>>> very unhappy going into the pet carriers to make the trip to the
>>> vet. Once they're at the vet, I can barely get them out of the
>>> carriers, and once the vet has finished with them, they can't wait
>>> to go back into them.
>>
>> I wasn't referring to torture (at least from a cat's perspective),
>> just captivity.
>
> I wasn't referring to torture, either. How do you get 'torture' out
> of what I wrote? Did you even read it?

Torture was implicit: To the cat, being handled by the Veterinary
Doctor (V.D.) could very well be perceved, by the cat, as torture, and
having to endure needles or other uncomfortable instruments, assumedly,
most likely would be percieved as actual acts of torture.

> I was referring to captivity. You wrote about cats not wanting to go
> into cages. I wrote about an instance in which cats willingly go
> into cages.

When an animal or a person is feeling terrified, the cage they came
from could very well seem like a "safer haven." It's really not much
of a choice in the context you presented, and I suspect that the cat
will likely judge it to be a pretty safe placed compared to remaining in
the clutches of the V.D.

> > Torture has a different psychological impact on its
> > subjects than captivity, and
>
> We weren't talking about torture.

It was implicit (see above). (I find it interesting that you're denying
this twice; shouldn't once be sufficient to get your point across?)

> >> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock animals
> >> raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry - none
> >> of them have a big problem with being confined in anything except
> >> the most restrictive enclosures.
> >
> > Technically, cats qualify as livestock:
> >
> > livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially
> > farm animals kept for use and profit.
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock
>
> Cats are not considered livestock as most people typically use the
> word. Most people do not think of livestock as including pets.

Are you going to inform the publishers of Merriam Webster that they've
misunderstood the common usage of a fairly well-known English word? (I
suspect they'll be interested in some solid arguments and evidence to
justify changing any definitions.)

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"It's nice that all of these anti-science types can hop on the internet
from almost anywhere in the world and let us all know how much of a
crock science is."
-- Anonymous (July 3, 2012)

[George Plimpton]

It wasn't.

>> I was referring to captivity. You wrote about cats not wanting to go
>> into cages. I wrote about an instance in which cats willingly go
>> into cages.
>
> When an animal or a person is feeling terrified, the cage they came
> from could very well seem like a "safer haven."

I refuted what you said. You said cats don't like to be in cages. I
gave you an example of cats wanting to be in cages.

>>> Torture has a different psychological impact on its
>>> subjects than captivity, and
>>
>> We weren't talking about torture.
>
> It was implicit

It wasn't.

>>>> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock animals
>>>> raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry - none
>>>> of them have a big problem with being confined in anything except
>>>> the most restrictive enclosures.
>>>
>>> Technically, cats qualify as livestock:
>>>
>>> livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially
>>> farm animals kept for use and profit.
>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock
>>
>> Cats are not considered livestock as most people typically use the
>> word. Most people do not think of livestock as including pets.
>
> Are you going to inform the publishers of Merriam Webster that they've
> misunderstood the common usage of a fairly well-known English word?

I'm telling you how people commonly use the word.

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 5, 6:51 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 3, 12:42 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> > >> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> > >> > > What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>
> > >> > > For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>
> > >> > > When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>
> > >> > You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>
> > >> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>
> > >> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>
> > >You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> > >benefited?
>
> >     If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals

> > would never have lived at all. They wouldn't have lived as different animals or
> > anything like that. Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> > what's important since it's that or NOTHING for livestock, not that or something
> > else.
>
> Fairness dictates that we balance eating animals with
> eating humans.  I have a leg of Scotsman in the
> freezer left over since last Robert Burns Day if you'd
> care for a nosh.

I was invited to a Self-Cannibalism party but I didn't go...

it was BYO

Herc

[Arindam Banerjee]

I was talking not about domesticated animals, but wild animals.

> Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate doesn't appear
> distressed or unhappy.

Try keeping a wild boar there, or catching it first! These days they
weigh a lot, or at least that is what one maybe fake photo showed.

> Why do you run your mouth about things of which you are entirely ignorant?

You sound grumpy. Never mind!

[Ben Kaufman]

The fact is that we, as humans, collectively said that slavery is bad and
abolished it. On the other hand, we just sit back and marvel at how the Cuckoo
exploits its victims to raise its young. This is the type of slavery we have
today where people (working class Republicans) have no idea how they are being
exploited into behaving in a way against their own interests to benefit their
masters.

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

There is no "understanding," you are anthropomorphizing. Even single cell
organisms can demonstrate avoidance of negative stimulus.

>
>However, they do experience
>> suffering.
>
>Hurrah for progress, they certainly thought differently once.

Actually the idea of animal suffering has been demonstrated for thousands of
years. The Torah addresses the "humane" treatment of domestic animals, and
various Native Americans and Africans had rituals to pay respect for the life
they took.

[George Plimpton]

Most wild animals never are in enclosures in the first place, so you're
talking about nothing.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:00:03 -0700

> > Torture was implicit: To the cat, being handled by the Veterinary
> > Doctor (V.D.) could very well be perceved, by the cat, as torture,
> > and having to endure needles or other uncomfortable instruments,
> > assumedly, most likely would be percieved as actual acts of torture.
>

> It wasn't.

I answered your question with a reasonable example. Your argumentative
response requires elaboration if it is to be considered as more than a
mere disagreement.

> >> I was referring to captivity. You wrote about cats not wanting to
> >> go into cages. I wrote about an instance in which cats willingly
> >> go into cages.
> >
> > When an animal or a person is feeling terrified, the cage they came
> > from could very well seem like a "safer haven."
>
> I refuted what you said. You said cats don't like to be in cages. I
> gave you an example of cats wanting to be in cages.

I wrote "most of them dislike it" which you have not refuted. Also,
what you consider to be a successful refutation was your own personal
anecdote that actually supported what I wrote because the cat was, I
suspect, so terrified of the V.D. that [s]he chose the familiarity of
the cage as a means to get away from the V.D. and the unfamiliar
environment (the V.D.'s clinic).

[snip - argumentative, same as "It wasn't" (see above)]

> >>>> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock
> >>>> animals raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep,
> >>>> poultry - none of them have a big problem with being confined in
> >>>> anything except the most restrictive enclosures.
> >>>
> >>> Technically, cats qualify as livestock:
> >>>
> >>> livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially
> >>> farm animals kept for use and profit.
> >>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock
> >>
> >> Cats are not considered livestock as most people typically use the
> >> word. Most people do not think of livestock as including pets.
> >
> > Are you going to inform the publishers of Merriam Webster that
> > they've misunderstood the common usage of a fairly well-known
> > English word?
>
> I'm telling you how people commonly use the word.

Are you claiming to be a better-informed authority on English language
usage than a well-respected publisher of a popular dictionary? If so,
although I don't expect to see credentials, I would like to see some
statistics that can reasonably refute what the dictionary presents.

Also, my point was that cats qualify as livestock regardless of whether
their consumption is intended. There are people who also eat dogs,
mice, and even birds, but perhaps we shouldn't expand into this area
too much for the sake of brevity.

Additionally and anecdotally, I know farmers who consider livestock
animals as pets, animals like chickens and sheep, and on occasion even
let them galavant freely in their homes. Granted, in the city most
people don't have chickens, cows, or hogs in their living rooms
watching TV with them, but when people live with food animals there [at
least] sometimes is a tendancy to regard them as pets (especially by
children who live on farms).

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"This is the epitaph I want on my tomb: Here lies one of the most
intelligent animals who ever appeared on the face of the earth."
-- Benito Mussolini

[George Plimpton]

You claimed they dislike it all the time. However, you're wrong.

>>>>>> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock
>>>>>> animals raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep,
>>>>>> poultry - none of them have a big problem with being confined in
>>>>>> anything except the most restrictive enclosures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically, cats qualify as livestock:
>>>>>
>>>>> livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially
>>>>> farm animals kept for use and profit.
>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock
>>>>
>>>> Cats are not considered livestock as most people typically use the
>>>> word. Most people do not think of livestock as including pets.
>>>
>>> Are you going to inform the publishers of Merriam Webster that
>>> they've misunderstood the common usage of a fairly well-known
>>> English word?
>>
>> I'm telling you how people commonly use the word.
>
> Are you claiming

I'm claiming, correctly, that the overwhelming majority of native
English speakers do not include pets within the meaning of livestock.
I'm right - you know I am.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:05:15 -0700

> > I wrote "most of them dislike it" which you have not refuted. Your

> > argumentative response requires elaboration if it is to be
> > considered as more than a mere disagreement.
>

> You claimed they dislike it all the time. However, you're wrong.

You are mistaken -- I wrote "they usually resist [being put into a
cage]" which is not the same as "all the time."

> >>>>>> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock
> >>>>>> animals raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep,
> >>>>>> poultry - none of them have a big problem with being confined
> >>>>>> in anything except the most restrictive enclosures.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Technically, cats qualify as livestock:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure;
> >>>>> especially farm animals kept for use and profit.
> >>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock
> >>>>
> >>>> Cats are not considered livestock as most people typically use
> >>>> the word. Most people do not think of livestock as including
> >>>> pets.
> >>>
> >>> Are you going to inform the publishers of Merriam Webster that
> >>> they've misunderstood the common usage of a fairly well-known
> >>> English word?
> >>
> >> I'm telling you how people commonly use the word.
> >

> > Are you claiming to be a better-informed authority on English
> > language usage than a well-respected publisher of a popular

> > dictionary? ...

>
> I'm claiming, correctly, that the overwhelming majority of native
> English speakers do not include pets within the meaning of livestock.

If that were true, I suspect the dictionaries would be in agreement,
but I've chosen to side with the dictionary definition in this case
because you have not provided an argument that is satisfactory to me
that confirms that Merriam Webster's dictionary is in error.

> I'm right - you know I am.

If I thought/knew you were right, we wouldn't be engaged in this topic.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our
equal."
-- Charles Darwin

[George Plimpton]

On 7/6/2012 8:27 AM, Fidem Turbare, fake "atheist", wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:05:15 -0700
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>> On 7/6/2012 8:02 AM, Fidem Turbare, fake "atheist",

>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:00:03 -0700
>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>> On 7/5/2012 10:29 PM, Fidem Turbare, fake "atheist", wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:59:20 -0700
>>>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>>>> On 7/5/2012 5:19 PM, Fidem Turbare, fake "atheist", wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:54:28 -0700
>>>>>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>> No, you didn't.

>>>
>>>>>> I was referring to captivity. You wrote about cats not wanting
>>>>>> to go into cages. I wrote about an instance in which cats
>>>>>> willingly go into cages.
>>>>>
>>>>> When an animal or a person is feeling terrified, the cage they
>>>>> came from could very well seem like a "safer haven."
>>>>
>>>> I refuted what you said. You said cats don't like to be in
>>>> cages. I gave you an example of cats wanting to be in cages.
>>>
>>> I wrote "most of them dislike it" which you have not refuted. Your
>>> argumentative response requires elaboration if it is to be
>>> considered as more than a mere disagreement.
>>
>> You claimed they dislike it all the time. However, you're wrong.
>
> You are mistaken

I'm not.

>>>>>>>> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock
>>>>>>>> animals raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep,
>>>>>>>> poultry - none of them have a big problem with being confined
>>>>>>>> in anything except the most restrictive enclosures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technically, cats qualify as livestock:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure;
>>>>>>> especially farm animals kept for use and profit.
>>>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cats are not considered livestock as most people typically use
>>>>>> the word. Most people do not think of livestock as including
>>>>>> pets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you going to inform the publishers of Merriam Webster that
>>>>> they've misunderstood the common usage of a fairly well-known
>>>>> English word?
>>>>
>>>> I'm telling you how people commonly use the word.
>>>
>>> Are you claiming to be a better-informed authority on English
>>> language usage than a well-respected publisher of a popular
>>> dictionary? ...
>>
>> I'm claiming, correctly, that the overwhelming majority of native
>> English speakers do not include pets within the meaning of livestock.
>
> If that were true,

It is true. You know it is, too.

>> I'm right - you know I am.
>
> If I thought/knew you were right, we wouldn't be engaged in this topic.

Yes, we would, because you're merely an argumentative prick and troll.

[Immortalist]

So if an animal appears quite happy this behavior can be used as some
sort of evidence for arguments about confinement?

[George Plimpton]

Give an example, sophist.

[Arindam Banerjee]

I was talking about the freedom of movement and choice upto their
limits, as enjoyed by all wild animals (birds, worms, fish, flies
included) and those human beings who do not construct nor live in
jails. They do not have bosses, taxes, clothes or make-up; nor awful
people to rob them, kill them or vote for.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Virgil]

In article
<fec11201-336c-41fa...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

Humans cannot survive long without 'eating life',
though they can without eating animal life.

And considering the millions of lives living on and in us, I feel no
guilt in eating what was once alive.
--

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 7, 3:35 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <fec11201-336c-41fa-9a79-6109a159f...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
>  Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Now what did I write that apparently was of some interest?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 6, 11:04 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-

To become a vegetarian society, you need to be prosperous, kindly and
also highly civilised. Nomads have to eat animals, whatever they get!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Father Haskell]

On Jul 7, 1:56 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> To become a vegetarian society, you need to be prosperous, kindly and
> also highly civilised.  Nomads have to eat animals, whatever they get!

It makes sense, less food to haul around. Your
transportation gets a flat tire, you shoot it and
cook it for dinner.

[Father Haskell]

On Jul 5, 8:49 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:31:25 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 10:27 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> >> That's baloney.  Animals don't yearn for freedom.  Only humans do.
>
> >I don't think so.  Rather it is humans who yearn for slavery, both as
> >master and slave, for the comforts of slavery.  Animals can do without
> >all the things that humans need slavery to provide for them.  Of
> >course, when animals are domesticated over time, they are enslaved and
> >are nothing like free animals.
>
> >Jack London explores such issues in his novels, which were very
> >popular in his time when there was natural jungle around as opposed to
> >the  moden concrete jungles.
>
> >Humans in the state of nature, value freedom most as they cannot think
> >in terms of making jails and living in jails. So much is evident from
> >those acquainted with tribal cultures.
>
> >Cheers,
> >Arindam Banerjee
>
> Actually, there are animals who make other animals their slaves.  Check out
> Kleptoparasitism.
>

> Ben

Many of us have cats. You're preaching to the choir.

[George Plimpton]

This isn't mainly about wild animals.

[George Plimpton]

There is no imperative of any kind to become a vegetarian society.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:39:46 -0700

> > You are mistaken -- I wrote "they usually resist [being put into a
> > cage]" which is not the same as "all the time."
>

> I'm not.
>
> >>>>>>>> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock
> >>>>>>>> animals raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep,
> >>>>>>>> poultry - none of them have a big problem with being confined
> >>>>>>>> in anything except the most restrictive enclosures.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Technically, cats qualify as livestock:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> livestock: animals kept or raised for use or pleasure;
> >>>>>>> especially farm animals kept for use and profit.
> >>>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cats are not considered livestock as most people typically use
> >>>>>> the word. Most people do not think of livestock as including
> >>>>>> pets.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you going to inform the publishers of Merriam Webster that
> >>>>> they've misunderstood the common usage of a fairly well-known
> >>>>> English word?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm telling you how people commonly use the word.
> >>>
> >>> Are you claiming to be a better-informed authority on English
> >>> language usage than a well-respected publisher of a popular
> >>> dictionary? ...
> >>
> >> I'm claiming, correctly, that the overwhelming majority of native
> >> English speakers do not include pets within the meaning of
> >> livestock.
> >

> > If that were true, I suspect the dictionaries would be in
> > agreement, but I've chosen to side with the dictionary definition
> > in this case because you have not provided an argument that is
> > satisfactory to me that confirms that Merriam Webster's dictionary
> > is in error.
>

> It is true. You know it is, too.
>
> >> I'm right - you know I am.
> >
> > If I thought/knew you were right, we wouldn't be engaged in this
> > topic.
>
> Yes, we would, because you're merely an argumentative prick and troll.

Ignoring my responses and providing only simple denials to incomplete
quotations (which is obviously deliberate on your part) is
argumentative and doesn't help your position.

Your choice to resort to ad hominem attacks confirms that you feel that
you cannot win, and also doesn't help your position.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley

[dh]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 09:01:15 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Jul 5, 9:54 am, Goo wrote:

>> On 7/5/2012 8:46 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:14:27 -0700
>> > Goo wrote:
>> >> On 7/5/2012 7:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> >>> On Jul 5, 10:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>> >>> doll...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> >>>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
>> >>>> <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >>>>> On Jul 4, 2:53 am, Goo wrote:
>> > [snip]

>> >>>>>> No.  It has *ZERO* importance
>>
>> >>>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty.  Animals born for
>> >>>>> slaughter have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over
>> >>>>> wild animals is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short
>> >>>>> time.
>>
>> >>>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of
>> >>>>> freedom in general and is thus responsible for the chains
>> >>>>> (visible or invisible) the human race has to wear.
>>
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>

>> >>>> Animals don't understand the concept of freedom.
>>
>> >>> But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or bonds
>> >>> that restrict their movements.
>>
>> >> No, they don't.  Most animals remain quite happily within enclosures.
>> >> Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate doesn't appear
>> >> distressed or unhappy.
>> > [snip]
>>
>> > That's partially true.  It seems to depend partially on a combination of
>> > the nature and personality of the animal.
>>
>> > There are many animals who don't like captivity, such as cats:  Ever
>> > try putting a cat in a cage (the bigger the better)?  Most of them
>> > dislike this experience very much as is made obvious by the fact that
>> > not only do they make a fuss once while in the cage, they usually
>> > resist being forced into it in the first place.
>>
>> That's not always true.  When I take my cats to the vet, they're very
>> unhappy going into the pet carriers to make the trip to the vet.  Once
>> they're at the vet, I can barely get them out of the carriers, and once
>> the vet has finished with them, they can't wait to go back into them.
>

>You stupid prick! It's obvious that the kitties are more scared of the
>vet than the cage.

It's a wonder a person like Goo can even keep a cat alive. You had to tell
HIM about the behavior of his own cats. That's pretty pathetic. And worst of
all, it's more likely than not that the stupid Goober still doesn't get it.

>> In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock animals
>> raised for human consumption.  Cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry - none of
>> them have a big problem with being confined in anything except the most
>> restrictive enclosures.
>

>How the f*** would you know?

He would have no way of knowing. But to Goo quality of life doesn't matter
anyway, because he thinks that life has the same value to all livestock animals
regardless of the quality of the life itself. The Goober believes that animals
who have to endure a lot of suffering for whatever reasons benefit from their
existence as much as those which get to enjoy decent lives of positive value:

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical absurdity of the
belief that causing animals to "get to experience life" somehow
offsets any moral harm that is done in killing them." - Goo

[dh]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:44:00 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:15:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:53:31 -0700, Goo wrote:

>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:42:37 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>> what's important
>>>

>>>No. It has *ZERO* importance.
>>
>> ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination Goo. To people who
>>favor the animals continuing to exist there's no reason not to give their lives
>>as much or more consideration than their deaths.
>
>It has *ZERO* importance, period. It has no importance at all. It
>cannot have any importance.

ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination you stupid Goober.
To people who favor the animals continuing to exist there's no reason not to
give their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths.

[dh]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:43:06 -0700, Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:29:40 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/3/2012 10:23 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Jul 4, 3:07 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2012 10:00 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 4, 1:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2012 6:31 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 10:27 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>>

>>>>>>> You have no basis for thinking that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
>>>>>> and you are not I.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was not a meaningful statement.
>>>>
>>>> It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
>>>
>>> It was meaningless.
>>
>> Animals who never experience freedom can't be aware of it and therefore
>> can't yearn for it
>
>Animals who never "get to experience life" aren't aware of it and
>therefore don't miss it.

How do you think anything about our pre-existence prevents us from
benefitting from our existence now, Goob?

[dh]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:41:51 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:31:25 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee

>><banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 4, 10:27 am, Goo wrote:

>>>> On 7/3/2012 5:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> > On Jul 4, 2:53 am, Goo wrote:

>>>> >> On 7/3/2012 9:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>>>> >>>> benefited?
>>>>
>>>> >>>       If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>>>> >>> would never have lived at all.
>>>>
>>>> >> Which is, of course, morally meaningless.  "Getting to experience life"
>>>> >> is not a benefit.  Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>>>> >> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>>>> >> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>>>>

>>>> >>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>> >>> what's important
>>>>

>>>> >> No.  It has *ZERO* importance
>>>>
>>>> > The main issues are freedom and cruelty.  Animals born for slaughter
>>>> > have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
>>>> > is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
>>>>
>>>> > Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
>>>> > general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
>>>> > the human race has to wear.
>>>>

>>>> That's baloney.  Animals don't yearn for freedom.  Only humans do.
>>

>> Animals who have been free certainly do, Goo.

>>
>>>I don't think so.
>>

>> Livestock animals can't yearn for freedom because they have no way of
>>knowing it exists for one thing, much less what it has to offer.
>
>They don't place any value on "getting to experience life" for the same
>reason.

Whether or not they know life exists they still can and millions of them do
benefit from decent lives of positive value Goo. Anyone who is truly in favor of
AW over the misnomer should always appreciate that aspect and of course should
always keep it in mind. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose giving
consideration to that aspect of human influence on animals, Goob. Your
opposition to that particular aspect which includes every successful AW
regulation and every successful AW operation of any kind, is one of the ways you
reveal yourself Goo.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, lighting tech at Mega Amusement <chortle>, lied:

>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>>> what's important
>>>>
>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance.
>>>
>>> ONLY to people who
>>

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have no basis for thinking that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
>>>>>>> and you are not I.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was not a meaningful statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
>>>>
>>>> It was meaningless.
>>>
>>> Animals who never experience freedom can't be aware of it and therefore
>>> can't yearn for it
>>
>> Animals who never "get to experience life" aren't aware of it and
>> therefore don't miss it.
>
> How do you think anything about our pre-existence prevents us from

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Fuckwit. It cannot be
one - proved.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:

Means nothing to them, Goo. You said what ought to be considered is
what's important <chortle> "TO THE ANIMALS", and "getting to experience
life" is not important to them. It also isn't a benefit.

You lose again, Goo - every time, non-stop, since May 1999.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 6, 10:22 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-

No we did not. When slavery in civilised was found to be not
economical as machines worked better it lost out to machines. Where
machines do not exist, slavery still exists
in some form or the other. The elites who have money invest wherefrom
they will get best returns. So recently they invested in China's
slave system for highest returns, as
opposed to investing in more expensive non-slave mechanical societies
where they would get less returns.

Slavery in ancient times in Europe and around was the alternative to
getting massacred. It was bad, but arguably not as bad as getting
massacred as you lost the battle.

>On the other hand, we just sit back and marvel at how the Cuckoo
> exploits its victims to raise its young.

Cunning is there found no doubt, but not all birds are cuckoos. Many
more species of bird do not follow the ways of the cuckoo. To hold up
a stray example as the
norm of animal behaviour is intellectual dishonesty.

 This is the type of slavery we have
> today where people (working class Republicans) have no idea how they are being
> exploited into behaving in a way against their own interests to benefit their
> masters.

Strange that they should have no idea, when to inform them are spent
many billions upon media, academia, celebrities, Nobel laureates, etc.
etc. etc.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

Slavery was abolished from many countries long before the industrial revolution.
In the United States it took a very bloody war. Even today in the United
States there are some agricultural operations that are not feasible to do with
machines and require intensive inexpensive human labor. Migrant workers
willingly come to do this back breaking work that locals turn their nose up at.
When some states passed laws to keep these migrant workers away the crops were
literally rotting upon the vines. The farmers tried raising how much they would
pay locals but they all quit after the first day.

>Slavery in ancient times in Europe and around was the alternative to
>getting massacred. It was bad, but arguably not as bad as getting
>massacred as you lost the battle.
>

>>On the other hand, we just sit back and marvel at how the Cuckoo
>> exploits its victims to raise its young.
>
>Cunning is there found no doubt, but not all birds are cuckoos. Many
>more species of bird do not follow the ways of the cuckoo. To hold up
>a stray example as the
>norm of animal behaviour is intellectual dishonesty.
>

Cuckoos are a species of the bird family, humans are a species of ape family.
More species of apes do not follow the ways of the human. And for that matter,
most humans did not have slaves.


>�This is the type of slavery we have

>> today where people (working class Republicans) have no idea how they are being
>> exploited into behaving in a way against their own interests to benefit their
>> masters.
>
>Strange that they should have no idea, when to inform them are spent
>many billions upon media, academia, celebrities, Nobel laureates, etc.
>etc. etc.
>

Just like the Cuckoo's victim, their behavior's have been hijacked.


>Cheers,
>Arindam Banerjee
>>
>> Ben

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:33:05 -0700 George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:15:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:44:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:15:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:53:31 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:42:37 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>>>> what's important
>>>>>
>>>>>No. It has *ZERO* importance.
>>>>

>>>> ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination Goo.
>>>> To people who favor the animals continuing to exist there's no
>>>> reason not to give their lives as much or more consideration than
>>>> their deaths.
>>>

>>>It has *ZERO* importance, period. It has no importance at all. It
>>>cannot have any importance.
>>

>> ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination you
>>stupid Goober. To people who favor the animals continuing to exist
>>there's no reason not to give their lives as much or more
>>consideration than their deaths.
>

>It has *ZERO* importance, period. It has no importance at all. It
>cannot have any importance.

ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination. To people

who favor the animals continuing to exist there's no reason not to give
their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Wow, once a dumbass, always a dumbass."
-- Duke Earl J. Weber Lebourgeois, American-American (April 6, 2012)

[George Plimpton]

On 7/11/2012 7:59 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:33:05 -0700 George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:15:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:44:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:15:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:53:31 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:42:37 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>>>>> what's important
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination Goo.
>>>>> To people who favor the animals continuing to exist there's no
>>>>> reason not to give their lives as much or more consideration than
>>>>> their deaths.
>>>>
>>>> It has *ZERO* importance, period. It has no importance at all. It
>>>> cannot have any importance.
>>>
>>> ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination you
>>> stupid Goober. To people who favor the animals continuing to exist
>>> there's no reason not to give their lives as much or more
>>> consideration than their deaths.
>>
>> It has *ZERO* importance, period. It has no importance at all. It
>> cannot have any importance.
>
> ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination.

No, to everyone - it's a matter of logic and facts. Your intellectual
ally, Fuckwit David Harrison - that should be a matter of shame to you -
insists that in considering whether or not one favors the continued
breeding and raising of livestock animals, one "ought" to attach some
importance to the animals' "getting to experience life." In fact, it
has no importance at all. If you favor continuing to breed livestock
into existence, you aren't doing something "nice" for animals who "get
to experience life"; and if you favor halting the breeding of livestock,
you aren't proposing to withhold some "benefit" from "future farm
animals." Whether or not livestock animals exist in future has no
meaning to any animals that might or might not exist, and it deserves no
consideration at all.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:13:57 -0700

Inflicting harm on animals is cruel. The nature of animals is to be in
free to roam in their environment, and if that environment is a tiny
box that restricts their movements then that is yet another form of
cruelty. Killing animals without eliminating the painful aspect of
their death is also cruel.

I'm in favour of animals having an environment that they can roam
around in (think "free range" as has been promoted in recent decades
with chickens, in particular) so they can enjoy a better quality of
life. This is obviously a more expensive way to feed people since
someone has to actually go round up these animals as an extra step to
the slaughter house (and sometimes this involves chasing the animals
who may have a feeling that trouble is abrewing for them), but
capitalism is a heartless dictator.

Respect for life is what David Harrison is emphasizing (this is obvious
to me, at least), and I consider that to be noble rather than shameful.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful,
blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature."
-- Charles Darwin

[George Plimpton]

No, it is not inherently cruel.

> The nature of animals is to be in
> free to roam in their environment, and

You irrationally embrace a lot of touchy-feely nonsense about animals.

> I'm in favour of animals having an environment that they can roam
> around in (think "free range" as has been promoted in recent decades
> with chickens, in particular) so they can enjoy a better quality of
> life. This is obviously a more expensive way to feed people since
> someone has to actually go round up these animals as an extra step to
> the slaughter house (and sometimes this involves chasing the animals
> who may have a feeling that trouble is abrewing for them), but
> capitalism is a heartless dictator.
>
> Respect for life is what David Harrison is emphasizing

No, it is *not* - not even close. Fuckwit David Harrison - please
remember to refer to him by his full name - has *NO* respect for the
quality of life of any animals; see below. All Fuckwit cares about is
that the animals exist. His bullshit about "appreciating" their lives
is all about *HIM*, not about the animals. He wants them to exist so he
can consume them; that's all. He has cobbled together this bullshit
about trying to look at it from the animals' standpoint in order to try
not to appear to be purely self-interested, but it's bullshit from start
to finish: he *IS* purely self-interested, and he only wants the
animals to exist, with no regard to their quality of life.

Here are past statements Fuckwit has made that prove I am right about
his stance regarding animals:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003

[Dutch]

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:


> Respect for life is what David Harrison is emphasizing (this is obvious
> to me, at least), and I consider that to be noble rather than shameful.

Were you aware that he has raised fighting cocks? His "respect for life"
translates into the belief that if it were not his appetite for watching
birds attack one another that those animals would never gotten to
experience life. Although that is actually a truism, it is quite
obviously reprehensible as a moral calculation. One can see easily that
the same circular self serving logic can be used to justify having
children to sell into sex slavery.

No, his "philosophy" is based in something called "The Logic of the
Larder", as shabby a sophism that has ever seen the light of day.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

That's intersting, but I prefer to defer to David Harrison to confirm
whether your assertion is correct. His response to George regarding
"zero importance" looked like an emphasis of "respect for life" to me,
and his exact words were (assuming "AW" abbreviates Animal Welfare):

### ONLY to people who don't favor decent AW over elimination you
### stupid Goober. To people who favor the animals continuing to
### exist there's no reason not to give their lives as much or more
### consideration than their deaths.

That seems, to me, to be a caring attitude regarding the welfare of
animals, who truly are at a disadvantage for many reasons (the primary
one being the lack of effective language-based verbal communications).

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch
it again, and thus is much wiser than most men."
-- Charles Darwin

[Immortalist]

On Jul 6, 1:50 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 6:51 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jul 3, 12:42 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> > > >> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> > > >> > > What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>
> > > >> > > For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>
> > > >> > > When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>
> > > >> > You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>
> > > >> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>
> > > >> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>
> > > >You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> > > >benefited?
>
> > >     If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals

> > > would never have lived at all. They wouldn't have lived as different animals or
> > > anything like that. Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> > > what's important since it's that or NOTHING for livestock, not that or something
> > > else.
>
> > Fairness dictates that we balance eating animals with
> > eating humans.  I have a leg of Scotsman in the
> > freezer left over since last Robert Burns Day if you'd
> > care for a nosh.
>
> I was invited to a Self-Cannibalism party but I didn't go...
>

Imagine sitting down to the dinner table and being served a bowl of
thick, slimy larvae. It's enough to make most Americans' stomachs
turn. But in other countries that same meal makes people's mouths
water.

Entomophagy—the consumption of insects—has been around for thousands
of years in some cultures. Today, it is estimated that more than half
the people of the world eat a variety of flying, crawling, and biting
bugs. Not only do these insects apparently taste good, but they're an
inexpensive and nutritious food source.

In Thailand, open-air markets sell silkworms, grasshoppers, and water
bugs by the pound. Movie theaters in South America sell roasted ants
as snacks instead of popcorn, and Japanese supermarkets stock their
shelves with aquatic insect larvae...

Most Americans don't intentionally make insects a part of their diet
but in the future they might, as more strain is put on natural
resources, some experts say, insects will be raised as an alternative
form of protein. Would increased consumption of bugs benefit them?

> it was BYO
>
> Herc

[George Plimpton]

On 7/12/2012 10:53 AM, Fidem Turbare, the fake atheist, blabbered:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:59:13 -0700 Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>> Fidem Turbare, the fake atheist, blabbered:

>>
>>> Respect for life is what David Harrison is emphasizing (this is
>>> obvious to me, at least), and I consider that to be noble rather
>>> than shameful.
>>
>> Were you aware that he has raised fighting cocks? His "respect for
>> life" translates into the belief that if it were not his appetite for
>> watching birds attack one another that those animals would never
>> gotten to experience life. Although that is actually a truism, it is
>> quite obviously reprehensible as a moral calculation. One can see
>> easily that the same circular self serving logic can be used to
>> justify having children to sell into sex slavery.
>>
>> No, his "philosophy" is based in something called "The Logic of the
>> Larder", as shabby a sophism that has ever seen the light of day.
>>
>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm
>
> That's intersting, but I prefer to defer to David Harrison to confirm
> whether your assertion is correct. His response to George regarding
> "zero importance" looked like an emphasis of "respect for life" to me,

It isn't. You mean and understand something completely different from
what Fuckwit - you really need to understand that's his name - means.
When you talk about respect for life, you implicitly mean things that
already exist. You're talking about their quality of life - their
welfare - as well as some belief that their lives ought not be unjustly
taken from them. That's *NOT* what Fuckwit means. Fuckwit means
*existence*, full stop. He wants the animals to exist so that he may
consume them. He doesn't care about their quality of life, and he
doesn't care about what "getting to experience life" - that's his
vomit-inducing phrase - might mean "to the animals." All he cares about
is that they exist, so he might consume them. All the other bullshit he
wraps around it is just a smokescreen.

[Immortalist]

On Jul 12, 11:39 am, Hafthe Binmenbinyet <tilt...@wind.mills> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i_nAexhuQE

On the way to themselves being sacrificed on an Aztec pyramid someone
had balls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQub-S5YhZI

[dh]

Eliminationists can't afford to appreciate life for livestock when it's of
positive value for the animals. They can only consider lives that appear to be
of negative value, because when they're of positive value considering them works
against the elimination objective. They insist things like:

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

in an effort to reasure people that no livestock should exist regardless of what
sort of life they would have. They're desperately trying to make sure people
don't consider that providing decent lives of positive value for livestock could
be ethically equivalent or superior to preventing such animals from experiencing
any life at all in the future.

[dh]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:35:23 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:01:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:41:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:31:25 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
>>>><banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jul 4, 10:27 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2012 5:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> > On Jul 4, 2:53 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> >> On 7/3/2012 9:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>>

>>benefit from decent lives of positive value Goo. Anyone who is truly in favor of
>>AW over the misnomer should always appreciate that aspect and of course should
>>always keep it in mind. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose giving
>>consideration to that aspect of human influence on animals, Goob. Your
>>opposition to that particular aspect which includes every successful AW
>>regulation and every successful AW operation of any kind, is one of the ways you
>>reveal yourself Goo.

. . .

>You said what ought to be considered is
>what's important <chortle> "TO THE ANIMALS", and "getting to experience
>life" is not important to them.

LOL! In contrast to that it's the most important thing to them even though
you and they aren't aware of it, Goob.

[dh]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:33:54 -0700, Goo cluelessly puled:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:00:01 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:43:06 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>dh pointed out:
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:29:40 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/3/2012 10:23 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 4, 3:07 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2012 10:00 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 1:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2012 6:31 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 10:27 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no basis for thinking that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
>>>>>>>> and you are not I.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was not a meaningful statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> Animals who never experience freedom can't be aware of it and therefore
>>>> can't yearn for it
>>>
>>>Animals who never "get to experience life" aren't aware of it and
>>>therefore don't miss it.
>>
>> How do you think anything about our pre-existence prevents us from

>>benefitting from our existence now, Goob?
>

>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit

How do you think anything about our pre-existence prevents us from

[dh]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:59:13 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>
>
>> Respect for life is what David Harrison is emphasizing (this is obvious
>> to me, at least), and I consider that to be noble rather than shameful.
>
>Were you aware that he has raised fighting cocks? His "respect for life"
>translates into the belief that if it were not his appetite for watching
>birds attack one another that those animals would never gotten to
>experience life.

You can't even get that much right. I raised them because they are awesome
and beautiful animals, which you also can't appreciate. Instead of chopping
their heads off and eating them, I gave most of the ones I raised to a person
who took great care of his own birds and also who DID like to fight them. He
gave them every advantage he could, giving them a good keep and making sure that
they were on point and ready at the time of the fight. It's a very precise and
detailed thing to get them ready and in their best condition at the time when
the fight takes place. You could never learn to appreciate any of that much less
all of it, but I can appreciate all of that and a number of other things you'll
never be capable of learning to appreciate.

>Although that is actually a truism, it is quite
>obviously reprehensible as a moral calculation.

We've been through this a number of times and you STILL can't say why you
think it's ethically superior to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their
throats than it is to let mature male birds fight for their lives. I challenge
you to try doing it now though. GO!:

>One can see easily that
>the same circular self serving logic can be used to justify having
>children to sell into sex slavery.

No I can't, and if you think you can it's a sign of your cluelessness and
insanity from my pov. But if you think you can justify it then try doing it now.
Go:

>No, his "philosophy" is based in ...[having consideration and appreciation
>for lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals] as shabby a sophism

>that has ever seen the light of day.

ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose taking lives of positive value
for livestock into consideration, so this is one of the ways you reveal
yourself. ONLY eliminationists refer to appreciation for those lives as the LoL.
And NO ONE who honestly favors decent AW over elimination would be opposed to
people having appreciation for when decent AW successfully results in lives of
positive value for millions of livestock animals.

[Dutch]

That we should be concerned about animal welfare is NOT in dispute,
however he's not talking about having a caring attitude regarding the
welfare of animals(AW), he's talking about vegetarianism leading to
animals not existing, which leads to an inability to avail them of AW. I
suspect that you are such a rational person that you have not been able
to wrap your head around such a bizarre belief.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:

> Eliminationists can't afford to appreciate life for livestock when it's of
> positive value for the animals. They can only consider lives that appear to be
> of negative value, because when they're of positive value considering them works
> against the elimination objective.

You're an eliminationist, you admitted it. You're a also a dishonest
prick, which you haven't admitted.

[Dutch]

Why do you keep asking that nonsensical question?

[Dutch]

The measure of the importance of something to an entity is whether or
not they would be worse off without it. No being would be worse off
without existing because without existence, *they* would have no state
of welfare at all. In other words the proposition is meaningless.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:59:13 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Respect for life is what David Harrison is emphasizing (this is obvious
>>> to me, at least), and I consider that to be noble rather than shameful.
>>
>> Were you aware that he has raised fighting cocks? His "respect for life"
>> translates into the belief that if it were not his appetite for watching
>> birds attack one another that those animals would never gotten to
>> experience life.
>
> You can't even get that much right. I raised them because they are awesome
> and beautiful animals, which you also can't appreciate. Instead of chopping
> their heads off and eating them, I gave most of the ones I raised to a person
> who took great care of his own birds and also who DID like to fight them. He
> gave them every advantage he could, giving them a good keep and making sure that
> they were on point and ready at the time of the fight. It's a very precise and
> detailed thing to get them ready and in their best condition at the time when
> the fight takes place. You could never learn to appreciate any of that much less
> all of it, but I can appreciate all of that and a number of other things you'll
> never be capable of learning to appreciate.

I appreciate it just fine, both of you are scumbags and criminals.

>
>> Although that is actually a truism, it is quite
>> obviously reprehensible as a moral calculation.
>
> We've been through this a number of times and you STILL can't say why you
> think it's ethically superior to hang baby birds by their feet and slit their
> throats than it is to let mature male birds fight for their lives. I challenge
> you to try doing it now though. GO!:

I've explained it dozens of times.

>> One can see easily that
>> the same circular self serving logic can be used to justify having
>> children to sell into sex slavery.
>
> No I can't, and if you think you can it's a sign of your cluelessness and
> insanity from my pov. But if you think you can justify it then try doing it now.
> Go:

It's self evident, to anyone with half a clue.

>
>> No, his "philosophy" is based in ...[having consideration and appreciation
>> for lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals] as shabby a sophism
>> that has ever seen the light of day.
>
> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose taking lives of positive value
> for livestock into consideration, so this is one of the ways you reveal
> yourself. ONLY eliminationists refer to appreciation for those lives as the LoL.
> And NO ONE who honestly favors decent AW over elimination would be opposed to
> people having appreciation for when decent AW successfully results in lives of
> positive value for millions of livestock animals.

You forget, I can see through your bullshit, you don't care about animal
welfare, you care about justifying yourself.

[George Plimpton]

Nothing to appreciate.

*YOU* don't appreciate it. All you care about is the products.

[George Plimpton]

George Plimpton squeezed Fuckwit so hard he shit his panties, then made
Fuckwit eat his own shit:

>>>>>>>>>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have no basis for thinking that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
>>>>>>>>> and you are not I.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was not a meaningful statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Animals who never experience freedom can't be aware of it and therefore
>>>>> can't yearn for it
>>>>
>>>> Animals who never "get to experience life" aren't aware of it and
>>>> therefore don't miss it.
>>>
>>> How do you think anything about our pre-existence

You believe in pre-existence, not me.

>>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Fuckwit. It cannot be one - proved.
>

> How do you think anything about our pre-existence

You believe in pre-existence, not me.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit ate his own shit again:

> . . .
>> Means nothing to them, Goo. You said what ought to be considered is

>> what's important <chortle> "TO THE ANIMALS", and "getting to experience

>> life" is not important to them. It also isn't a benefit.
>

> In contrast to that

No. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to farm animals, Goo.
You know this.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 11, 11:57 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Above article gives a timeline of the abolition of slavery.
Saudi Arabia abolished it in 1962, among other valuable information
there. They probably did it from international pressure, to sell their
oil, etc. but the bottom line is
that they found slavery not an economically sound practice. It was
cheaper to give up slaves, to make much more money from oil.
But, I was also talking of wage slavery which most humans do, save the
likes of myself who are forcibly retired.
Gives me more free time to express my views, and that is good!

> In the United States  it took a very bloody war.  Even today in the United
> States there are some agricultural operations that are not feasible to do with
> machines and require intensive inexpensive human labor.  Migrant workers
> willingly come to do this back breaking work that locals turn their nose up at.

Or they may not have the skills to do such jobs.

> When some states passed laws to keep these migrant workers away the crops were
> literally rotting upon the vines. The farmers tried raising how much they would
> pay locals but they all quit after the first day.

Which explains the need and existence for very highly mechanised
agriculture in Australia, say.

>
> >Slavery in ancient times in Europe and around was the alternative to
> >getting massacred.  It was bad, but arguably not as bad as getting
> >massacred as  you lost the battle.
>
> >>On the other hand, we just sit back and marvel at how the Cuckoo
> >> exploits its victims to raise its young.
>
> >Cunning is there found no doubt, but not all birds are cuckoos.  Many
> >more species of bird do not follow the ways of the cuckoo.  To hold up
> >a stray example as the
> >norm of animal behaviour is intellectual dishonesty.
>
> Cuckoos are a species of the bird family,  humans are a species of ape family.

Only one out of at least hundreds. Most birds bring up their own
chicks. Like most animals bring up their own offspring.

> More species of apes do not follow the ways of the human.  And for that matter,
> most humans did not have slaves.

We were talking of institutions, not individuals. Individuals in
charge of the institutions were rich enough to have slaves. So like
not all humans have Rolls-Royces,
not all humans had slaves.

>
> > This is the type of slavery we have
> >> today where people (working class Republicans) have no idea how they are being
> >> exploited into behaving in a way against their own interests to benefit their
> >> masters.
>
> >Strange that they should have no idea, when to inform them are spent
> >many billions upon media, academia, celebrities, Nobel laureates, etc.
> >etc. etc.
>
> Just like the Cuckoo's victim, their behavior's have been hijacked.

Now who could have done that? What great power can hijack anything
out of the US? Are we talking of some monumental stupidity here? Or
corruption?
Who is fooling who? Thy why is known - gotta be money and power, of
course. Maybe racism and bigotry too, as ideals of a sort. Certain
sorts of snobbery?
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
> >Cheers,
> >Arindam Banerjee
>
> >> Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

I don't think performing back breaking labor requires a skill per se, rather, it
is the lack of any other way to earn money for their families that motivates
them.

>> When some states passed laws to keep these migrant workers away the crops were
>> literally rotting upon the vines. The farmers tried raising how much they would
>> pay locals but they all quit after the first day.
>
>Which explains the need and existence for very highly mechanised
>agriculture in Australia, say.

A quick Google reveals that they do pick fruit by hand in Australia too.

http://www.workstay.com.au/backpacker_harvest_jobs.htm

>>
>> >Slavery in ancient times in Europe and around was the alternative to
>> >getting massacred.  It was bad, but arguably not as bad as getting
>> >massacred as  you lost the battle.
>>
>> >>On the other hand, we just sit back and marvel at how the Cuckoo
>> >> exploits its victims to raise its young.
>>
>> >Cunning is there found no doubt, but not all birds are cuckoos.  Many
>> >more species of bird do not follow the ways of the cuckoo.  To hold up
>> >a stray example as the
>> >norm of animal behaviour is intellectual dishonesty.
>>
>> Cuckoos are a species of the bird family,  humans are a species of ape family.
>
>Only one out of at least hundreds. Most birds bring up their own
>chicks. Like most animals bring up their own offspring.
>

Most animals? Were you thinking of fish, athropods, colenterates, protozoans,
worms, reptiles, amphibians, non-colony insects etc? :-)

>> More species of apes do not follow the ways of the human.  And for that matter,
>> most humans did not have slaves.
>
>We were talking of institutions, not individuals. Individuals in
>charge of the institutions were rich enough to have slaves.

All institutions or only a small fraction?

>So like
>not all humans have Rolls-Royces,
>not all humans had slaves.

While the two statements are certainly logic truths I am sure you would agree
there is a huge difference between owning an expensive car versus a slave.

>>
>> > This is the type of slavery we have
>> >> today where people (working class Republicans) have no idea how they are being
>> >> exploited into behaving in a way against their own interests to benefit their
>> >> masters.
>>
>> >Strange that they should have no idea, when to inform them are spent
>> >many billions upon media, academia, celebrities, Nobel laureates, etc.
>> >etc. etc.
>>
>> Just like the Cuckoo's victim, their behavior's have been hijacked.
>
>Now who could have done that? What great power can hijack anything

>out of the US? corruption?

Look at the birthers. Just one example of how hatred can be used to control
people's thoughts.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:39:46 +0100, Hafthe Binmenbinyet <til...@wind.mills>
wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i_nAexhuQE

Good one!

They are defanged one by one... That is pretty intensive work.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:18:36 -0700

Fantastic!

> however he's not talking about having a caring attitude regarding the
> welfare of animals(AW), he's talking about vegetarianism leading to
> animals not existing, which leads to an inability to avail them of
> AW. I suspect that you are such a rational person that you have not
> been able to wrap your head around such a bizarre belief.

That is bizarre. If people stopped consuming animals, there'd likely
be a lot more of them (assuming they can get enough food and water).

Although I don't have a problem with people choosing to be vegetarian,
I do find that there are a few who are extreme and seem to like to push
it on others as if it were a religion. Perhaps there's a hidden agenda
at foot here somewhere that can shed more light on this?

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"We have a holiday where we stuff food into other food."
-- Bill Maher (humourous comment about the Thanksgiving holiday)

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 14, 6:01 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-

I was talking about skilled migrant workers who have skills the locals
do not possess. Like most emigrants from India to the west in recent
years, for instance.

>
> >> When some states passed laws to keep these migrant workers away the crops were
> >> literally rotting upon the vines. The farmers tried raising how much they would
> >> pay locals but they all quit after the first day.
>
> >Which explains the need and existence for very highly mechanised
> >agriculture in Australia, say.
>
> A quick Google reveals that they do pick fruit by hand in Australia too.

No doubt they do. They also need people to milk cows, but the main
job is herding them and putting the milking machinery on and off.
Of course the labour adds to the cost, so they are always on the
lookout to cut costs.
So they have introduced machinery to throw out the check-out persons
these days.
Nobody wants to do a boring and repetitious job, unless they may be
handicapped in some way, so that is why we develop machines to do
boring and mechanical jobs.

>
> http://www.workstay.com.au/backpacker_harvest_jobs.htm

> >> >Slavery in ancient times in Europe and around was the alternative to
> >> >getting massacred.  It was bad, but arguably not as bad as getting
> >> >massacred as  you lost the battle.
>
> >> >>On the other hand, we just sit back and marvel at how the Cuckoo
> >> >> exploits its victims to raise its young.
>
> >> >Cunning is there found no doubt, but not all birds are cuckoos.  Many
> >> >more species of bird do not follow the ways of the cuckoo.  To hold up
> >> >a stray example as the
> >> >norm of animal behaviour is intellectual dishonesty.
>
> >> Cuckoos are a species of the bird family,  humans are a species of ape family.
>
> >Only one out of at least hundreds.  Most birds bring up their own
> >chicks.  Like most animals bring up their own offspring.
>
> Most animals?  Were you thinking of  fish, athropods, colenterates, protozoans,
> worms, reptiles, amphibians, non-colony insects etc?

In this exchange the level was between birds and humans. The rest of
the animal kingdom was implicitly absent. :-) They (fish et al) are
no doubt smarter than even humans
let alone cuckoos, for they don't even have to bother about laying
their egg or eggs in someone else's nest. Just enjoy life while it
lasts! Like plants.

   :-)
>
> >> More species of apes do not follow the ways of the human.  And for that matter,
> >> most humans did not have slaves.
>
> >We were talking of institutions, not individuals.  Individuals in
> >charge of the institutions were rich enough to have slaves.
>
> All institutions or only a small fraction?

All powerful, major institutions depended and depend upon slavery of
some sort. These days it is less direct. Obey or starve, is what the
bosses say. Fair enough,
we sacrifice freedom for comforts, such is the price of civilised
existence.

> >So like
> >not all humans have Rolls-Royces,
> >not all humans had slaves.
>
> While the two statements are certainly logic truths I am sure you would agree
> there is a huge difference between owning an expensive car versus a slave.

Owners of expensive cars are expected to have employees, who may be
seen as wage-slaves/serfs as they have no choice but to obey commands
for survival,
much as the bought-and-sold slaves of the past had to do.

> >> > This is the type of slavery we have
> >> >> today where people (working class Republicans) have no idea how they are being
> >> >> exploited into behaving in a way against their own interests to benefit their
> >> >> masters.
>
> >> >Strange that they should have no idea, when to inform them are spent
> >> >many billions upon media, academia, celebrities, Nobel laureates, etc.
> >> >etc. etc.
>
> >> Just like the Cuckoo's victim, their behavior's have been hijacked.
>
> >Now who could have done that?  What great power can hijack anything
> >out of the US? corruption?
>
> Look at the birthers. Just one example of how hatred can be used to control
> people's thoughts.

I have no idea about the birthers.

[Dutch]

Since wild animals by and large are much smaller than livestock, the
finite resources of nature would support many more animals if livestock
did not exist.

You can expect dh@ to interject some incomprehensible gibberish here.

> Although I don't have a problem with people choosing to be vegetarian,
> I do find that there are a few who are extreme and seem to like to push
> it on others as if it were a religion.

I agree wholeheartedly.

> Perhaps there's a hidden agenda
> at foot here somewhere that can shed more light on this?

dh@ represents The Logic of Larder, which is a clear departure from
legitimate and sensible opposition to AR/vegan radicalism. He thinks
that he has stumbled upon the killer argument against vegans, when all
he does is talk circular nonsense. He has learned to disguise his agenda
with words like "consideration" for animals and a number of tortured
manufactured phrases like "decent AW".

[Ben Kaufman]

It seems reasonable to assume that mainly wealthy people will own expensive cars
but not that they are all business owners, and for those who are business owners
that they do not treat their employees well.

>
>> >> > This is the type of slavery we have
>> >> >> today where people (working class Republicans) have no idea how they are being
>> >> >> exploited into behaving in a way against their own interests to benefit their
>> >> >> masters.
>>
>> >> >Strange that they should have no idea, when to inform them are spent
>> >> >many billions upon media, academia, celebrities, Nobel laureates, etc.
>> >> >etc. etc.
>>
>> >> Just like the Cuckoo's victim, their behavior's have been hijacked.
>>
>> >Now who could have done that?  What great power can hijack anything
>> >out of the US? corruption?
>>
>> Look at the birthers. Just one example of how hatred can be used to control
>> people's thoughts.
>
>I have no idea about the birthers.
>

Are you familiar with the term "birther?"

[dh]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:59:40 -0700, Goo claimed:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:08:15 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:35:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:01:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:41:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:31:25 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
>>>>>><banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Jul 4, 10:27 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2012 5:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>>> > On Jul 4, 2:53 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On 7/3/2012 9:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>>>>

>>>> Whether or not they know life exists they still can and millions of them do
>>>>benefit from decent lives of positive value Goo. Anyone who is truly in favor of
>>>>AW over the misnomer should always appreciate that aspect and of course should
>>>>always keep it in mind. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose giving
>>>>consideration to that aspect of human influence on animals, Goob. Your
>>>>opposition to that particular aspect which includes every successful AW
>>>>regulation and every successful AW operation of any kind, is one of the ways you
>>>>reveal yourself Goo.
>>. . .

>>>You said what ought to be considered is
>>>what's important <chortle> "TO THE ANIMALS", and "getting to experience
>>>life" is not important to them.
>>

>> LOL! In contrast to that it's the most important thing to them even though
>>you and they aren't aware of it, Goob.
>

>No.

What do you want people to think is more important to them than experiencing
life Goober?