Do farm animals benefit from their relationship with humans?
Immortalista
but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
raise them to eat.
ta
The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
"benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
existence, so no such comparison is possible.
In short, red herring.
Immortalista
Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
and getting to experience life. If "vegans" were to implement a regime
of strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the near-
extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for them), there would be
a net reduction of this particular kind of moral goodness or utility.
He then goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that "vegans"
are evil for advocating something that would lead to this reduction.
Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't
raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take
that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the
animals are going to be killed. The animals are not being cheated out
of any part of their life by being raised for food, but instead they
are experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
Likewise then, since our children would not be alive if we did not
have them, it is a distortion of reality not consider that when
judging the morality of killing them.
But it does seem to provide an interesting test of the principle. If
we should taken into account the fact that we gave life to animals
whom we are going to kill 'prematurely', and say that the granting of
life somehow excuses the early termination of it, then why wouldn't
this apply to humans?
If we bred a certain type of humans, who otherwise would never be
born, in order to use them for food or research, and we then killed
them at a relatively young age for the intended purpose, would that be
ethical?
ta
> On Dec 9, 7:26 pm, ta <tapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 9:52 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> > > but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> > > raise them to eat.
>
> > The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
> > "benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
> > course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
> > existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>
> > In short, red herring.
>
> Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
> and getting to experience life. If "vegans" were to implement a regime
> of strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the near-
> extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for them), there would be
> a net reduction of this particular kind of moral goodness or utility.
> He then goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that "vegans"
> are evil for advocating something that would lead to this reduction.
What nonsense. There is no "reduction of moral goodness" resulting
from not being born. If I never have children, there is no "reduction
of moral goodness" -- you can't reduce from something that doesn't
exist.
ta
>
> > On Dec 9, 9:52 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> > > but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> > > raise them to eat.
>
> > The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
> > "benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
> > course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
> > existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>
> > In short, red herring.
>
> Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
> and getting to experience life. If "vegans" were to implement a regime
> of strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the near-
> extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for them), there would be
> a net reduction of this particular kind of moral goodness or utility.
> He then goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that "vegans"
> are evil for advocating something that would lead to this reduction.
What nonsense. If I choose to have no children or not raise chickens,
there is no "reduction in moral goodness". You can't reduce from
something that doesn't exist.
> Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't
Les Cargill
Yes. My daughter may be doing graduate work in this direction.
And in class aves ( who are just about as adaptable as we are ),
humans are a serious boon to many species. Corvids, parrots and
chickens all do well around humans. Steely eyed predators often
can adapt as well, but real top predators usually don't. Red wing
hawks seem to find an interesting balance.
But even better, an ethnobotanist on PBS inverts the prohibition
against anthropomorphizing plants and describes how some species
of plants use us to become dominant:
http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/
We get from:
Apples: Sweetness ( and in the form of cider apples,
alcohol ). Cider apples were what Johnny Appleseed
distributed; our fancy pomes only come when apple
trees are grafted. Cider apples are all but inedible.
Tulips: Beauty.
Intoxication: Opium and marijuana ( ignoring alcohol for
the moment). Modern surgery was invented with anesthesia,
and pain control keeps the traumatized alive with diminished
death from shock ( morphine saved countless lives in the Civil War,
but created a monstrous class of addicts, see the song "Soldier's
Joy" for details). Modulo the often tragic social consequences,
some people have described pain control as the most important
medical technology. You only have to watch "Sam Adams", the surgery
parts to know why.
Control: Potatoes mean people can live anywhere.
Excellent stuff, man. Good expository use of fallacy on his
part.
--
Les Cargill
Immortalista
> On Dec 9, 10:33 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 7:26 pm, ta <tapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 9:52 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> > > > but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> > > > raise them to eat.
>
> > > The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
> > > "benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
> > > course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
> > > existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>
> > > In short, red herring.
>
> > Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
> > and getting to experience life. If "vegans" were to implement a regime
> > of strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the near-
> > extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for them), there would be
> > a net reduction of this particular kind of moral goodness or utility.
> > He then goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that "vegans"
> > are evil for advocating something that would lead to this reduction.
>
> What nonsense. If I choose to have no children or not raise chickens,
> there is no "reduction in moral goodness". You can't reduce from
> something that doesn't exist.
>
Just testing out the argument and seeing if Dutch still exists after
all these years.
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> If we bred a certain type of humans, who otherwise would never be
> born, in order to use them for food or research, and we then killed
> them at a relatively young age for the intended purpose, would that be
> ethical?
>
The standard is: can you replace yourself with the man on the gallows,
and being a man of sound courage and good principle, accept the
sentence, given what was done? In other words, is there the one
inexcusable failure that you cannot in good conscience rationalize
away, no matter how hard you work at it?
With animals, they are property, to be disposed of as we see fit.
We arbitrarily, for sound reasons, do not apply the same standard.
If we stopped breeding them, that phenotype would soon
disappear. They exist as an artifact of our pleasure.
Sometimes they're members of the family; sometimes they are food.
Micheal Vick didn't *eat* the dogs, so it must be child abuse...
A more extreme example of this principle was a father of a friend
of mine, who put the name of the beast in the freezer above the
freezer, so that in the Amerind tradition, you could know
what animal had been put there, and you could kinda mutter "thanks"
to the beast. At least you dinna have to run blood on your forehead.
But Shakespeare still wrote the standard that holds: No beast
so fierce what has a touch of pity; yet I have none, and therefore
am no beast.
--
Les Cargill
Bret Cahill
> > > > but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> > > > raise them to eat.
>
> > > The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
> > > "benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
> > > course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
> > > existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>
> > > In short, red herring.
>
> > Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
> > and getting to experience life. If "vegans" were to implement a regime
> > of strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the near-
> > extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for them), there would be
> > a net reduction of this particular kind of moral goodness or utility.
> > He then goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that "vegans"
> > are evil for advocating something that would lead to this reduction.
>
> What nonsense. If I choose to have no children or not raise chickens,
> there is no "reduction in moral goodness". You can't reduce from
> something that doesn't exist.
You can create but you cannot destroy information.
Life = info.
Therefore the Philippines, Netherlands, and other overpopulated places
where they procreate all the time are on the right track.
Just straying a little from Malthus.
Bret Cahill
Dutch
> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
Yes they most decidely are, although I would not use the word "cheat"
because that implies some moral wrongdoing, and that has not been
demonstrated. Their lives are reduced by humans to on average far shorter
lives than they would be if they lived in the wild.
> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> raise them to eat.
Not "instead". those two propositions are not mutually exclusive. We cause
them to be bred into existence AND we shorten their lives.
Dutch
Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
and getting to experience life.
Even if it we were to agree that a life lived constitutes a net good, there
is no evidence that breeding livestock increases the total number of lives
lived. In fact the resources in food, water and land devoted to raising
livestock is a direct loss to wildlife, most of which are much smaller, thus
one steer replaces many hundred small animals in the ecosystem. So clearly
raising livestock results in a net loss of life and thus a moral evil by
this calculation.
Dutch
"Immortalista" <extr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99ce3c94-b1b9-4057...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
------>
To my dying breath >:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_CqOd1zSxc
dead link
Dutch
> A more extreme example of this principle was a father of a friend
> of mine, who put the name of the beast in the freezer above the
> freezer, so that in the Amerind tradition, you could know
> what animal had been put there, and you could kinda mutter "thanks"
> to the beast. At least you dinna have to run blood on your forehead.
That puts a better meaning to the custom of saying grace than thanking a
bearded man in the sky.
Dutch
"ta" <padd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9744cbc-7fd6-45b7...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 10:33 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 7:26 pm, ta <tapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 9:52 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> > > but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> > > raise them to eat.
>
> > The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
> > "benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
> > course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
> > existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>
> > In short, red herring.
>
> Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
> and getting to experience life. If "vegans" were to implement a regime
> of strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the near-
> extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for them), there would be
> a net reduction of this particular kind of moral goodness or utility.
> He then goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that "vegans"
> are evil for advocating something that would lead to this reduction.
What nonsense. There is no "reduction of moral goodness" resulting
from not being born. If I never have children, there is no "reduction
of moral goodness" -- you can't reduce from something that doesn't
exist.
The next logical step in that train of thought is the ultimate good is
achieved by causing animals to be born and killing them immediately before
they consume any resources so more animals can be born.
Giga
> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> raise them to eat.
Yes. if everyone stopped eating chickens then they would become an
endangered species you would only see in zoos!
3877
Nope, some would still keep them for eggs.
dh
wrote:
Yes it is, since those of us who are able to can conclude
that some of their lives are of possitive value and therefore a
benefit regardless of anything to do with nonexistence...that is
unless you can show how anything to do with nonexistence prevents
you from benefitting from your life. If so, try explaining what
you think it is.
dh
<extr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 9, 7:26�pm, ta <tapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 9:52�pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
>> > but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
>> > raise them to eat.
>>
>> The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
>> "benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
>> course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
>> existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>>
>> In short, red herring.
>
>Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
>and getting to experience life. If "vegans" were to implement a regime
>of strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the near-
>extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for them), there would be
>a net reduction of this particular kind of moral goodness or utility.
>He then goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that "vegans"
>are evil for advocating something that would lead to this reduction.
Try providing something to back up your absurd sounding
claim, if you think you actually know of anything. If not it
appears you're being dishonest about it, so try explaining why
you made such a dishonest claim.
>Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't
>raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take
>that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the
>animals are going to be killed. The animals are not being cheated out
>of any part of their life by being raised for food, but instead they
>are experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. �
>
>Likewise then, since our children would not be alive if we did not
>have them, it is a distortion of reality not consider that when
>judging the morality of killing them.
Only those that you raise deliberately to kill. It doesn't
apply to any other humans than those raised deliberately to kill.
>But it does seem to provide an interesting test of the principle. If
>we should taken into account the fact that we gave life to animals
>whom we are going to kill 'prematurely',
It's a clear display of dishonesty to pretend that they would
have longer lives if they never lived at all. You must be in
favor of the gross misnomer "animal rights", since those have
always been the people who have attempted such dishonest tricks
in my experience.
>and say that the granting of
>life somehow excuses the early termination of it,
There's that dishonesty again.
>then why wouldn't this apply to humans?
It does. Some slaves don't kill themselves too.
>If we bred a certain type of humans, who otherwise would never be
>born, in order to use them for food or research, and we then killed
>them at a relatively young age
It still wouldn't be prematurely. Why can you be somewhat
honest about it in regards to humans, while maintaining your
dishonest approach about it in regards to livestock, do you have
any idea about that? If so, can you be honest enough to explain?
>for the intended purpose, would that be ethical?
Could it be made ethical? What if everyone was going to die,
would that make life unethical? If everyone was going to die,
would that make it unethical to have children?
dh
Billions of animals experience life--many of them of positive
value--only because humans raise them for food. Misnomer
advocates don't want their lives to be taken into consideration
because doing so suggests that providing decent AW could be
considered ethically equivalent or superior to their objective to
eliminat domestic animals. Though they are prone to lie about it
(and anything else afaik), true misnomer huggers must necessarily
be opposed to AW because it workd directly against their
objective. Some of the more honest ones have even admitted it in
the past:
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are
the practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds
with those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but
also the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes
the achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of
animal welfare believe they can consistently support reformist
means to abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for
moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to
retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
. . .
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
���������������������������������������������������������
dh
wrote:
>On Dec 9, 10:33�pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 7:26�pm, ta <tapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 9, 9:52�pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
>> > > but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
>> > > raise them to eat.
>>
>> > The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
>> > "benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
>> > course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
>> > existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>>
>> > In short, red herring.
>>
>> Some kind of moral good or utility results from an animal being born
>> and getting to experience life. If "vegans" were to implement a regime
>> of strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the near-
>> extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for them), there would be
>> a net reduction of this particular kind of moral goodness or utility.
>> He then goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that "vegans"
>> are evil for advocating something that would lead to this reduction.
>
>What nonsense. If I choose to have no children or not raise chickens,
>there is no "reduction in moral goodness". You can't reduce from
>something that doesn't exist.
From my experience with it most if not all people who are
opposed to taking the animals' lives into consideration as well
as their deaths, are people who are in favor of the gross
misnomer "animal rights". They refer to having consideration for
the lives of other beings as "the Logic of the Larder" or LoL, a
trick for insulting consideration which was made popular by a
fantasy about a talking pig written by one of their founding
fathers Henry Salt. They sometimes amusingly insist the talking
pig fantasy refutes consideration for the lives of other beings,
even though it doesn't do so any better than "Charlotte's Web".
Giga
"3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7ocpu8F...@mid.individual.net...
true, maybe cows better example
3877
Nope, even more would keep those for the milk and so cheese etc.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Beef cows "cattle" are NOT milk cows, Long Horn cattle are not milking
cows... Long horn are somewhat rare these days. Buffalo/Bison are not
milking cows also became rare. Only popular today for their extra lean meat.
Holstein or Jersey are typical milking breeds. While "you can" eat
them they aren't the good steaks like you get from Angus or Hereford and
often milking cows are bread with Hereford Bulls to get them milking.
You did know that a cow has to produce a calf to start milk.... then
the cross bread "Hereford and Holstein" calf is raised for beef, because
you don't need all those calves to be pure Holstein milking cows that
you don't need for milking. So you cross them and they produce a better
beef. Then you but cows that have been bread for milking to milk.
You NON farmer genius' that want to create a new age of GREEN farming
aren't very bright. Like Mao Tse Tung did, who tried also to remake
farming in his own image, you will create starvation and death to the
point of killing millions with your anti carnivore/Pro Vegan ideology.
3877
> 3877 wrote:
>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7ocpu8F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>>>> "Immortalista" <extr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a069be9b-53ab-4883...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer
>>>>>> life, but instead they experience what life they do only because
>>>>>> humans raise them to eat.
>>>>> Yes. if everyone stopped eating chickens then they would become an
>>>>> endangered species you would only see in zoos!
>>>> Nope, some would still keep them for eggs.
>>>>
>>> true, maybe cows better example
>>
>> Nope, even more would keep those for the milk and so cheese etc.
>>
>>
> To advertise your ignorance, is spectacular.
> Beef cows "cattle" are NOT milk cows, Long Horn cattle are not milking
> cows... Long horn are somewhat rare these days. Buffalo/Bison are not
> milking cows also became rare. Only popular today for their extra
> lean meat.
Irrelevant to whether, if no one ate meat anymore, the only cows would be in zoos.
There would be plenty of cows outside zoos for milk and cheese etc.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Beef cows "cattle" are NOT milk cows, Long Horn cattle are not milking
cows... Long horn are somewhat rare these days. Buffalo/Bison are not
milking cows also became rare. Only popular today for their extra lean meat.
Holstein or Jersey are typical milking breeds. While "you can" eat
Beam Me Up Scotty
Beef cows "cattle" are NOT milk cows, Long Horn cattle are not milking
cows... Long horn are somewhat rare these days. Buffalo/Bison are not
milking cows also became rare, only popular today for their extra lean meat.
Holstein or Jersey are typical milking breeds. While "you can" eat
them they aren't the good steaks like you get from Angus or Hereford and
often milking cows are bread with Hereford Bulls to get them milking.
That would mean useless cows/cattle if you don't sell them for meat in
the end. So "you would stop" that and reduce the production of MILK and
CHEESE? And then that begs the question of why keeping a cow to milk
and later to be dog food is better than raising beef cattle?
You did know that a cow has to produce a calf to start the milk....
then the cross bread "Hereford and Holstein" calf is raised for beef,
because you don't need all those calves to be "pure Holstein milking
cows" that you don't need for milking. So you cross them and they
produce a better beef. Then you buy cows that have been bread for
milking "to milk".
You NON farmer genius' that want to create a new age of GREEN farming
aren't very bright. Like Mao Tse Tung did, who tried also to remake
farming in his own image, you will create starvation and death to the
point of killing millions with your anti carnivore/Pro Vegan ideology.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
During the 1939 – 1942 period, the UK and Russia depleted much of their
gold stock in purchases of munitions and weaponry on a *cash and carry*
basis from the U.S. and other nations.
Les Cargill
Just think of the Bearded Guy as an arbitrageur...
--
Les Cargill
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:0gj2i515c863a1ar1...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:26:46 -0800 (PST), ta <tap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 9, 9:52 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
>>> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
>>> raise them to eat.
>>
>>The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
>>"benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
>>course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
>>existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>
> Yes it is, since those of us who are able to can conclude
> that some of their lives are of possitive value and therefore a
> benefit regardless of anything to do with nonexistence
You're demonstrating your ignorance again.
Prediction, he will tune_you_out.
Dutch
> From my experience with it most if not all people who are
> opposed to taking the animals' lives into consideration as well
> as their deaths, are people who are in favor of the gross
> misnomer "animal rights
That's a strawman and an outright lie. Almost every person who has
confronted you about the Logic of the Larder has been well known to oppose
Animal Rights.
Surely you are not so egocentric as to believe that all these people, like
me, who have have spent years of their lives arguing with ARAs, have been
only posing as opponents of AR as part of an elaborate ruse to undermine the
LoL. Tell me you're not so stupid that you believe that, yet you appear to
be.
Rod Speed
Nope, just a crutch for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
Dutch
dh
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
� The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.
Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. �
You might just as well be referring to jellyfish in Japan as
cattle in zoos, or anything else. The question is whether or not
life is of positive value to animals raised for food. Misnomer
advocates want everyone to believe it's of negative value for all
of them, but it's not true. Here are some examples of livestock
who appear to have decent lives of positive value:
http://www.agrabilityproject.org/images/clip_image002_0015.jpg
http://www.karlschatz.com/yearofthegoat/images/skyland.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/2361808892_b1a8025730.jpg
http://www.quailhunt.net/images/Quail%20Farm2.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/04/10/egg.jpg
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/leofoo/windows/images/duckpond.jpg
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/Sheep.jpg
http://www.seldomseenfarm.co.uk/images/goose%20540-2.jpg
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.jpg
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/mds_p7f11.JPG
http://www.drgobbler.com/images/turkeys.JPG
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02Jz3CK90Q2LI/610x.jpg
http://www.cohabnet.org/images/img_issue3.2_lrg.jpg
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/01/389523.gif
http://www.colleenpatrick.com/blog/uploaded_images/June-2007-13-782938.jpg
http://www.sprucedale.com/images/feedlot.jpg
http://www.saucierquail.com/farm4.jpg
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.jpg
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/VAfeedlot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/sarahpayton/Grass-fedCows.jpg
http://bentleycellars.com/db2/00200/bentleycellars.com/_uimages/GoldSheepRanch.JPG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/20050415_feedlot.jpg
http://www.agralarm.com/images/400_Texas_Broilers.jpg
http://www.circlekquailfarm.com/200%20x%20134.JPG
http://www.moonridgefarm.co.uk/USERIMAGES/more%20quail.jpg
http://www.therunningduckfarm.com/images/fieldtripw.jpg
http://www.agriproducts.com.au/verve/_resources/sheep2_page.jpg
http://www.harveyquarterhorseranch.com/graphics/allhorses.jpg
http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/Asmawi%20M.%20Tahir.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/french/ev10000/ev10703.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040212/wd6.jpg
http://www.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.jpg
http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/uploads/images/Case_Studies/EE/Lighting2.jpg
http://www.piercefarmwatch.org/images/blog/bellsurvivors.jpg
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/images/cows1.jpg
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/sheep_on_bare_dirt.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44105000/jpg/_44105757_bank416ap.jpg
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/kitchen/2008_08_15-MorrisBeef.jpg
http://www.alcockhorseranch.com/images/horse.gif
http://www.boerdurhamgoatfarm.com/images/upload/fullsize/2008-3-25-goats-2-061.jpg
http://www.mountain-beef.com/images/sales.jpg
http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi36/images/chickens.jpeg
http://www.kingbirdfarm.com/images/KBF%20broilers%20hoop%20house.jpg
http://www.prairiespringsranch.com/images/13.jpg
http://www.countryliving.com/cm/countryliving/images/Geese-GARDEN0805-de.jpg
http://www.specialtytravel.com/operators/logos/18059.jpg
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:rh23i51o5m0pd2ums...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:19 -0000, "Giga" <"Giga"
> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Immortalista" <extr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:a069be9b-53ab-4883...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
>>> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
>>> raise them to eat.
>>
>>Yes. if everyone stopped eating chickens then they would become an
>>endangered species you would only see in zoos!
>
> � The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
> that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
> only live if people continue to raise them for food.
"Those animals" will NOT live, they will be killed and eaten soon if they
haven't already been. Those *species* are of no importance beyond their
utility as food sources.
Giga
the major profit sources was taken away? and that is the point
Giga
<dh@.> wrote in message news:rh23i51o5m0pd2ums...@4ax.com...
Not sure if that is even the issue. They should be treated as well and
kindly and possible of course. The point seems to be that vegetarians say
its wrong to kill animals for food but their ideas would lead to much less
of these animals being around at all. So they would kill them even more
effectively and quicker than carnivores do, before they even exist.
3877
> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:7od3mvF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7ocpu8F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>>>> "Immortalista" <extr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a069be9b-53ab-4883...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer
>>>>>> life, but instead they experience what life they do only because
>>>>>> humans raise them to eat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. if everyone stopped eating chickens then they would become an
>>>>> endangered species you would only see in zoos!
>>>>
>>>> Nope, some would still keep them for eggs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> true, maybe cows better example
>>
>> Nope, even more would keep those for the milk and so cheese etc.
>>
> pigs?
Nope, some prefer them as pets and never eat them.
And there are a lot more pigs gone wild than chickens too, so
they would not just be in zoos if we stopped eating them entirely.
anyway surely there would be a lot less of all these animals if
> one of the major profit sources was taken away? and that is the point
I just commented on the zoo claim.
3877
More strictly they would never have any life at all if we did not eat them eventually.
Dutch
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
message news:6bednXupxvhvgL_W...@giganews.com...
The point is, nobody should care if domestic species cease to exist, it is
not a *moral issue*, no animal loses anything if no more cattle or pigs were
to be bred by farmers.
Dutch
> Not sure if that is even the issue. They should be treated as well and
> kindly and possible of course. The point seems to be that vegetarians say
> its wrong to kill animals for food but their ideas would lead to much less
> of these animals being around at all. So they would kill them even more
> effectively and quicker than carnivores do, before they even exist.
Be more rigorous in your thinking, nothing can be killed before it exists.
Dutch
The domestic "pig" is just a variant of the wild boar bred for the food
industry, there is no reason to care or worry about how many of them exist,
aside from their utility.
John Jones
> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> raise them to eat.
What would it be like for them not to experience life?
Dutch
The $64 question, the one that can only be answered by more circular logic.
Giga
> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:7od3mvF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>>> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7ocpu8F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>>>>> "Immortalista" <extr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a069be9b-53ab-4883...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer
>>>>>>> life, but instead they experience what life they do only because
>>>>>>> humans raise them to eat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. if everyone stopped eating chickens then they would become an
>>>>>> endangered species you would only see in zoos!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, some would still keep them for eggs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> true, maybe cows better example
>>>
>>> Nope, even more would keep those for the milk and so cheese etc.
>>>
>> pigs?
>
> Nope, some prefer them as pets and never eat them.
yes, didn't think of that.
>
> And there are a lot more pigs gone wild than chickens too, so
> they would not just be in zoos if we stopped eating them entirely.
>
> anyway surely there would be a lot less of all these animals if
>> one of the major profit sources was taken away? and that is the point
>
> I just commented on the zoo claim.
>
ok
Beam Me Up Scotty
A few thousand years of human work and progress.
It's the only reason you are here.
Dutch
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
message news:4b22f570$0$9296$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
So were a lot of things which are now obsolete.
> It's the only reason you are here.
Livestock? I don't think so.
Giga
I was trying to put the argument in a slightly different way.
Giga
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:hfubgg$81c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
So why do vegies complain about their slaughter?
Giga
Perhaps you would prefer 'remove from existence'?
Giga
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hfui71$f1c$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Do they indeed experience anything? But to answer your question it must
surely be equivalent to being slaughtered for foo unless there is some kind
of animal afterlife.
3877
Because they are stupid.
Its fine to rip the sexual organs off plants and shove them in your mouth tho.
And to rip their leaves off and eat them too.
And to rip them from their environment and eat them too.
Giga
ZerkonXXXX
> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life, but
> instead they experience what life they do only because humans raise them
> to eat.
That'll do, pig.
dh
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
Determining whether their lives are of positive or negative
value is a necessary part of determining whether or not a
practice is cruel *to the animals*. And that particular part is
impossible for misnomer advocates because they have already
determined in advance that life is never of positive value for
them regardless of quality of life. The purity of those people's
selfishness prevents them from considering the animals they so
contemptibely and dishonestly pretend to have some consideration
for. In fact some of them are so self-absorbed that they are
litterally OPPOSED to considering the animals themselves:
"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very
existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo
"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
"It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
of other creatures" - "Dutch"
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." -
Goo
"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
""Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to an animal"
- "Dutch"
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>They should be treated as well and
>kindly and possible of course. The point seems to be that vegetarians say
>its wrong to kill animals for food but their ideas would lead to much less
>of these animals being around at all.
� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>So they would kill them even more
>effectively and quicker than carnivores do, before they even exist.
The term "animal rights" is a horribly gross misnomer that
these people have been getting away with for years, and one that
has no doubt provided them with millions of dollars. One of its
supporters in a very rare flash of honesty accidentally confessed
one time:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch
But more in keeping with their regular behavior that same
individual insanely suggested I kill myself rather than point out
the difference between the misnomer and decent AW:
_________________________________________________________
dh pointed out:
> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.
"Dutch" insanely howled:
Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour
and go blow your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking
gun you can find.
���������������������������������������������������������
dh
Those people appear to want to pretend that their elimination
objective will somehow also "help" livestock. They also want to
pretend that areas where livestock are raised will be left to do
nothing but become wildlife refuges, which of course is the
opposite of what I've seen happen to them. All the livestock land
I've seen be used for something else has become residential or
business properties, which supported much much LESS wildlife than
when it was used for livestock. LOL! It used to be popular for
misnomer huggers to lie and try to pretend that there would be
happy productive populations of once domestic animals living wild
and free too, but it looks like that one was so stupid that even
the majority of those idiots finally figured it out. I know I
always tried to help the poor fools understand when they brought
it up by pointing out that IF it was really a good idea then some
of their brethren would already be buying animals headed for
slaughter and releasing them to enjoy life in the wild, but we
NEVER hear about it being successfully attempted because it's a
stupid idea that would never work.
Ah, and then the "Dutch" character who inisists that we
should never consider the lives of livestock, is one who wants us
to believe farmland would be left as wildlife refuges, and so he
thinks we should consider the potential lives of wildlife in
those areas even though he is maniacally opposed to considering
the lives of livestock who are being raised now, and quite
possibly the wildlife who live among them as well. These people
have very selective thinking, and afaik every bit of it is
selected in an attempt to encourage acceptance of their
elimination objective. They don't want us to consider the lives
of livestock because that works directly against their objective
by suggesting that providing lives of positive value could be
considered ethically equivalent or superior to elimination.
dh
wrote:
LOL!!! Why are you opposed to having consideration for the
lives of animals raised for food, can you say?
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> From my experience with it most if not all people who are
>> opposed to taking the animals' lives into consideration as well
>> as their deaths, are people who are in favor of the gross
>> misnomer "animal rights
>
>That's a strawman and an outright lie.
That's a lie.
>Almost every person who has
>confronted you about the Logic of the Larder has been well known to oppose
>Animal Rights.
That's a very blatant lie. For one thing the vaaaaaaaaaaast
majority of people who have tried to oppose me have been honest
about their support of the misnomer and have been honest about
being some sort of veg*n. You and Goo I believe are in support of
the misnomer but amusingly trying to get people to believe you're
opposed to it in spite of the fact that I've never known you to
do anything other than support it. So even though you are
dishonest about (pretty much everything afaik) it, you and the
Goober are on the misnomer huggers list. That leaves us with very
FEW misnomer opponents who ever said they did not agree: swamp,
Rick Etter, Ward Clark. That's it! On top of that neither Etter
nor Clark ever gave even one reason for being opposed to it, they
simply said they didn't agree. swamp said he disagreed, but most
if not all of his reasons were misnomer hugger arguments all of
which I disagree with and several if not the majority of he
himself did not agree with:
_________________________________________________________
No, the ARs would say that's it's immoral for us to bring animals
into the world knowing their lives are going to be severely
truncated. To them, no life is better than short, cushy life even
if the livestock are unaware of their fate.
Again, the question is whether it would be more ethical not to
create these lives at all. AR would have us believe so. I don't
share that view
AR would argue that creating such a life, no matter how many
times it is benefitted, is inherently wrong.
It's certainly part of the equation if one argues for their
elimination.
I agree w/ ar/evs that livestock would not be deprived if we
failed to provide them life. That doesn't make me ar or ev, or
even a devil's advocate.
You have a fundamental impasse, not w/ the arguments but w/
yourself. You need to imagine a world where there is no ranching
to understand where the ar/evs are coming from.
...ending in slaughter, which trumps dubious benefits from a rare
but salient ar viewpoint.
How can a premature death be a benefit? Again, as much as I
disagree w/ ARs, they've a point here.
If animals weren't raised this wouldn't be an issue. Once
again,the AR argument is stronger than yours
Unfortunately, my reasons echo ar's. I see no harm to livestock
in letting them disappear, or benefit to them in getting to live.
I don't think they suffer horribly as ar would have us believe,
but the benefit is all ours.
���������������������������������������������������������
>Surely you are not so egocentric as to believe that all these people, like
>me, who have have spent years of their lives arguing with ARAs, have been
>only posing as opponents of AR as part of an elaborate ruse to undermine the
>LoL. Tell me you're not so stupid that you believe that, yet you appear to
>be.
dh
I've pointed out to a number of those people that they and
everyone they know would not exist if humans had never begun to
eat meat, but they either can't comprehend the fact, they can't
appreciate any significance to the fact, or both.
dh
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:38:03 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:26:46 -0800 (PST), ta <tap...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 9, 9:52�pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
>>>> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
>>>> raise them to eat.
>>>
>>>The only way you could say that an animal (or a human for that matter)
>>>"benefits" is if one can compare existence to non-existence, which of
>>>course we can't. An animal or human that is alive only knows
>>>existence, so no such comparison is possible.
>>
>> Yes it is, since those of us who are able to can conclude
>>that some of their lives are of possitive value and therefore a
>>benefit regardless of anything to do with nonexistence...that is
>>unless you can show how anything to do with nonexistence prevents
>>you from benefitting from your life. If so, try explaining what
>>you think it is.
>
>Prediction, he will tune_you_out.
LOL!!! What else can he do? He can't meet my challenge and
explain what he thinks about nonexistence is preventing him from
benefitting from his life now, that much is clear. So what "can"
he do? He can't even come up with a worthwhile lie about it, as
neither could you or Goo. He could just insult me personally, or
do nothing at all. Those are his only options. LOL....other than
to accept and confess the truth of what I pointed out of course,
LOL...and who would ever do that?
zzbunker
> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> raise them to eat.
Well, the agrarians have always made the idiot initial assumption
that humans benefit from farm animals.
So that's the idiots are constantly reminded that the 21st Century
Engineers work on Self-Replicating Machines, rather than Horse
Shoes.
They work on Self-Assembling Robots and Rapid Prototyping rather
than McDonald's Quarter Pounders.
They work on HDTV, Digital Terrain Mapping, Holograms, and GPS
rather than idiot
Purdue Commercials.
They work on UAVs, Drones, Phalanx, Digital Books, Blue Ray, On-Line
Publishing,
Biodiesel, Cyber Batteries, mp3, mpeg, XML, and Hybrid-Electric
Energy,
rather than with GM Blend-o-Matic idiots.
Dutch
Squeamishness, misguided compassion, too much time on their hands, desire to
occupy moral high ground.
Dutch
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
message news:Gc6dnYC_TucIwL7W...@giganews.com...
No, that commits the same logical error, and by saying that you facilitate
the mistaken thinking that there is some loss suffered to animals through
the choice to avoid animal products. This erroneous thinking is personified
in the long discredited sophism known as The Logic of the Larder. It is a
fundamentally flawed attempt to discredit vegetarianism. I am not a
vegetarian, I just don't like shabby sophism.
One cannot not *deny existence* to an animal, because an animal must first
exist in order to be the recipient of any act, and by the same reasoning one
cannot *give* existence to an animal.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:10:19 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> From my experience with it most if not all people who are
>>> opposed to taking the animals' lives into consideration as well
>>> as their deaths, are people who are in favor of the gross
>>> misnomer "animal rights
>>
>>That's a strawman and an outright lie.
>
> That's a lie.
>
>>Almost every person who has
>>confronted you about the Logic of the Larder has been well known to oppose
>>Animal Rights.
>
> That's a very blatant lie.
It's the truth and you know it, the only ARA who has seriously taken you to
task about the LoL is Derek, the rest have been antis.
You're in denial Dave. None of the quotes you included help your case.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:vkfai5hbngd1g3jnf...@4ax.com...
non sequitur.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:mmfai5phnjnpealne...@4ax.com...
God you're stupid
dh
>
>"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
>message news:Gc6dnYC_TucIwL7W...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:hfubjf$8dh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Not sure if that is even the issue. They should be treated as well and
>>>> kindly and possible of course. The point seems to be that vegetarians
>>>> say its wrong to kill animals for food but their ideas would lead to
>>>> much less of these animals being around at all. So they would kill them
>>>> even more effectively and quicker than carnivores do, before they even
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> Be more rigorous in your thinking, nothing can be killed before it
>>> exists.
>>
>> Perhaps you would prefer 'remove from existence'?
>
>No, that commits the same logical error, and by saying that you facilitate
>the mistaken thinking that there is some loss suffered to animals through
>the choice to avoid animal products.
No it does not. What it does is draw attention to the fact
that some animals raised for food DO benefit from lives of
possitive value. Of course you people can't afford to consider
the animals in that way because it works against the objective to
eliminate them, but many of them do benefit none the less. The
last thing you people want to see is billions more animals
benefitting from being raised by humans for food.
>This erroneous thinking is personified
>in the long discredited sophism known as The Logic of the Larder.
That's just veg*n code for having consideration for the
animals themselves. Consideration has NEVER been discredited, and
certainly not by a pathetic fantasy about an imaginary talking
pig and written by a founding father of the misnomer.
>It is a
>fundamentally flawed attempt to discredit vegetarianism.
"Discredit" vegetarianism? LOL!!! What sort of "credit" do
you think vegetarianism deserves, that observance of the fact it
does NOTHING to help any livestock takes away from it?
>I am not a vegetarian
I doubt that. If you were not then you would have no reason
to pretend it discredits veg*nism when people appreciate the
lives of animals raised for food. You would also not try to
discredit livestock farming by lying that consideration for the
animals is "discredited sophism". In fact several of the things
like that you lie about you would not lie about if you were not
some sort of veg*n.
dh
You wouldn't appear quite as stupid as you do if you could
refrain from making stupid remarks like that when you have
absolutely no argument against something I pointed out, which is
clearly the case in this example.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:cg6bi5hd0fplose19...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:02:15 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
>>message news:Gc6dnYC_TucIwL7W...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hfubjf$8dh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if that is even the issue. They should be treated as well and
>>>>> kindly and possible of course. The point seems to be that vegetarians
>>>>> say its wrong to kill animals for food but their ideas would lead to
>>>>> much less of these animals being around at all. So they would kill
>>>>> them
>>>>> even more effectively and quicker than carnivores do, before they even
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> Be more rigorous in your thinking, nothing can be killed before it
>>>> exists.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you would prefer 'remove from existence'?
>>
>>No, that commits the same logical error, and by saying that you facilitate
>>the mistaken thinking that there is some loss suffered to animals through
>>the choice to avoid animal products.
>
> No it does not. What it does is draw attention to the fact
> that some animals raised for food DO benefit from lives of
> possitive value.
If those animals are never bred and raised no animal loses anything nor is
any suffering created.
> Of course you people can't afford to consider
> the animals in that way because it works against the objective to
> eliminate them, but many of them do benefit none the less. The
> last thing you people want to see is billions more animals
> benefitting from being raised by humans for food.
I don't care how many animals are raised for food, I simply will not allow
any slimy little cock fighters/suckers to pat themselves on the back over
the life of any animal.
>>This erroneous thinking is personified
>>in the long discredited sophism known as The Logic of the Larder.
>
> That's just veg*n code for having consideration for the
> animals themselves. Consideration has NEVER been discredited, and
> certainly not by a pathetic fantasy about an imaginary talking
> pig and written by a founding father of the misnomer.
>
>>It is a
>>fundamentally flawed attempt to discredit vegetarianism.
>
> "Discredit" vegetarianism? LOL!!! What sort of "credit" do
> you think vegetarianism deserves,
It's a good diet.
> that observance of the fact it
> does NOTHING to help any livestock takes away from it?
God you're stupid.
>
>>I am not a vegetarian
>
> I doubt that. If you were not then you would have no reason
> to pretend it discredits veg*nism when people appreciate the
> lives of animals raised for food.
You're the one who thinks that. You think it is a fundamental weakness in
vegetarianism that it doesn't "support" livestock. What a total dickhead.
You would also not try to
> discredit livestock farming by lying that consideration for the
> animals is "discredited sophism". In fact several of the things
> like that you lie about you would not lie about if you were not
> some sort of veg*n.
What a bunch of hooey. You're an addled fucked up creep.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:hk6bi557nejcibd1j...@4ax.com...
Frequently your "points" are so garbled that "God you're stupid" is all one
can say.
Giga
Giga
there would be many less animals than now. It follows that their policies
are more detrmental to animal numbers than meat eaters.
Giga
<dh@.> wrote in message news:8icai511qkjisn742...@4ax.com...
That always amazes me with vegetarians (not that I think Dutch is one). The
more they identify with animals the more they seem to have no caring for
people anymore. Or maybe it is the other way around. They basically don't
like people much, so their natural affections tend towards animals and pets.
Then they start to fantasize that these animals are really just 'little
people' so they feel less abnormal or lonely, almost like imaginary freinds
with fur. Obviously at this point eating an anial would seem almost like
murder and cannabilism, and that is why they react so strongly. I wonder
what psychological reactions would be set of if they saw their beloved cat
catching and eating a rabbit?
> ���������������������������������������������������������
Dutch
That does not necessarily follow. Animal numbers are directly correlated
with finite resources such as habitat, food and water, and livestock consume
vast quantities of those finite resources. To put it another way, it is in
many ways a zero-sum game, and wildlife numbers suffer from it. Also
consider that most wildlife, such as rodents, are much smaller than your
average livestock animal, so the same resources would support many more.
Yes, we kill livestock relatively quickly, but wildlife also die off from
natural causes, and anyway, do you really want to argue moral superiority
based on how quickly you can kill? This whole line of argument is a mug's
game, and dh@ is the mug to end all mugs.
dh
It certainly does in regards to the animals we're discussing
which misnomer advocates contemptibly and dishonestly pretend
they want to provide with rights, when the truth is they want to
eliminate them instead. Oh, and now you're going to act like it's
a bad thing that I pointed out the truth again.
>Animal numbers are directly correlated
>with finite resources such as habitat, food and water, and livestock consume
>vast quantities of those finite resources.
Vast quantities are grown to feed larger numbers than would
exist naturally, and of course all the wildlife that also exists
because of the livestock. Here's a clue for you: When more
animals can be raised more efficiently by raising them in a more
"natural" environment it is generally done that way because
farming IS a type of business.
>To put it another way, it is in
>many ways a zero-sum game, and wildlife numbers suffer from it.
You have insist that:
"It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
of other creatures" - "Dutch"
yet amazingly it now seems ethically permissible to consider the
lives of some other creatures...of wildlife. Why is it that all
of a sudden everything has changed completely? Or has it only
changed completely in regards to wildlife for some mysterious
reason, but has not changed in regards to livestock? If it has
only changed in regards to the imaginary potential wildlife that
MIGHT possibly exist if we eliminate livestock, why has it not
also changed for the livestock who are already in existence?
>Also
>consider that most wildlife, such as rodents, are much smaller than your
>average livestock animal, so the same resources would support many more.
It's amazing that someone who pretends to have some interest
in animals is so ignorant that they can't appreciate how the
existence of livestock supports a LOT of rodents and also birds.
Or are you as ignorant as you pretend? Maybe you are aware that
the existence of livestock supports wildlife as well, but you're
dishonestly pretending they don't for personally selfish reasons.
>Yes, we kill livestock relatively quickly, but wildlife also die off from
>natural causes, and anyway, do you really want to argue moral superiority
>based on how quickly you can kill?
You used to pretend you had a clue:
"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
Have you lost appreciation for that very significant aspect of
the situation? Do you feel that everyone else should now lose
appreciation for it too, simply because you did?
>This whole line of argument is a mug's
>game, and dh@ is the mug to end all mugs.
So far all I've done is point out your blatant lies and
challenge you to try explaining things that seem absurd and/or
dishonest. In all these years that's pretty much all I've ever
done in your direction. Oh, that and quote you in attempts to get
you to try explaining how you think you disagree with yourself
about various things.
dh
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
I don't see how he could be anything else. He--very
dishonestly imo--pretends to be in favor of providing decent
animal welfare instead of their elimination. Anyone who is truly
in favor of that in regards to livestock has necessarily thought
everything through and come to the conclusion that it is
ethically okay for humans to raise animals with the deliberate
intent of slaughtering them at some point. Since a person in that
position has thought it through and concluded it's okay to raise
at least some particular animals, why would they be even the
least bit opposed to taking those same animals' lives into
consideration? They would not be. There is no reason why they
would be. In contrast to that "Dutch" is opposed to considering
the lives of ALL livestock who actually exist, while at the same
time he encourages you to consider the lives of imaginary
potential wildlife who MIGHT possibly exist in an area if the
currently occupying livestock are eliminated, and the land is not
used for business or residential purposes, or a school, or roads,
or a hospital, or....
>The
>more they identify with animals the more they seem to have no caring for
>people anymore.
Well now that you mention it they not only are the worst
enemy of domestic animals, but they are also a great enemy
against other humans, yes. For one example, imagine what it would
do to human society if we could no longer kill rats and mice...
In some places they do significant damage even though people kill
them by the millions. What if we could no longer kill them at
all? It would change everything for the much much worse for
humans, but of course much to the better for the rodents. For
another thing, what if wildlife could no longer be killed in
order to build roads and buildings? If an area is to be cleared,
the wildlife in the area must be safely captured and removed, and
relocated to another area where they can continue to enjoy their
rights though not infringe on the rights of any other animals. It
could not be done for one thing, and if they did make an attempt
that to would have a tremendously negative impact on human
society. Then there is the additional suffering they cause by
attacking medical research on animals. When they pull their
destructive terrorist stunts they cause more suffering for more
test animals who will be needed to re-do experiments they ruin,
as well as the suffering they will cause to humans and other
animals because they delayed advancements in the treatment of the
various things the researchers are learning to treat. So they are
the direct enemies of all domestic animals, all humans, and may
wild animals as well.
>Or maybe it is the other way around. They basically don't
>like people much, so their natural affections tend towards animals and pets.
>Then they start to fantasize that these animals are really just 'little
>people' so they feel less abnormal or lonely, almost like imaginary freinds
>with fur. Obviously at this point eating an anial would seem almost like
>murder and cannabilism, and that is why they react so strongly.
Those type people are actually so purely selfish that they
can only consider themselves and how disturbed they are that
humans eat meat. They don't care about the animals they pretend
to care about, and much less do they care about other humans as
you pointed out. Remember they only care about themselves, which
is why any sort of lies and dishonest attempts at trickery seem
okay to them. People who actually care about the animals will
certainly NOT be opposed to taking the animals themselves into
consideration. They also will find some things okay and others
they would like to see change, in contrast to feeling that every
situation is the same:
"It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
killing them." - "Dutch"
"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence
is analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a daughter
you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch
"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans. THAT'S
the important issue to be debated" - "Dutch"
"Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"
>I wonder
>what psychological reactions would be set of if they saw their beloved cat
>catching and eating a rabbit?
Again the purity of their selfishness is what would determine
what they "see". If it was their own cat they would probably
argue that it was fine because it was "natural". If they didn't
have a cat and it was someone else's they would be more inclined
to find some fault with it. Remember also that true misnomer
huggers should be opposed to pets as they are to livestock.
On that same sort of issue we have another example of how
these people are the enemies of the animals they pretend to care
about, in regards to wildlife. They are opposed to human hunting,
and want wildlife population "management" left to things that
could never even consider much less attemtpt to be humane OR to
maintain a proper population size for the area as humans do. They
want to leave it up to starvation, disease, and nonhuman
predators all of which cause MORE suffering for the prey animals
than human hunters do, and especially more to pregnant females
and young and baby animals. Then of course in addition to the
suffering caused to the prey animals there's also the suffering
of the predators, the problems and suffering they cause to
domestic animals when they suffer from hunger after depleting the
wildlife prey populations, and then the suffering of the
predators when humans begin killing them to protect their own
animals...
So, after all that, wherer is the supposed ethical
superiority of these people???
dh
Which as we've observed for years is as meaningless as the
facts that dinosaurs are extinct, rocks aren't alive, and we
don't raise porcupines for food.
>> Of course you people can't afford to consider
>> the animals in that way because it works against the objective to
>> eliminate them, but many of them do benefit none the less. The
>> last thing you people want to see is billions more animals
>> benefitting from being raised by humans for food.
>
>I don't care how many animals are raised for food,
The purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering
the animals themselves, as you people have consistently
demonstrated for nine years now.
>I simply will not allow
>any slimy little cock fighters/suckers to pat themselves on the back over
>the life of any animal.
The purity of your selfishness prevents you from "allowing"
anyone to consider the lives of any other beings:
"It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
of other creatures" - "Dutch"
>>>This erroneous thinking is personified
>>>in the long discredited sophism known as The Logic of the Larder.
>>
>> That's just veg*n code for having consideration for the
>> animals themselves. Consideration has NEVER been discredited, and
>> certainly not by a pathetic fantasy about an imaginary talking
>> pig and written by a founding father of the misnomer.
>>
>>>It is a
>>>fundamentally flawed attempt to discredit vegetarianism.
>>
>> "Discredit" vegetarianism? LOL!!! What sort of "credit" do
>> you think vegetarianism deserves, that observance of the fact it
>> does NOTHING to help any livestock takes away from it?
>
>God you're stupid.
Translation: Once again we see an example of you having no
clue what you think you're trying to talk about. You want it to
be a bad thing for people to point out the FACT that veg*nism
does nothing to help any livestock, but you can't think of
anything that's actually wrong with pointing that fact out.
LOL!!!
>
>>
>>>I am not a vegetarian
>>
>> I doubt that. If you were not then you would have no reason
>> to pretend it discredits veg*nism when people appreciate the
>> lives of animals raised for food.
>
>You're the one who thinks that. You think it is a fundamental weakness in
>vegetarianism that it doesn't "support" livestock.
I point out the FACT that it does not, and simply seeing the
fact clearly pointed out disturbs you greatly.
>What a total dickhead.
LOL!!! I mean: Why does it disturb you so badly to see this
aspect of the situation exposed, can you explain that?
> You would also not try to
>> discredit livestock farming by lying that consideration for the
>> animals is "discredited sophism". In fact several of the things
>> like that you lie about you would not lie about if you were not
>> some sort of veg*n.
>
>What a bunch of hooey. You're an addled fucked up creep.
Translation: Once again we see an example of you having no
clue what you think you're trying to talk about. You want it to
be a bad thing for me to point out your lyings and that you would
not be likely to tell the particular lies you tell if you were
not in favor of the misnomer, but you can't think of anything
that's actually wrong with pointing those things out. LOL!!!
dh
Think of it this way: Predators can be considered the enemy
of livestock...foxes can be considered enemies of chickens and
turkeys...wolves can be considered enemies of cattle and sheep...
Diseases can also be considered enemies of all living things. But
disease isn't deliberately trying to eliminate all livestock.
Foxes are not deliberately trying to eliminate all chickens and
wolves are not deliberately trying to eliminate all cattle,
though they can still be thought of as their enemies. What about
humans who ARE!!! deliberately trying to eliminate all chickens
and cattle? Can they not be thought of as the worst enemy that
chickens and cattle have? Yes, of course they can. The people who
dishonestly operate cloaked beneath the gross mi$nomer "animal
rights" certainly can be considered the worst enemy that
livestock animals have. They don't want to provide them with
better lives, more lives, rights, or anything at all. In fact
they want to eliminate them entirely.
In contrast to that, the objective of decent AW is to provide
decent lives of positive value for billions of domestic animals.
The reason misnomer huggers are so maniacally opposed to
appreciating lives of positive value for domestic animals, is
that it suggests lives of positive value could be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are
the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of
animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to
abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral,
practical, and conceptual reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to
retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
dh
Translation: Frequently you have no idea what you think
you're trying to talk about, but instead of keeping your idiocy
to yourself you try to make personal insults against the person
who disturbed and confused you by bringing up things that go
against what you WANT to believe, causing the cognitive
dissonance that's disturbing you.
dh
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Dec 9, 9:52�pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
>> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
>> raise them to eat.
>
> Well, the agrarians have always made the idiot initial assumption
> that humans benefit from farm animals.
You and everyone you know would not exist if humans had never
begun to eat meat. Livestock are an integral part of today's
society. BUT! I encourage you to give up your wicked
participation in this sort of society, and go and live as a
gatherer with no weapons that could injure another being. Go and
live as you appear to think people should live, instead of
indulging yourself as a parasitic blight on the planet which you
are most certainly doing now.
Giga
I suspect if the land could be used for something else it probably would be,
such as arable farming. However I think the point really only applies to
farm animals. It is these anials that vegies often object to the killing of,
and it is these very animals whose numbers would be depleted by their
policies.
>
Giga
<dh@.> wrote in message news:sesci5tte5v9mk98e...@4ax.com...
I wonder myself.
Wordsmith
> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> raise them to eat.
Well, they'd live longer lives if we were vegetarians.
W : )
dh
I don't know if you've been around much farming, but I was
fortunate enough to have hung around a number of farms as a kid,
and I can tell you from personal experience around that that
farmers often think it's kinda' cool to see deer etc in their
grazing areas, but when wildlife gets in their crop fields the
farmer get ready to kill them.
>However I think the point really only applies to
>farm animals. It is these anials that vegies often object to the killing of,
>and it is these very animals whose numbers would be depleted by their
>policies.
They want to eliminate them. That's the whole idea. But they
use the gross misnomer "animal rights" to hide their true
objective so they get contributions from people who want to help
livestock, not eliminate livestock. What if PeTA was more honest
and referred to themselves as "people for the ELIMINATION of
domestic animals" (pEda), do you think they would bring in as
many millions of $$$? I don't, and neither does "Dutch":
dh
"They" wouldn't live at all. You're behind in the discussion,
still clinging to one of the dishonest tricks used before it
progresses as far as we have gotten. We've already moved past the
lie you're trying to promote, and are now at the point of having
accepted the fact that it would provide no life at all for
livestock. Not longer lives as you dishonestly suggest, but NO
LIFE. So now you need to explain why that is better, and for whom
or what, than it is to provide livestock with decent lives of
postive value.
Beam Me Up Scotty
What will they do with all that extra time, write poetry or discuss
philosophy? Contemplating the meaning of life will mean that one day
chickens may rule the world and be the top of the food chain. Then what
will you do?
Chickens aren't vegetarians they are cannibals.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
"we do things and suffer the consequence, it's when the government
shields you from those consequences that we become complacent to right
and wrong. -Poetic Justice -
Dutch
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:00:09 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Whatever the theory, it is a practical point that if vegies got their
>>> way
>>> there would be many less animals than now. It follows that their
>>> policies
>>> are more detrmental to animal numbers than meat eaters.
>>
>>That does not necessarily follow.
>
> It certainly does in regards to the animals we're discussing
Why should we limit the discussion to only certain animals?
If we're talking about considering animal lives and one less steer means one
more groundhog, why is that not relevant?
Dutch
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:55:33 -0000, "Giga" <"Giga"
>>That always amazes me with vegetarians (not that I think Dutch is one).
>
> I don't see how he could be anything else
I am NOT a vegetarian, and I am an OPPONENT of "AR".
Giga has only been around aaev a few days and can already see that you are
either a liar, an idiot, or you're delusional, possibly all of the above.
Dutch
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:25:53 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>If those animals are never bred and raised no animal loses anything nor is
>>any suffering created.
>
> Which as we've observed for years is as meaningless
Therefore your "observation" that vegetarians don't "support livestock" is
also meaningless, because the relevant moral issue is the suffering of
animals.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:o2vci559vnf1oqv52...@4ax.com...
Humans are the chief predators of livestock you moron, farming of animals is
just organized hunting.
Fuck you're stupid!
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:u6vci51mb33e2uoev...@4ax.com...
God, you're stupid!
Dutch
Not necessarily.
However I think the point really only applies to
> farm animals. It is these anials that vegies often object to the killing
> of, and it is these very animals whose numbers would be depleted by their
> policies.
So what? What harm would come from there being fewer livestock animals? What
suffering or loss? What is the relevance of that observation? It is simply
not a point worth discussing.
Dutch
"Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:30d356a6-eaf3-4832...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps, but is sheer length the measure of a live well-lived?
Rod Speed
> Wordsmith <word...@rocketmail.com> wrote
>> Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
>>> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
>>> raise them to eat.
>> Well, they'd live longer lives if we were vegetarians.
> Perhaps, but is sheer length the measure of a live well-lived?
Or even worth living. Eating just veg aint my idea of a viable life.
Dutch
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:07:48 -0000, "Giga" <"Giga"
> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>
>>farm animals. It is these anials that vegies often object to the killing
>>of,
>>and it is these very animals whose numbers would be depleted by their
>>policies.
>
> They want to eliminate them. That's the whole idea.
No they don't, they don't care if any kind of animal exists, they just don't
want animals *exploited*, treated as a commodity, which livestock are.
But they
> use the gross misnomer "animal rights" to hide their true
> objective
Their objective is plainly stated, you're an idiot.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:29:48 -0800 (PST), Wordsmith
> <word...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 9, 7:52 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
>>> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
>>> raise them to eat.
>>
>>Well, they'd live longer lives if we were vegetarians.
>
> "They" wouldn't live at all.
"They" already exist, otherwise the statement makes no sense.
> You're behind in the discussion,
No he's not, you are, FAAAAAAR behind. You're campaigning for a right to
life for animals that don't exist and you don't even know it.
Dutch
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
I was a vegetarian for years, it's a pretty boring bland diet, but it's
pretty healthy too.
Rod Speed
So is eating substantially less calories than maintains a constant body weight.
Doesnt mean that its much of a way to live tho.
Dutch
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ook47F...@mid.individual.net...
Basically, yea, that's the key.
> Doesnt mean that its much of a way to live tho.
It tends to turn folks into tiresome, sanctimonious twits, that's one
downside.
Rod Speed
And even for the individual, its only the anorexics and other loonys that actually enjoy that sort of calorie level.
Dutch
They call it "orthorexia", a pathological obsession with health, or
"ethorexia" (my word) a pathological obsession with ethical eating.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:51:17 -0800 (PST),zzbunker
>
> >On Dec 9, 9:52 pm, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The animals we raise for food are not cheated out of a longer life,
> >> but instead they experience what life they do only because humans
> >> raise them to eat.
>
> > Well, the agrarians have always made the idiot initial assumption
> > that humans benefit from farm animals.
>
> You and everyone you know would not exist if humans had never
> begun to eat meat.
Eating meat is an entirely different issue than farming.
Since cows don't eat meat. So that's one of the reasons
the non shit-for-brains people invented digital books
and on-line publishing, rather than press idiots.
And barns are made of protein, so that's why the non-idiot
people invented solar energy, microwave ovens, therno-electric
cooling,
atomic clock watches, cell phones, rapid prototyping, biodiesel,
and hydrid-electric energy rather than idiot GM science.