Stone Soup Story
Immortalist
pot. Upon their arrival, the villagers are unwilling to share any of
their food stores with the hungry travelers. The travelers fill the
pot with water, drop a large stone in it, and place it over a fire in
the village square. One of the villagers becomes curious and asks what
they are doing. The travelers answer that they are making "stone
soup", which tastes wonderful, although it still needs a little bit of
garnish to improve the flavor, which they are missing. The villager
does not mind parting with just a little bit of carrot to help them
out, so it gets added to the soup. Another villager walks by,
inquiring about the pot, and the travelers again mention their stone
soup which has not reached its full potential yet. The villager hands
them a little bit of seasoning to help them out. More and more
villagers walk by, each adding another ingredient. Finally, a
delicious and nourishing pot of soup is enjoyed by all.
Stone Soup is an old folk story in which hungry strangers trick the
people of a town into giving them some food. It is usually told as a
lesson in cooperation, especially amid scarcity. In varying
traditions, the stone has been replaced with other common inedible
objects, and therefore the fable is also known as button soup, wood
soup, nail soup, and axe soup.
dr yacub
Immortalist wrote:
> [yawn/flush]
Ever have an original thought in your whole pathetic life?
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > [yawn/flush]
>
> Ever have an original thought
yes i have, how about you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJPW93jMKzM
bigfl...@gmail.com
Most in 'our society' would likely settle for just being stoned.
BOfL
Roy Batty
Seems like a miserable story. Why would the hungry travelers need to
trick the villagers into giving them food? In my story the travelers
would tell a good trick and be happily fed by their newly found
friends.
Zerkon
The analysis of this story teller is wrong. If the people were tricked
then this is not a lesson of morality nor one which grounds cooperation.
The story can be viewed quite differently.
dh
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Some travelers come to a village, carrying nothing more than an empty
>pot. Upon their arrival, the villagers are unwilling to share any of
>their food stores with the hungry travelers. The travelers fill the
>pot with water, drop a large stone in it, and place it over a fire in
>the village square. One of the villagers becomes curious and asks what
>they are doing. The travelers answer that they are making "stone
>soup", which tastes wonderful, although it still needs a little bit of
>garnish to improve the flavor, which they are missing. The villager
>does not mind parting with just a little bit of carrot to help them
>out, so it gets added to the soup. Another villager walks by,
>inquiring about the pot, and the travelers again mention their stone
>soup which has not reached its full potential yet. The villager hands
>them a little bit of seasoning
� 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
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �
tunderbar
Are you suggesting that 2 trillion dollars a year to the UN by 2030 is
a triffling?
Dutch
> slaughters
It does no such thing.
Patricia Aldoraz
That's not very nice! In this case immortalist is simply socialising
and telling a nice story, he is not even trying to make any kind of
philosphical offering.Perhaps we need to cut him some slack here. We
all need resident trolls (that's my choice roll), and we need a
jester, someone that entertains with tales.
heptangular
> pot. Upon their arrival, the villagers are unwilling to share any of
> their food stores with the hungry travelers. The travelers fill the
> pot with water, drop a large stone in it, and place it over a fire in
> the village square. One of the villagers becomes curious and asks what
> they are doing. The travelers answer that they are making "stone
> soup",
Oh, I thought this topic was about recovering the remains of an
adulteress in Iran. Never mind.
Angelo Campanella
"Zerkon" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.10...@erkonx.net...
I was waiting for the punch line: "and they removed the stone at the end of
the day, preserving it for the next batch. "
I get the moral of the story to be by and large, people will fall for the
weakest of stories if it sounds in the least bit credible.
Barrack Obama' stone soup is largely just that. stone soup; no veggies.
Ange
Immortalist
I think that the story is a combination of two separate social
instincts. One is the examples below and the other is some sort of
dishonest framing of the issue, but I would have to think about it
longer;
...Suppose you are at home and someone knocks at your door, asking you
to contribute to a worthy charity. If you didn't want to contribute,
you probably wouldn't find it too difficult to come up with reasons
for declining—you don't have much money, your contribution probably
wouldn't help much anyway, and so on. But suppose that, after
delivering a standard plea for a donation, the fundraiser adds that
"even a penny will help." Refusing to donate after hearing this
statement would undoubtedly stir up some dissonance by challenging
your self-concept. After all, what kind of person is it who is too
mean or stingy to come up with a penny? No longer would your previous
rationalizations apply. Such a scenario was tested experimentally by
Robert Cialdini and David Schroeder. Students acting as fundraisers
went door to door, sometimes just asking for donations and sometimes
adding that "even a penny will help." As conjectured, the residents
who were approached with the even-a-penny request gave contributions
more often, donating almost twice as frequently as those getting just
the standard plea. Furthermore, on the average, the even-a-penny
contributors were likely to give as much money as the others; that is,
the statement legitimizing the small donation did not reduce the size
of the contributions. Why? Apparently, not only does the lack of
external justification for refusing to donate encourage people to give
money, but after they have decided whether to contribute, the desire
to avoid appearing stingy affects their decision of how much to give.
Once people reach into their pockets, emerging with a mere penny is
self-demeaning; a larger donation is consistent with their self-
perception of being reasonably kind and generous.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
Roy Batty
> On Oct 21, 9:09 pm, "Angelo Campanella" <a.campane...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Zerkon" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:pan.2010.10...@erkonx.net...
>
> > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:01:10 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> > >> Stone Soup is an old folk story in which hungry strangers trick the
> > >> people of a town into giving them some food. It is usually told as a
> > >> lesson in cooperation, especially amid scarcity. In varying traditions,
> > >> the stone has been replaced with other common inedible objects, and
> > >> therefore the fable is also known as button soup, wood soup, nail soup,
> > >> and axe soup.
>
> > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup
>
> > > The analysis of this story teller is wrong. If the people were tricked
> > > then this is not a lesson of morality nor one which grounds cooperation.
> > > The story can be viewed quite differently.
>
> > I was waiting for the punch line: "and they removed the stone at the end of
> > the day, preserving it for the next batch. "
>
> > I get the moral of the story to be by and large, people will fall for the
> > weakest of stories if it sounds in the least bit credible.
>
> I think that the story is a combination of two separate social
> instincts. One is the examples below and the other is some sort of
> dishonest framing of the issue, but I would have to think about it
> longer;
I think the path of least resistance is more likely a realistic
account for the success of homo sapiens. Perhaps not really news
worthy, but at least more heartening to imagine that people are
fundamentally helpful to each other and therefore more likely to
enhance the opportunities that might bring further success for each
other.
So I'd imagine, that the path of least resistance in an event which
included strangers arriving upon a larger number of other peoples,
would often have been a time for the exchange of new friendships,
unless there were less fortunate circumstances in play at that time.
Probably, more often than not, the environmental factors were actually
typically very fortunate, although therefore not really news worthy
and not recorded as events in time.
M Purcell
> Some travelers come to a village, carrying nothing more than an empty
> pot. Upon their arrival, the villagers are unwilling to share any of
> their food stores with the hungry travelers. The travelers fill the
> pot with water, drop a large stone in it, and place it over a fire in
> the village square. One of the villagers becomes curious and asks what
> they are doing. The travelers answer that they are making "stone
> soup", which tastes wonderful, although it still needs a little bit of
> garnish to improve the flavor, which they are missing. The villager
> does not mind parting with just a little bit of carrot to help them
> out, so it gets added to the soup. Another villager walks by,
> inquiring about the pot, and the travelers again mention their stone
> soup which has not reached its full potential yet. The villager hands
> them a little bit of seasoning to help them out. More and more
> villagers walk by, each adding another ingredient. Finally, a
> delicious and nourishing pot of soup is enjoyed by all
>
> people of a town into giving them some food. It is usually told as a
> lesson in cooperation, especially amid scarcity. In varying
> traditions, the stone has been replaced with other common inedible
> objects, and therefore the fable is also known as button soup, wood
> soup, nail soup, and axe soup.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup
I told this story to my aunt while we were trying to put a meal
togeather a few months ago and was surprised she hadn't heard it
before. It's old wisdom about cooperation; people want to know what's
in it for them.
Immortalista
I agree. So humans discover this stable pattern of social activity and
it helps them survive. After 1000s of years the mutation rate would
have altered the genes that direct the assembly of the parts of the
brain used for social interaction. So our nature probably became
instinctively driven to fairness and fair trades and fair
interactions. Probably some of our deepest and most powerful emotions
were appropriated to enforce this selection of mutations around these
variants of game theory. Oh thats right thats the main theory in
evolution that we have mutated towards various games that we have
discovered self assemble on specially programmed computers.
Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is often used in
the context of economics. It studies strategic interactions between
agents. In strategic games, agents choose strategies which will
maximize their return, given the strategies the other agents choose.
The essential feature is that it provides a formal modelling approach
to social situations in which decision makers interact with other
agents. Game theory extends the simpler optimisation approach
developed in neoclassical economics... ...Game theory has played, and
continues to play a large role in the social sciences, and is now also
used in many diverse academic fields. Beginning in the 1970s, game
theory has been applied to animal behaviour, including evolutionary
theory. Many games, especially the prisoner's dilemma, are used to
illustrate ideas in political science and ethics. Game theory has
recently drawn attention from computer scientists because of its use
in artificial intelligence and cybernetics.
In addition to its academic interest, game theory has received
attention in popular culture. A Nobel Prize–winning game theorist,
John Nash, was the subject of the 1998 biography by Sylvia Nasar and
the 2001 film A Beautiful Mind. Game theory was also a theme in the
1983 film WarGames. Several game shows have adopted game theoretic
situations, including Friend or Foe? and to some extent Survivor. The
character Jack Bristow on the television show Alias is one of the few
fictional game theorists in popular culture.
Although some game theoretic analyses appear similar to decision
theory, game theory studies decisions made in an environment in which
players interact. In other words, game theory studies choice of
optimal behavior when costs and benefits of each option depend upon
the choices of other individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
dh
It does for the billions of them that it does.
Dutch
No it doesn't. Life is "provided" <blech> by the parent animals. The meat
industry cages and inseminates animals, it doesn't "provide life". It
provides food and shelter, not life. Science has not yet found a way to
"provide life" for animals. It may someday, not yet.
Immortalist
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
Well a "vegan soup story" is cool to. So if your saying that meat
eatin' kills and vegetable eatin' are killin' too, then all of them is
guilty and can say nothing about how good or bad some behavior is when
performed in the environment, right?
Some meat eaters could care less about anything but themselves, while
some vegans are making an effort to harm less even if they end up
harming more than they thought. Are you saying that both attitudes
towards life and earth are equal in every way? What about a vegan who
don't care about nothin and a meat ass eater who is concerned about
the environment? Are there attitudes that same also?
So your prescription is to add some meat to the vegan soup and just
give up because the worlds going to hell so we might as well fiddle
while it burns, right?
Immortalist
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:iqfgc61r2toh5adcv...@4ax.com...
Humans cursed wolves and domesticated them into Great Danes and
Chihuahua in a mere 5000 years of artificial selection.
http://www.google.com/images?q=wolf&biw=1286&bih=624
http://www.google.com/images?q=Chihuahua&biw=1286&bih=624
If some domesticated animals are bred to be abused and eaten we may
have changed their bodies and brains in a way that their only benefit
is to be abused and eaten and they might die in any other situation.
Immortalist
Not unless you can put some stones in the UN soup?
dh
Sometimes consuming animal products involves fewer animals
deaths than consuming vegetable products, which is a fact that
conscientious consumers should always keep in mind.
>Some meat eaters could care less about anything but themselves, while
>some vegans are making an effort to harm less even if they end up
>harming more than they thought. Are you saying that both attitudes
>towards life and earth are equal in every way? What about a vegan who
>don't care about nothin and a meat ass eater who is concerned about
>the environment? Are there attitudes that same also?
There are people who don't care enough to think things
through in both groups, but my feeling is that meat consumers how
are honest about not caring enough to think about it, are
slightly better than veg*ns who claim that they do but make it
clear that in reality they do not.
>So your prescription is to add some meat to the vegan soup and just
>give up because the worlds going to hell so we might as well fiddle
>while it burns, right?
I'm in favor of providing lives of positive value and humane
deaths for the billions of animals humans raise for food, which
is completely different than the objective of forced veganism and
would produce completely different results.
Tronscend
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:3bc4ff45-104d-45ca...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 17, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> Well a "vegan soup story" is cool to.
Got one!
"Some vegan travelers come to a village, carrying nothing more than an empty
pot. Upon their arrival, the villagers are willing to share their food
stores with the hungry travelers. The villagers fill the pot with a lot of
soup, put in a large stone, and place it over a fire in the village square.
One of the vegan travelers becomes curious and asks what they are doing. The
villagers answer that they are making "stone soup", which tastes wonderful,
although consists of all kinds of animal ingredients. The traveller minds
eating meat, and so it gets taken out of the soup.
Another traveller walks by, inquiring about the pot, and the villagers again
mention their stone soup with meat broth in it. The traveller insists the
liquid be strained away. Now only some carrot and some seasoning were left
to eat, but these were also thrown away since it had been cooked in "cadaver
tea", as the vegans called it. The only thing left in the pot was the stone.
The vegan travellers took the stone, beat the pot into a flat disc so no one
could use i anymore, used its sharp edges to cut open the fastenings of the
livestock paddocks and chased all the animals out, beat the villagers over
the head with the stone, threw it into the forest, and continued on their
way, playing frisbee with the pot disc. The villagers who did not die from
the beating, died of starvation, and so did all the released animals. Soon
there were no more villages left to visit."
T
Tronscend
"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> skrev i melding
news:cacbb7fd-b026-407b...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
- Mainly a big stone, it seems.
T
Dutch
> I'm in favor of providing lives
We don't "provide lives" for animals, quit lying. Life is provided by
nature, all we do is manipulate circumstances to suit our agenda.
> of positive value and humane
> deaths for the billions of animals humans raise for food,
"positive value" and "humane deaths" are achieved through animal welfare,
not phony "life providing"
> which
> is completely different than the objective of forced veganism and
> would produce completely different results.
Results which would not see a single animal harmed or forced to suffer or
sacrifice anything. It would also not be objectively worse according to any
utilitarian "net good" measure, an argument you aren't smart enough to
formulate anyway.
M Purcell
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> skrev i meldingnews:cacbb7fd-b026-407b...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Along with anything people can be convinced to share, in the version I
heard the travelers offer to share their soup with the villagers.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:q9qtc6hmr7sg9v7cr...@4ax.com...
>>Well a "vegan soup story" is cool to. So if your saying that meat
>>eatin' kills and vegetable eatin' are killin' too, then all of them is
>>guilty and can say nothing about how good or bad some behavior is when
>>performed in the environment, right?
>
> Sometimes consuming animal products involves fewer animals
> deaths than consuming vegetable products, which is a fact that
> conscientious consumers should always keep in mind.
Why? Most consumers are not interested in counting animal deaths, and
couldn't if they wanted to.
Collateral deaths is a valid argument against a lot of vegetarian propaganda
and mistaken thinking, it's not something most consumers need to bother
with.
>
>>Some meat eaters could care less about anything but themselves, while
>>some vegans are making an effort to harm less even if they end up
>>harming more than they thought. Are you saying that both attitudes
>>towards life and earth are equal in every way? What about a vegan who
>>don't care about nothin and a meat ass eater who is concerned about
>>the environment? Are there attitudes that same also?
>
> There are people who don't care enough to think things
> through in both groups, but my feeling is that meat consumers how
> are honest about not caring enough to think about it, are
> slightly better than veg*ns who claim that they do but make it
> clear that in reality they do not.
Bullshit, vegans care, they are, generally speaking and conveniently, just
not thinking about all the consequences of their lifestyles.
>>So your prescription is to add some meat to the vegan soup and just
>>give up because the worlds going to hell so we might as well fiddle
>>while it burns, right?
>
> I'm in favor of providing lives
Humans don't "provide lives" to animals. Humans arrange animals in barns and
manipulate their breeding to take advantage of that ability.
There's no "God points" earned for artificial insemination.
> of positive value and humane
> deaths for the billions of animals humans raise for food, which
> is completely different than the objective of forced veganism and
> would produce completely different results.
"Forced" veganism? Would that have a different result than voluntary
veganism?
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:q9qtc6hmr7sg9v7cr...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>> <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Well a "vegan soup story" is cool to. So if your saying that meat
>>>eatin' kills and vegetable eatin' are killin' too, then all of them is
>>>guilty and can say nothing about how good or bad some behavior is when
>>>performed in the environment, right?
>>
>> Sometimes consuming animal products involves fewer animals
>> deaths than consuming vegetable products, which is a fact that
>> conscientious consumers should always keep in mind.
>
>Why?
Only someone who is not a conscientious consumer of animal
products would be unable to comprehend.
>Most consumers are not interested in counting animal deaths, and
>couldn't if they wanted to.
>
>Collateral deaths is a valid argument against a lot of vegetarian propaganda
>and mistaken thinking, it's not something most consumers need to bother
>with.
>
>>
>>>Some meat eaters could care less about anything but themselves, while
>>>some vegans are making an effort to harm less even if they end up
>>>harming more than they thought. Are you saying that both attitudes
>>>towards life and earth are equal in every way? What about a vegan who
>>>don't care about nothin and a meat ass eater who is concerned about
>>>the environment? Are there attitudes that same also?
>>
>> There are people who don't care enough to think things
>> through in both groups, but my feeling is that meat consumers how
>> are honest about not caring enough to think about it, are
>> slightly better than veg*ns who claim that they do but make it
>> clear that in reality they do not.
>
>Bullshit, vegans care, they are, generally speaking and conveniently, just
>not thinking about all the consequences of their lifestyles.
Which backs up my point that they don't realy care.
>>>So your prescription is to add some meat to the vegan soup and just
>>>give up because the worlds going to hell so we might as well fiddle
>>>while it burns, right?
>>
>> I'm in favor of providing lives
>
>Humans don't "provide lives" to animals. Humans arrange animals in barns and
>manipulate their breeding
And often provide the offspring with lives of positive value,
as I keep reminding you and you people hate thinking about.
>to take advantage of that ability.
>
>There's no "God points" earned for artificial insemination.
>
>> of positive value and humane
>> deaths for the billions of animals humans raise for food, which
>> is completely different than the objective of forced veganism and
>> would produce completely different results.
>
>"Forced" veganism? Would that have a different result than voluntary
>veganism?
It would produce a different result than deliberately
providing lives of positive value for billions of animals raised
for food. Many animals raised for food already have decent lives
of positive value, though of course you people hate to see the
fact pointed out.
M Purcell
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:54:26 +0100, "Tronscend"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> >"Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> provided with rights.... It would change all farming and logging
> practices, all electrical generation and power transmition.
> Certainly the clearing of land and construction of roads and
> buildings. The added cost of safely capturing and relocating all
> animals that would be killed or devestated by the procedures
> would impact all of society, and society as we know it could no
> longer exist. No doubt such idiocy would also make any country
> that adopted it extremely weak. Then moving on to consider that
> at the same time things are going to hell because of increased
> cost and greatly increased periods of time required to find,
> catch are relocate all the animals (which btw doesn't begin to
> really adddress the impact they would have on the rights of
> similar types of creatures who are already residing in the areas
> they are relocated to), we would also be giving rights to rodents
> and possibly insects who would all become very much more of a
> threat to all of our wellbeings in our homes and also of course
> to our already greatly reduced food suply. It doesn't take long
> to understand that providing rights to animals would destroy
> society as we know it, so why is it that some people don't seem
> to ever be able to figure it out?
No need to imagine:
M Purcell
I'm reminded of "One Tiin Soldier".
M Purcell
Sorry, one too many "i"'s. It's just that sometimes it doesn't work.
dh
There is need to imagine what I mentioned since it's not
happening yet and probably never will.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:l741d69fab0o4mbol...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:50:15 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:q9qtc6hmr7sg9v7cr...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>> <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Well a "vegan soup story" is cool to. So if your saying that meat
>>>>eatin' kills and vegetable eatin' are killin' too, then all of them is
>>>>guilty and can say nothing about how good or bad some behavior is when
>>>>performed in the environment, right?
>>>
>>> Sometimes consuming animal products involves fewer animals
>>> deaths than consuming vegetable products, which is a fact that
>>> conscientious consumers should always keep in mind.
>>
>>Why?
>
> Only someone who is not a conscientious consumer of animal
> products would be unable to comprehend.
Nonsense, nobody can *count* the animal deaths behind their food.
>>Most consumers are not interested in counting animal deaths, and
>>couldn't if they wanted to.
>>
>>Collateral deaths is a valid argument against a lot of vegetarian
>>propaganda
>>and mistaken thinking, it's not something most consumers need to bother
>>with.
>>
>>>
>>>>Some meat eaters could care less about anything but themselves, while
>>>>some vegans are making an effort to harm less even if they end up
>>>>harming more than they thought. Are you saying that both attitudes
>>>>towards life and earth are equal in every way? What about a vegan who
>>>>don't care about nothin and a meat ass eater who is concerned about
>>>>the environment? Are there attitudes that same also?
>>>
>>> There are people who don't care enough to think things
>>> through in both groups, but my feeling is that meat consumers how
>>> are honest about not caring enough to think about it, are
>>> slightly better than veg*ns who claim that they do but make it
>>> clear that in reality they do not.
>>
>>Bullshit, vegans care, they are, generally speaking and conveniently, just
>>not thinking about all the consequences of their lifestyles.
>
> Which backs up my point that they don't realy care.
No it doesn't. They care, they're just not considering cds.
>>>>So your prescription is to add some meat to the vegan soup and just
>>>>give up because the worlds going to hell so we might as well fiddle
>>>>while it burns, right?
>>>
>>> I'm in favor of providing lives
>>
>>Humans don't "provide lives" to animals. Humans arrange animals in barns
>>and
>>manipulate their breeding
>
> And often provide the offspring with lives of positive value,
> as I keep reminding you and you people hate thinking about.
I don't mind thinking about it within a discussion of AW. Good treatment is
better than poor treatment.
>>to take advantage of that ability.
>>
>>There's no "God points" earned for artificial insemination.
>>
>>> of positive value and humane
>>> deaths for the billions of animals humans raise for food, which
>>> is completely different than the objective of forced veganism and
>>> would produce completely different results.
>>
>>"Forced" veganism? Would that have a different result than voluntary
>>veganism?
>
> It would produce a different result than deliberately
> providing lives of positive value for billions of animals raised
> for food. Many animals raised for food already have decent lives
> of positive value, though of course you people hate to see the
> fact pointed out.
I hate to see the fact used the way you do because its an irrational and
illegitimate argument against vegetarianism.
dh
>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:l741d69fab0o4mbol...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:50:15 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:q9qtc6hmr7sg9v7cr...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>>> <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Well a "vegan soup story" is cool to. So if your saying that meat
>>>>>eatin' kills and vegetable eatin' are killin' too, then all of them is
>>>>>guilty and can say nothing about how good or bad some behavior is when
>>>>>performed in the environment, right?
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes consuming animal products involves fewer animals
>>>> deaths than consuming vegetable products, which is a fact that
>>>> conscientious consumers should always keep in mind.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> Only someone who is not a conscientious consumer of animal
>> products would be unable to comprehend.
>
>Nonsense,
Only to someone who doesn't care. For example you don't care
that grass raised beef results in fewer deaths than tofu, because
that works against the misnomer. For another example: you don't
care that grass raised cow milk results in fewer deaths than rice
milk, because that also works against the misnomer.
>nobody can *count* the animal deaths behind their food.
You just refuse to acknowledge the significance because doing
so sometimes works against the misnomer.
>>>Most consumers are not interested in counting animal deaths, and
>>>couldn't if they wanted to.
>>>
>>>Collateral deaths is a valid argument against a lot of vegetarian
>>>propaganda
>>>and mistaken thinking, it's not something most consumers need to bother
>>>with.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Some meat eaters could care less about anything but themselves, while
>>>>>some vegans are making an effort to harm less even if they end up
>>>>>harming more than they thought. Are you saying that both attitudes
>>>>>towards life and earth are equal in every way? What about a vegan who
>>>>>don't care about nothin and a meat ass eater who is concerned about
>>>>>the environment? Are there attitudes that same also?
>>>>
>>>> There are people who don't care enough to think things
>>>> through in both groups, but my feeling is that meat consumers how
>>>> are honest about not caring enough to think about it, are
>>>> slightly better than veg*ns who claim that they do but make it
>>>> clear that in reality they do not.
>>>
>>>Bullshit, vegans care, they are, generally speaking and conveniently, just
>>>not thinking about all the consequences of their lifestyles.
>>
>> Which backs up my point that they don't realy care.
>
>No it doesn't.
That's a lie.
>They care, they're just not considering cds.
LOL!!! Because they don't realy care as I pointed out to
begin with and you lied about. You lied because the truth
displays one of the contemptable aspects of the misnomer, and you
people who try to support it.
>>>>>So your prescription is to add some meat to the vegan soup and just
>>>>>give up because the worlds going to hell so we might as well fiddle
>>>>>while it burns, right?
>>>>
>>>> I'm in favor of providing lives
>>>
>>>Humans don't "provide lives" to animals. Humans arrange animals in barns
>>>and
>>>manipulate their breeding
>>
>> And often provide the offspring with lives of positive value,
>> as I keep reminding you and you people hate thinking about.
>
>I don't mind thinking about it
That's the first I ever recall you saying anything like that
to me. I've seen you hint at it with other people and have a
couple of examples, but you have always opposed consideration of
it to me.
>within a discussion of AW. Good treatment is
>better than poor treatment.
>
>>>to take advantage of that ability.
>>>
>>>There's no "God points" earned for artificial insemination.
>>>
>>>> of positive value and humane
>>>> deaths for the billions of animals humans raise for food, which
>>>> is completely different than the objective of forced veganism and
>>>> would produce completely different results.
>>>
>>>"Forced" veganism? Would that have a different result than voluntary
>>>veganism?
>>
>> It would produce a different result than deliberately
>> providing lives of positive value for billions of animals raised
>> for food. Many animals raised for food already have decent lives
>> of positive value, though of course you people hate to see the
>> fact pointed out.
>
>I hate to see the fact used
You hate to see it pointed out because it works against what
you people want everyone else to believe.
>the way you do because its an irrational and
>illegitimate argument against vegetarianism.
You poor clueless fool. It's only an argument against
veg*nism to people who feel that decent lives for livestock are
as good or better than no lives at all. To people that believe no
lives for livestock are better than any life regardless of
quality, the things I point out should support it not work
against it. What I point out should only seem to be against
veg*nism to people who feel as I do, who of course also have no
reason to oppose it. So people who agree with me have no reason
to oppose it for the reason I just pointed out, and people who
disagree with me should still be proud of what I point out
because that's what they have chosen to put their faith in. But
instead you are opposed to what I point out because you're afraid
of things like:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch
Dutch
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 12:53:41 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>the way you do because its an irrational and
>>illegitimate argument against vegetarianism.
>
> You poor clueless fool. It's only an argument against
> veg*nism to people who feel that decent lives for livestock are
> as good or better than no lives at all.
That's an irrational argument, existence cannot be compared to never
existing. The trouble is that it takes more than a 75 IQ to understand why
and that leaves you out.