FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed)
Jonathan Ball
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
have correctly interpreted his writing. His beliefs
about animals, specifically his belief that animals
"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
*in and of itself*, is something that appears
frequently and with (believe it or not) clarity.
Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
usenet rantings over a three and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.
All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
Fuckwit's own.
Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:
*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Fuckwit - 09/04/1999
All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
Fuckwit - 04/20/2002
He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:
People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]
Fuckwit *claims*, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:
But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
Fuckwit - 08/20/1999
But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:
Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
[kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
about things. Even if it were that way, there
is really no reason for me to encourage life
for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
of kittens that could get to experience life
from a cat that I actually care about, and
kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
least for a little while.
Fuckwit - 09/23/1999
Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.
No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal - he is lying about it - and
as long as he continues to insist on presenting the
bogus, logically invalid choice that he does.
The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3F0F90EA...@whitehouse.not...
> Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
> has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
snip
~~jonnie~~ No one's interested in your cyber-stalking.
Nice tits!
Chad Michael Mallett
alone. It's not funny after 6 years of ragging on me and
my friends. You evil *&$@#&@ dad! YOU EVIL &$&@@$ head!!!
-chad-
Gerry
Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
compared to what?, nature, i would much rather be stunned and killed than
eaten alive by lions or nibbled by hyenas. Are vegans some kind of
messengers for god, stating what is moral and what is right? Imagine a vegan
buffallo trying to convince a pride of lions to chill out and eat veges. God
obviously 'wants us' to eat meat. Take away farming from humans and we are
hunter/ gatherers again. I think we have progressed from that. Nature isn't
equal, it certainly wouldn't be 'equal' to a deer getting ripped to shreds
by a jaguar. No animal cares for another species besides humans. Put a
gorilla and a dog in the same room and watch the bloodbath. At least humans
care for some animals such as our pets. Humans have been omnivores for
millions of years. Try surviving out in the wilderness without meat. I think
'fuckwit' is humerous and has a point. 'Whatever life they get they are
lucky to get it'....lol
Are vegans saying that prehistoric hunter/gatherers were wrong because they
hunted animals? perhaps they could have survived just off the gatherings.
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3F0F90EA...@whitehouse.not...
Derek
"Gerry" <gric...@karriweb.com.au> wrote in message news:3f1412fe$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
>
> Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
> compared to what?,
Compared to not having slaughter houses.
> nature, i would much rather be stunned and killed than
> eaten alive by lions or nibbled by hyenas. Are vegans some kind of
> messengers for god,
No, but further down the page it seems you're
assuming that position yourself.
> stating what is moral and what is right? Imagine a vegan
> buffallo trying to convince a pride of lions to chill out and eat veges. God
> obviously 'wants us' to eat meat.
There you are: a messenger from God. Are you
always such a hypocrite?
Derek
Have you seen the jaws on them mothers? Nibbled?
usual suspect
>>Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
>>compared to what?,
>
> Compared to not having slaughter houses.
Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>>nature, i would much rather be stunned and killed than
>>eaten alive by lions or nibbled by hyenas. Are vegans some kind of
>>messengers for god,
>
> No, but further down the page it seems you're
> assuming that position yourself.
Then why do YOU claim the high moral ground for your vegan/AR position?
>>stating what is moral and what is right? Imagine a vegan
>>buffallo trying to convince a pride of lions to chill out and eat veges. God
>>obviously 'wants us' to eat meat.
>
> There you are: a messenger from God. Are you
> always such a hypocrite?
*You* wrote the following statements of moral superiority (and we're
never going to let you forget):
Can anyone ever doubt the moral superiority of
vegans over meat eaters?
http://tinyurl.com/gjwl
and:
...[I]s there any point in listening to
the same old nonsense from the LOWER VALUES
of the anti AR bigots. [my emphasis]
http://tinyurl.com/gjwl
and:
...To the ones blessed with the ability
of believing eating meat as a *choice* is
bad, their morals are correct. The same could
be said with meat eaters, but then animal
lives are lost & for what; taste.
http://tinyurl.com/gkd0
Are *you* always a hypocrite, first of twits?
Jonathan Ball
> Dreck wrote:
>
>>> Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
>>> compared to what?,
>>
>>
>> Compared to not having slaughter houses.
>
>
> Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
> hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
rather than by large non-human predators, because he
feels the killing by humans is more humane. He
actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
I'm not kidding.
Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
Yes. That, and lying, are reflexive reactions with him.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3F144334...@whitehouse.not...
> usual suspect wrote:
> > Dreck wrote:
> >
> >>> Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
> >>> compared to what?,
> >>
> >>
> >> Compared to not having slaughter houses.
> >
> >
> > Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
> > hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>
> Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments.
So watch it, suspect.
> He feels it
> is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
> rather than by large non-human predators, because he
> feels the killing by humans is more humane. He
> actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
> as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
> I'm not kidding.
>
> Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>
Jon's warning you, so you'd better do as you're
told and avoid that sort of talk round these ere
parts. Anyone might think you believe animals
can feel sorry for themselves, or that they ought
not be hunted down as prey. Careful.
usual suspect
>>> Compared to not having slaughter houses.
>>
>> Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>> hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not
>> cruel.
>
> Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it is "better" that
> wild animals be hunted by humans rather than by large non-human
> predators, because he feels the killing by humans is more humane. He
> actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad" as she "watched"
> her "baby" get devoured by wolves. I'm not kidding.
I'm not taking Harrison's position in this. I'm only going as far as
saying that slaughterhouses aren't the only "travesty" animals face. I'm
all for lions stalking and hunting -- makes for good tv on Discovery and
National Geographic.
> Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
Yeah.
>>> There you are: a messenger from God. Are you
>>> always such a hypocrite?
>>
>> *You* wrote the following statements of moral superiority (and we're
>> never going to let you forget):
>>
>> Can anyone ever doubt the moral superiority of
>> vegans over meat eaters?
>> http://tinyurl.com/gjwl
>>
>> and:
>>
>> ...[I]s there any point in listening to
>> the same old nonsense from the LOWER VALUES
>> of the anti AR bigots. [my emphasis]
>> http://tinyurl.com/gjwl
>>
>> and:
>>
>> ...To the ones blessed with the ability
>> of believing eating meat as a *choice* is
>> bad, their morals are correct. The same could
>> be said with meat eaters, but then animal
>> lives are lost & for what; taste.
>> http://tinyurl.com/gkd0
>>
>> Are *you* always a hypocrite, first of twits?
>
> Yes. That, and lying, are reflexive reactions with him.
I've noticed that.
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:3F144B01...@earth.man...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>> Compared to not having slaughter houses.
> >>
> >> Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
> >> hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not
> >> cruel.
> >
> > Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it is "better" that
> > wild animals be hunted by humans rather than by large non-human
> > predators, because he feels the killing by humans is more humane. He
> > actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad" as she "watched"
> > her "baby" get devoured by wolves. I'm not kidding.
>
> I'm not taking Harrison's position in this.
There's a good little water boy.
> I'm only going as far as
> saying that slaughterhouses aren't the only "travesty" animals face.
Stop begging and get off your knees.
> I'm
> all for lions stalking and hunting -- makes for good tv on Discovery and
> National Geographic.
>
"Honest, Jon - I'm just as bloodthirsty as I should be,
really. I love watching what you like watching, honest
I do."
> > Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>
> Yeah.
>
Yeah. Phew! That was close.
usual suspect
>>I'm not taking Harrison's position in this.
>
> There's a good little water boy.
I've never taken Harrison's position, nor have I defended him the way
you did with Chive Mynde.
>>I'm only going as far as
>>saying that slaughterhouses aren't the only "travesty" animals face.
>
> Stop begging and get off your knees.
I neither begged nor got on my knees.
>>I'm
>>all for lions stalking and hunting -- makes for good tv on Discovery and
>>National Geographic.
>
> "Honest, Jon - I'm just as bloodthirsty as I should be,
> really. I love watching what you like watching, honest
> I do."
Unlike misanthropes like you and your little hare-brained friend Lesley,
I accept the role we and other animals play in nature. Ruminants are
food -- whether for our species or others. That's their main purpose in
an ecosystem: to convert plant matter into protein and to be eaten.
>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>
>>Yeah.
>
> Yeah. Phew! That was close.
You should careful lest you start agreeing again with your buddy Lotus,
whose anthropomorphisms range from the mildly amusing to the doubled
over in near-fatal laughter, and engaging in anthropomorphic projections
yourself:
I myself give these rights to any animal in
my presence. Why can I not feel aggressive
toward anyone who flouts these rights?
http://tinyurl.com/gkcj
dh...@nomail.com
Genesis 4
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
as an offering to the LORD.
4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
was very angry, and his face was downcast.
Genesis 9
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful
and increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth
and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along
the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into
your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,
I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Exodus 12
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of
your year.
3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this
month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each
household.
[...]
6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when
all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them
at twilight.
7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides
and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the
lambs.
8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire,
along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.
9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over
the fire-head, legs and inner parts.
[...]
14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you
shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance.
Leviticus 1
1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.
He said,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings an
offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either
the herd or the flock.
3 "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer
a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent
of Meeting so that it[1] will be acceptable to the LORD.
4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will
be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
wood on the fire.
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering
made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
Leviticus 12
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over,
she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a
year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for
a sin offering.
7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and
then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. " 'These are
the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl.
8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young
pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this
way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "
Deuteronomy 12
15 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your
towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were
gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your
God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean
may eat it.
Deuteronomy 14
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
goat,
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
that chews the cud.
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not
chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
carcasses.
9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has
fins and scales.
10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
for you it is unclean.
11 You may eat any clean bird.
12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14 any kind of raven,
15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
1 Kings 8
5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had
gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep
and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
[...]
63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the LORD:
twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand
sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the
temple of the LORD.
Mark 7
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing
that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and
then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
"clean.")
Mark 14
12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it
was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples
asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations
for you to eat the Passover?"
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city,
and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?'
(refer to Exodus 12 for details about the Passover food)
Luke 2
22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of
Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is
to be consecrated to the Lord" ),
24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law
of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."
Luke 24
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;
a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
John 21
4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples
did not realize that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they
answered.
6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will
find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in
because of the large number of fish.
[...]
9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish
on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full
of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.
12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast."
Acts 10
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and
approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal
was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let
down to earth by its four corners.
12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles
of the earth and birds of the air.
13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything
impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure
that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back
to heaven.
Romans 14
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
disputable matters.
2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who
does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not
condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own
master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able
to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully
convinced in his own mind.
6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He
who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and
he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself
alone.
8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.
So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he
might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down
on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible
dh...@nomail.com
>
>Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
>compared to what?, nature, i would much rather be stunned and killed than
>eaten alive by lions or nibbled by hyenas. Are vegans some kind of
>messengers for god, stating what is moral and what is right? Imagine a vegan
>buffallo trying to convince a pride of lions to chill out and eat veges. God
>obviously 'wants us' to eat meat. Take away farming from humans and we are
>hunter/ gatherers again. I think we have progressed from that. Nature isn't
>equal, it certainly wouldn't be 'equal' to a deer getting ripped to shreds
>by a jaguar.
If veg*ns want to eliminate death and suffering, they need to eliminate
life altogether. In many cases more suffering is involved in the production
of vegetables than in the production of meat. You don't see them giving
up the use of paper, or wood, or electricity, or roads, or buildings, etc...,
all of which cause death and suffering to animals. The only thing they
give up is what provides life for animals, not the things which simply kill
them. And even odder than that, when they talk about the meat industry
they refer to the animals being killed, but never want to discuss the lives
of those animals unless their lives are the worst examples.
>No animal cares for another species besides humans. Put a
>gorilla and a dog in the same room and watch the bloodbath. At least humans
>care for some animals such as our pets. Humans have been omnivores for
>millions of years. Try surviving out in the wilderness without meat. I think
>'fuckwit' is humerous and has a point. 'Whatever life they get they are
>lucky to get it'....lol
"Lucky" in the sense that every healthy sperm and egg that is produced
is a potential living thing, but only a *****very***** small percentage of them
actually become a living thing. But the Gonad, who parades a few of my
quotes around like a child with what he considers to be some great prize,
isn't capable of understanding such details. The egg or sperm which actually
become a living creature are very lucky in that respect, compared to the
incredibly larger number of them that don't. As for whether or not the individual
animals are lucky to live, here's something about that issue which I've been
posting since September of 1999:
· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.
Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing--that is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there is no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·
If you are willing to be realistic about all this,
please notice the contrast in quality of life for the birds
at:
http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/corporate/processes/images/ChickFeeders.gif
http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/corporate/info/images/Grower.gif
and:
http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/photos_egg.htm
dh...@nomail.com
>usual suspect wrote:
>> Dreck wrote:
>>
>>>> Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
>>>> compared to what?,
>>>
>>>
>>> Compared to not having slaughter houses.
>>
>>
>> Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>> hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>
>Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
>is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
>rather than by large non-human predators, because he
>feels the killing by humans is more humane.
Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
as human hunters Gonad. Tell us how it is better for animals
to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
hunted by humans who don't do those things. And tell us
what or who it is better for.
>He
>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>I'm not kidding.
>
>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
Gonad. How do you know they can't feel sadness? You
being a self recognized authority on the subject, have
so far only told us they can experience fear and anger.
Why is it the can be afraid, but not sad Gonad? What
makes you think being afraid might not make them sad
Gonad?
dh...@nomail.com
>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>> Compared to not having slaughter houses.
>>>
>>> Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>>> hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not
>>> cruel.
>>
>> Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it is "better" that
>> wild animals be hunted by humans rather than by large non-human
>> predators, because he feels the killing by humans is more humane. He
>> actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad" as she "watched"
>> her "baby" get devoured by wolves. I'm not kidding.
>
>I'm not taking Harrison's position in this. I'm only going as far as
>saying that slaughterhouses aren't the only "travesty" animals face. I'm
>all for lions stalking and hunting -- makes for good tv on Discovery and
>National Geographic.
>
>> Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>
>Yeah.
Well, now you're taking the Gonad's position. So maybe between
the two of you, you can tell us exactly which emotions animals are
capable of experiencing. It would appear by his use of quotes that
the Gonad doesn't believe a deer can be a mother, feel sad, watch
something, or have a baby. Are you agreeing with him about that?
usual suspect
>>>Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>>>hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>>
>>Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
>>is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
>>rather than by large non-human predators, because he
>>feels the killing by humans is more humane.
>
> Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
> as human hunters Gonad. Tell us how it is better for animals
> to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
> live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
> pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
> hunted by humans who don't do those things.
It's what animals do, Davey. As I stated in another post, ruminants like
deer and cattle are meant to be eaten. Predation of them is normal,
whether it's by wolves, mountain lions, or humans. Animals are not even
safe from predation in zoos, as we learned a couple weeks ago at the
National Zoo in Washington, DC.
> And tell us
> what or who it is better for.
Predators and their young.
>>He
>>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>>I'm not kidding.
>>
>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>
> Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
> Gonad. How do you know they can't feel sadness? You
> being a self recognized authority on the subject, have
> so far only told us they can experience fear and anger.
> Why is it the can be afraid, but not sad Gonad? What
> makes you think being afraid might not make them sad
> Gonad?
Animals, including predators, are capable of experiencing hunger if they
don't find ruminants and other prey. I suppose it's possible they feel
some sadness when they're hungry, though they usually expand their
normal range until they find something to eat. As for as a general
melancholy, I think that IS an anthropomorphism on your part. Animals
seek food, sex, and territory. Whatever emotions they do actually have
are likely related to those issues since their well-being is entirely
dependent on them 24/7.
(consider this my response to your reply to mine)
usual suspect
>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>
>>Yeah.
>
> Well, now you're taking the Gonad's position. So maybe between
> the two of you, you can tell us exactly which emotions animals are
> capable of experiencing. It would appear by his use of quotes that
> the Gonad doesn't believe a deer can be a mother, feel sad, watch
> something, or have a baby. Are you agreeing with him about that?
I've not read in his posts where he believes a doe cannot be a mother,
watch something, or (redundant?!) have a fawn. I'd disagree with him if
that were his position. I addressed your other point(s) already.
Jonathan Ball
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:04:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
>>>>>compared to what?,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Compared to not having slaughter houses.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>>>hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>>
>>Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
>>is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
>>rather than by large non-human predators, because he
>>feels the killing by humans is more humane.
>
>
> Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
> as human hunters Gonad.
Why should anyone care if they are or aren't, Fuckwit,
you stupid fuck?
> Tell us how it is better for animals
> to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
> live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
> pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
> hunted by humans who don't do those things.
Tell us how it is worse, and how you know, and why
anyone cares, Fuckwit, you stupid fat fuck.
> And tell us
> what or who it is better for.
No, you try it.
>
>
>>He
>>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>>I'm not kidding.
>>
>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>
>
> Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
> Gonad.
I already have.
> How do you know they can't feel sadness?
What makes you think they can?
> You
> being a self recognized authority on the subject, have
> so far only told us they can experience fear and anger.
They do. Do you think they don't?
> Why is it the can be afraid, but not sad Gonad? What
> makes you think being afraid might not make them sad
> Gonad?
What makes you think it would?
Jonathan Ball
A "mother deer" doesn't "watch" as her "baby" is torn
apart by wolves. You are projecting, stupidly and
childishly.
dh...@nomail.com
>Davey wrote:
>>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>>
>>>Yeah.
>>
>> Well, now you're taking the Gonad's position. So maybe between
>> the two of you, you can tell us exactly which emotions animals are
>> capable of experiencing. It would appear by his use of quotes that
>> the Gonad doesn't believe a deer can be a mother, feel sad, watch
>> something, or have a baby. Are you agreeing with him about that?
>
>I've not read in his posts where he believes a doe cannot be a mother,
>watch something, or (redundant?!) have a fawn.
He put those things in quotes because he doesn't believe they
can.
>I'd disagree with him if
>that were his position.
It is his position. You are not likely to admit it though, and
he is more than likely to lie about everything.
>I addressed your other point(s) already.
You agreed with Gonad that it's an anthropomorphic projection
to believe a doe can feel sadness over the loss of her offspring.
dh...@nomail.com
>Davey wrote:
>>>>Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>>>>hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>>>
>>>Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
>>>is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
>>>rather than by large non-human predators, because he
>>>feels the killing by humans is more humane.
>>
>> Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
>> as human hunters Gonad. Tell us how it is better for animals
>> to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
>> live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
>> pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
>> hunted by humans who don't do those things.
>
>It's what animals do, Davey. As I stated in another post, ruminants like
>deer and cattle are meant to be eaten.
"Meant" to be eaten? Meant by what?
>Predation of them is normal,
>whether it's by wolves, mountain lions, or humans.
Agreed. But the Gonad/"ARAs" want people to believe that I'm
wrong in pointing out that the killing by humans is more humane
than the killing of non-human predators. But they can't explain
why. Can you explain how the killing of any non-human predator
could be considered "humane"?
_________________________________________________________
One entry found for humane.
Main Entry: hu·mane <http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif>
Pronunciation: hyü-'mAn, yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain
Date: circa 1500
1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Animals are not even
>safe from predation in zoos, as we learned a couple weeks ago at the
>National Zoo in Washington, DC.
I'm sure animals are often killed in zoos. What happened in the
case you're referring to?
>> And tell us
>> what or who it is better for.
>
>Predators and their young.
That would depend on the quality of their lives.
>>>He
>>>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>>>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>>>I'm not kidding.
>>>
>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>
>> Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
>> Gonad. How do you know they can't feel sadness? You
>> being a self recognized authority on the subject, have
>> so far only told us they can experience fear and anger.
>> Why is it the can be afraid, but not sad Gonad? What
>> makes you think being afraid might not make them sad
>> Gonad?
>
>Animals, including predators, are capable of experiencing hunger if they
>don't find ruminants and other prey. I suppose it's possible they feel
>some sadness when they're hungry,
Only when they're hungry? If you believe it's possible for them to feel
it do to other reasons as well, do you feel that loss of their offspring
is not one of them?
>though they usually expand their
>normal range until they find something to eat. As for as a general
>melancholy, I think that IS an anthropomorphism on your part.
Please present an example of me saying they experience a
general melancholy.
>Animals
>seek food, sex, and territory. Whatever emotions they do actually have
>are likely related to those issues since their well-being is entirely
>dependent on them 24/7.
Well, that doesn't answer the question, and certainly doesn't
cause reason to believe the Gonad is correct in "thinking"
animals can't experience sadness when they lose their offspring.
Which emotions are animals capable of experiencing, and
under which conditions are the emotions triggered?
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:04:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>>>>>Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
>>>>>>compared to what?,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Compared to not having slaughter houses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>>>>hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>>>
>>>Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
>>>is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
>>>rather than by large non-human predators, because he
>>>feels the killing by humans is more humane.
>>
>>
>> Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
>> as human hunters Gonad.
>
>Why should anyone care if they are or aren't, Fuckwit,
>you stupid fuck?
Because some people consider whether or not human
hunting is ethical Gonad, you moron. But you are too
stupid to understand that apparently, since you were too
stupid to figure it out for yourself, and you still can't understand
it even now. You just sit there with drool running down your
chin, getting all over your hands and keyboard, stupidly wondering
why anyone would care if human hunting is better or worse for
prey animals than non-human hunting, but never being able to
figure it out. At least that's what you *want* people to believe.
But in reality you are a dishonest "ARA" playing the part of a
lying, stupid, inconsiderate "AR" opponent (and playing the
opponent part very badly btw, but you have the other parts
down extremely well), and you want to reinforce the false belief
that human hunting is as hard on prey animals as non-human
predators, starvation, and disease.
_________________________________________________________
"Without hunting, deer and other animals would overpopulate and die of
starvation."
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature's way of ensuring that the
strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing only the
sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or any animal
whose head they think would look good mounted above the fireplace-often the
large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. And hunting creates
the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop in
population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate.
http://www.peta-online.org/fp/hunt.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Tell us how it is better for animals
>> to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
>> live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
>> pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
>> hunted by humans who don't do those things.
>
>Tell us how it is worse, and how you know, and why
>anyone cares, Fuckwit, you stupid fat fuck.
>
>> And tell us
>> what or who it is better for.
>
>No, you try it.
>
>>
>>
>>>He
>>>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>>>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>>>I'm not kidding.
>>>
>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>
>>
>> Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
>> Gonad.
>
>I already have.
No dumbass, you have only said that you have. You
never have, and never will. You have less of an idea than
most people about the subject because you not only don't
care, but you can't even understand why anyone would
care.
>> How do you know they can't feel sadness?
>
>What makes you think they can?
Their behavior.
>> You
>> being a self recognized authority on the subject, have
>> so far only told us they can experience fear and anger.
>
>They do.
Is that all Gonad, or are there others? As long as you're
(NOT!!!) going to tell us which emotions animals are capable,
why not go on and act like someone who has a brain, and
tell us *which* animals are capable of *which* emotions
(damn, you're really lost now Gonad!!!). Unless you stupidly
believe that all animals are capable of experiencing the
exact same emotions, which I'm quite certain you are stupid
enough to believe.
>Do you think they don't?
>
>> Why is it the can be afraid, but not sad Gonad? What
>> makes you think being afraid might not make them sad
>> Gonad?
>
>What makes you think it would?
Because it's an unpleasant emotion you stupid ass,
but you're far too stupid to understand even that.
Derek
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:m309hvg222tk9p7du...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:56:35 +0100, "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gerry" <gric...@karriweb.com.au> wrote in message news:3f1412fe$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
> >>
> >> Vegetarians blindly ramble about slaughterhouses being cruel...cruel
> >> compared to what?,
> >
> >Compared to not having slaughter houses.
> >
> >> nature, i would much rather be stunned and killed than
> >> eaten alive by lions or nibbled by hyenas. Are vegans some kind of
> >> messengers for god,
> >
> >No, but further down the page it seems you're
> >assuming that position yourself.
> >
> >> stating what is moral and what is right? Imagine a vegan
> >> buffallo trying to convince a pride of lions to chill out and eat veges. God
> >> obviously 'wants us' to eat meat.
> >
> >There you are: a messenger from God.
>
Do you believe a God of some description
wants us to eat animals, Dave?
usual suspect
>>I've not read in his posts where he believes a doe cannot be a mother,
>>watch something, or (redundant?!) have a fawn.
>
> He put those things in quotes because he doesn't believe they
> can.
Food. Sex. Territory. That's it, Davey. Animals aren't interested in
much else, unless conditioned (e.g., a dog or dolphin that does tricks
for human handlers/masters).
>>I'd disagree with him if
>>that were his position.
>
> It is his position. You are not likely to admit it though, and
> he is more than likely to lie about everything.
I agree with what he said about a doe not watching as her fawn is torn
apart and eaten by wolves or mountain lions. At the first presence of
danger, a doe will flee. The fawn will try to keep up. Sometimes they
make it, sometimes they turn into food for predators. That's nature for
ya. Seems that the deer have a better grasp on it than you do.
>>I addressed your other point(s) already.
>
> You agreed with Gonad that it's an anthropomorphic projection
> to believe a doe can feel sadness over the loss of her offspring.
At the first presence of danger, a doe takes off; the fawn's survival
instinct is to follow its mother, but it's usually not fast enough to
keep up (which is why fawns get eaten more often than adults). The doe
is too busy trying to survive. The doe doesn't watch.
You suggest does experience depression when their young are eaten. Do
does go through post partum depression like human mothers do? Do they
have bad hair days?
usual suspect
>>It's what animals do, Davey. As I stated in another post, ruminants like
>>deer and cattle are meant to be eaten.
>
> "Meant" to be eaten? Meant by what?
Nature. God. It's the natural order of things. Leave a ruminant in a
cage with a lion and see how long you have two animals.
>>Predation of them is normal,
>>whether it's by wolves, mountain lions, or humans.
>
> Agreed. But the Gonad/"ARAs" want people to believe that I'm
> wrong in pointing out that the killing by humans is more humane
> than the killing of non-human predators. But they can't explain
> why. Can you explain how the killing of any non-human predator
> could be considered "humane"?
Wrong? Don't know about that. I *do* think your position is silly. Some
of the more sensitive AR-types say there's nothing humane about killing
an animal if a human does it. I happen to think it's natural. My point
in mentioning that slaughterhouses are more humane than lions or tigers
was to disabuse the notion of Dreck and others that humans are the worst
cuplrits and threats to other species.
> _________________________________________________________
> One entry found for humane.
> Main Entry: hu·mane <http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif>
> Pronunciation: hyü-'mAn, yü-
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English humain
> Date: circa 1500
> 1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
> 2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>>Animals are not even
>>safe from predation in zoos, as we learned a couple weeks ago at the
>>National Zoo in Washington, DC.
>
> I'm sure animals are often killed in zoos. What happened in the
> case you're referring to?
A bald eagle was killed by a red fox.
>>>And tell us
>>>what or who it is better for.
>>
>>Predators and their young.
>
> That would depend on the quality of their lives.
Who's the judge of the quality of animal lives?
>>Animals, including predators, are capable of experiencing hunger if they
>>don't find ruminants and other prey. I suppose it's possible they feel
>>some sadness when they're hungry,
>
> Only when they're hungry? If you believe it's possible for them to feel
> it do to other reasons as well, do you feel that loss of their offspring
> is not one of them?
Maybe temporarily -- measured in minutes or hours rather than weeks. If
you've ever had a pet or livestock give birth you'd understand that any
"grief" experienced by the loss of an offspring is quickly forgotten.
Many dogs and cats are quite happy to be rid of their offspring once
they're weaned. They don't care what kind of homes they're sent off to,
they just want the added competition out of their territory.
>>though they usually expand their
>>normal range until they find something to eat. As for as a general
>>melancholy, I think that IS an anthropomorphism on your part.
>
> Please present an example of me saying they experience a
> general melancholy.
Your doe watching her fawn die and losing sleep over it. (They don't.)
>>Animals
>>seek food, sex, and territory. Whatever emotions they do actually have
>>are likely related to those issues since their well-being is entirely
>>dependent on them 24/7.
>
> Well, that doesn't answer the question, and certainly doesn't
> cause reason to believe the Gonad is correct in "thinking"
> animals can't experience sadness when they lose their offspring.
It does answer the question. Have you seen support groups for parents of
preyed upon fawns?
> Which emotions are animals capable of experiencing, and
> under which conditions are the emotions triggered?
Food, sex, territory = happy.
Danger = fear (and fear = flight).
Jonathan Ball
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:27:40 GMT, usual suspect <above...@earth.man> wrote:
>
>
>>Davey wrote:
>>
>>>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>>>
>>>>Yeah.
>>>
>>> Well, now you're taking the Gonad's position. So maybe between
>>>the two of you, you can tell us exactly which emotions animals are
>>>capable of experiencing. It would appear by his use of quotes that
>>>the Gonad doesn't believe a deer can be a mother, feel sad, watch
>>>something, or have a baby. Are you agreeing with him about that?
>>
>>I've not read in his posts where he believes a doe cannot be a mother,
>>watch something, or (redundant?!) have a fawn.
>
>
> He put those things in quotes because he doesn't believe they
> can.
I put those things in quote, Fuckwit, you stupid fat
fuck, because you mean them in an anthropomorphic way,
and some of them don't happen at all. A fawn does not
think of "mommy", and it does not celebrate Mother's
Day. A doe does not "watch" her fawn get devoured by
wolves. She probably doesn't even *see* it, let alone
"watch" it; she runs away. A doe does not feel "sad"
about anything, ever. A doe does not have a "baby",
and think "This is my baby; he might grow up to be
President." A doe gives birth to a fawn, and doesn't
*think* about it at all.
>
>
>>I'd disagree with him if
>>that were his position.
>
>
> It is his position.
Nope. He knows what my posiiton is, and what your
fuckwitted, anthropomorphic, all-but-"ar" position is.
> You are not likely to admit it though, and
> he is more than likely to lie about everything.
I have never lied here.
>
>
>>I addressed your other point(s) already.
>
>
> You agreed with Gonad that it's an anthropomorphic projection
> to believe a doe can feel sadness over the loss of her offspring.
Yes, he probably does. He and I are right. You are wrong.
Jonathan Ball
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:25:40 GMT, usual suspect <above...@earth.man> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
>>>>is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
>>>>rather than by large non-human predators, because he
>>>>feels the killing by humans is more humane.
>>>
>>> Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
>>>as human hunters Gonad. Tell us how it is better for animals
>>>to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
>>>live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
>>>pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
>>>hunted by humans who don't do those things.
>>
>>It's what animals do, Davey. As I stated in another post, ruminants like
>>deer and cattle are meant to be eaten.
>
>
> "Meant" to be eaten? Meant by what?
It's a figure of speech, Fuckwit. You're too fucking
literal.
>
>
>>Predation of them is normal,
>>whether it's by wolves, mountain lions, or humans.
>
>
> Agreed. But the Gonad/"ARAs" want people to believe that I'm
> wrong in pointing out that the killing by humans is more humane
> than the killing of non-human predators.
No, I mean to point out that it is meaningless, and
does not make it "better" for the animals to be killed
by us rather than by non-human predators. It *isn't*
better; it can't be.
> But they can't explain
> why. Can you explain how the killing of any non-human predator
> could be considered "humane"?
Not a germane issue.
>>Animals are not even
>>safe from predation in zoos, as we learned a couple weeks ago at the
>>National Zoo in Washington, DC.
>
>
> I'm sure animals are often killed in zoos. What happened in the
> case you're referring to?
A bald eagle was killed by something, presumed to be a
bobcat. If you weren't such a dumb fucking illiterate
and read the newspapers, you'd know that already.
>
>
>>>And tell us
>>>what or who it is better for.
>>
>>Predators and their young.
>
>
> That would depend on the quality of their lives.
Nope.
>
>
>>>>He
>>>>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>>>>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>>>>I'm not kidding.
>>>>
>>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>>
>>> Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
>>>Gonad. How do you know they can't feel sadness? You
>>>being a self recognized authority on the subject, have
>>>so far only told us they can experience fear and anger.
>>>Why is it the can be afraid, but not sad Gonad? What
>>>makes you think being afraid might not make them sad
>>>Gonad?
>>
>>Animals, including predators, are capable of experiencing hunger if they
>>don't find ruminants and other prey. I suppose it's possible they feel
>>some sadness when they're hungry,
>
>
> Only when they're hungry? If you believe it's possible for them to feel
> it do to other reasons as well, do you feel that loss of their offspring
> is not one of them?
It is not.
>
>
>>though they usually expand their
>>normal range until they find something to eat. As for as a general
>>melancholy, I think that IS an anthropomorphism on your part.
>
>
> Please present an example of me saying they experience a
> general melancholy.
When you say they feel "sad".
>
>
>>Animals
>>seek food, sex, and territory. Whatever emotions they do actually have
>>are likely related to those issues since their well-being is entirely
>>dependent on them 24/7.
>
>
> Well, that doesn't answer the question, and certainly doesn't
> cause reason to believe the Gonad is correct in "thinking"
> animals can't experience sadness when they lose their offspring.
What evidence do you have that they do? Oh, right, now
I remember: you have NO evidence that they do.
Jonathan Ball
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:48:23 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>>>>>hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>>>>
>>>>Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
>>>>is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
>>>>rather than by large non-human predators, because he
>>>>feels the killing by humans is more humane.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
>>>as human hunters Gonad.
>>
>>Why should anyone care if they are or aren't, Fuckwit,
>>you stupid fuck?
>
>
> Because some people consider whether or not human
> hunting is ethical Gonad, you moron.
Nope. I consider huma hunting to be perfectly ethical,
Fuckwit, but I don't care that non-human predators are
not "humane". In fact, I strongly suspect that NO ONE
who finds human hunting to be ethical does so on the
grounds that it is "more" humane than non-human predation.
> But you are too stupid to understand that
There is nothing to understand, as usual. You have, as
usual, cooked up a bogus issue.
> apparently, since you were too
> stupid to figure it out for yourself, and you still can't understand
> it even now.
I figure out everything for myself, Fuckwit, including
vast areas of human knowledge and philosophy that you
could never understand. I am smarter, more insightful,
more intelligent than you. In fact, I am your
intellectual superior in every conceivable dimension.
There is nothing you understand that I do not, and
there are vast areas I understand that you do not.
> You just sit there with drool running down your
> chin, getting all over your hands and keyboard,
Funny, Fuckwit; I've had professionals scour my office
space for cameras and electronic eavesdropping
equipment, and there is none. You couldn't possibly
know that I "drool", and in fact I never do.
> stupidly wondering
> why anyone would care if human hunting is better or worse for
> prey animals than non-human hunting, but never being able to
> figure it out.
There's nothing to figure out, Fuckwit. No one opposes
human hunting on the grounds that human hunting is
inhumane, *while* non-human predation is humane. It's
something else that causes "aras" to oppose human
hunting, Fuckwit: something you'll never get.
I do not oppose human hunting, Fuckwit. In fact, I
strongly support it.
> At least that's what you *want* people to believe.
No.
> But in reality you are a dishonest "ARA"
I am not *any* kind of "ara", Fuckwit, as you have
always known and continue to know.
>>>Tell us how it is better for animals
>>>to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
>>>live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
>>>pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
>>>hunted by humans who don't do those things.
>>
>>Tell us how it is worse, and how you know, and why
>>anyone cares, Fuckwit, you stupid fat fuck.
Come on, Fuckwit: tell us how and why non-human
predation is "worse" for animals than human hunting,
and how you know it, and why anyone ought to care.
"aras" do not oppose human hunting for the bogus reason
you pretend; it is just one more in a long list of
mischaracterizations you make.
>>
>>
>>>And tell us
>>>what or who it is better for.
>>
>>No, you try it.
Come on, Fuckwit: tell us what or who human hunting is
better for, and how you know it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>He
>>>>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>>>>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>>>>I'm not kidding.
>>>>
>>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
>>>Gonad.
>>
>>I already have.
>
>
> No dumbass, you have only said that you have.
Nope. I have.
>
>
>>>How do you know they can't feel sadness?
>>
>>What makes you think they can?
>
>
> Their behavior.
Nope, that's not it. You haven't observed their
behavior in any way that would allow you to reach that
conclusion.
>
>
>>>You
>>>being a self recognized authority on the subject, have
>>>so far only told us they can experience fear and anger.
>>
>>They do.
>
>
> Is that all Gonad, or are there others?
There could be a few other primitive ones; not many. I
know they do not feel "sadness" at the experience of
their young being killed by predators. I know they do
not feel empathy. I know they so not experience
Schadenfreude. I know they do not experience
"remarkable coincidence". I know they do not
experience regret. YOU imagine they experience these
things, but you are stupid and engage in
anthropomorphic projection, because you have a Disney
view of animals. Hmmm...isn't that what anti-"ar"
people often see in the "aras"? Why, yes, it is! YOU
are an "ara" at heart, Fuckwit. You think exactly as
the "aras" do, but you deviate from their conclusion
for irrational reasons.
>
>
>>Do you think they don't?
>>
>>
>>>Why is it the can be afraid, but not sad Gonad? What
>>>makes you think being afraid might not make them sad
>>>Gonad?
>>
>>What makes you think it would?
>
>
> Because it's an unpleasant emotion you stupid ass,
Non sequitur. "Unpleasant" does not necessarily lead
to "sadness". Try again, Fuckwit, you stupid redneck
fat fuck.
Jonathan Ball
> Davey wrote:
>
>>> I've not read in his posts where he believes a doe cannot be a
>>> mother, watch something, or (redundant?!) have a fawn.
>>
>>
>> He put those things in quotes because he doesn't believe they
>> can.
>
>
> Food. Sex. Territory. That's it, Davey. Animals aren't interested in
> much else, unless conditioned (e.g., a dog or dolphin that does tricks
> for human handlers/masters).
>
>>> I'd disagree with him if that were his position.
>>
>>
>> It is his position. You are not likely to admit it though, and he
>> is more than likely to lie about everything.
>
>
> I agree with what he said about a doe not watching as her fawn is torn
> apart and eaten by wolves or mountain lions. At the first presence of
> danger, a doe will flee. The fawn will try to keep up. Sometimes they
> make it, sometimes they turn into food for predators. That's nature for
> ya. Seems that the deer have a better grasp on it than you do.
A paramecium has a better grasp on it than Fuckwit.
>
>>> I addressed your other point(s) already.
>>
>>
>> You agreed with Gonad that it's an anthropomorphic projection
>> to believe a doe can feel sadness over the loss of her offspring.
>
>
> At the first presence of danger, a doe takes off; the fawn's survival
> instinct is to follow its mother, but it's usually not fast enough to
> keep up (which is why fawns get eaten more often than adults). The doe
> is too busy trying to survive. The doe doesn't watch.
>
> You suggest does experience depression when their young are eaten. Do
> does go through post partum depression like human mothers do? Do they
> have bad hair days?
Fuckwit has never observed deer in the presence of
predators. He has no clue.
Laurie
> Genesis 9
> Exodus 12
> Leviticus 1
> Leviticus 12
> Deuteronomy 12
> Deuteronomy 14
> 1 Kings 8
> Mark 7
> Mark 14
> Luke 2
> Luke 24
> John 21
> Acts 10
> Romans 14
> http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible
Consistent with your ongoing, humorous, and annoying habit of
intentionally distorting the facts to support your mindless cowboy
philosophy, and recognizing that the Bible is certainly not a
scientifically-credible nutritional text, and that it was written by
nutritionally-ignorant humans, and edited by a military dictator several
hundreds of years ago, I find it insightful and consistent with your
continuing dishonest machinations that you INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT the FIRST
dictum for human and animal diets in the Bible.
Gen 1: 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They
will be yours for food.
Gen 1: 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the
air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the
breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Laurie
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:2409hv8uv6bck5oui...@4ax.com...
> In many cases more suffering is involved in the production
> of vegetables than in the production of meat.
scientifically-credible research, yet you can NOT do so. An HONEST person
would have stopped making this unsupportable claim long ago. Yet you refuse
to recognize your responsibility to support your claims made in public.
HINT: this is called intellectual integrity.
> You don't see them giving up the use of paper, or wood, or
> electricity, or roads, or buildings, etc...,
The Vegan Society defines vegan as: "Vegans, like other vegetarians, do
not eat the bodies of animals. In addition, vegans do not consume milk, eggs
or honey. More broadly, veganism is a way of life which seeks to avoid
exploitation of or cruelty to animals for food, clothing or any other
purpose. Most vegans do not wear leather, wool or silk."
There are clear, practical limits to peoples' ability to "seek to"
control things quite beyond their control, like using paper, wood,
electricity, etc.. There is NO mandate for all vegans to eliminate that one
last molecule of animal damaged by their lifestyles as you want to impose on
them by your dictatorial rants; most do what they can, by the choices they
can make.
YOUR idiotic and continuing attempts to impose YOUR FALSE definition of
vegan on everyone else is symptomatic of your own severe psychopathology.
Let's see, YOU, a cowboy that has exploited animals for profit all your
life and who eats them, think you are in a position to dictate the
parameters of a vegan to people who are actually trying to make a
difference. You are as insane as noBalls, who, acting like the most
psychopathic buffoon on the internet, tries to give people lectures about
"morals".
> As for whether or not the individual
> animals are lucky to live, ...
"Lucky" to live a painful, drugged, totally-unnatural existence as a
genetically-manipulated mutant?
> · Because there are so many different situations
> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> way, as "ARAs" appear to do.
Well, then, it is just as "completely unfair" for YOU to try to impose
YOUR FALSE standards of what a vegan is on "them all in the same
way", isn't it? Your double standards and conceptual schizophrenia are
glaringly apparent and always amusing.
Laurie
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:0809hv0tip3c75hu3...@4ax.com...
> Tell us how it is better for animals
> to be hunted night and day, ...
Since lions sleep "over 12 hours per day", they are really not hunting
"night and day".
http://canis.tamu.edu/wfscCourses/Examples/kat.html
> year round, by predators who
> live in the area with them all of the time, ...
Simple, it is called symbiosis, and current ecological theory points out
that such predator/prey relationships are beneficial to BOTH species, since
the genetically weak individuals are eaten, unlike domestic animals that are
made into genetic freaks intentionally for profit. Thus, carnivores keep
the gene pool of the prey species healthy by eating the weak, slow, and
unfit.
Predators kill and consume a small percentage of the prey species, thus
keeping it healthy; humans kill and consume 100% of the victim species. So,
it IS "better" for a prey species to be hunted by natural predators than to
be raised specifically for 100% slaughter by humans, since the natural prey
species continues to exist and evolve.
Try reading a book for a change.
> and who attack pregnant females ...
Pregnant females, dairy cows, are constantly abused by humans by their
very unnatural existence, drugging, and genetic manipulation.
> and very young animals, ...
Veal?
Laurie
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:2us9hvga4fc0gos2s...@4ax.com...
> Gonad, ... playing the part of a ... lying, stupid, inconsiderate ...
That's not "playing"; it is all too real!!
Laurie
voice of reason
>
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote
> > In many cases more suffering is involved in the production
> > of vegetables than in the production of meat.
> You have been challenged for SEVERAL YEARS to support this claim with
> scientifically-credible research, yet you can NOT do so. An HONEST person
> would have stopped making this unsupportable claim long ago. Yet you
refuse
> to recognize your responsibility to support your claims made in public.
> HINT: this is called intellectual integrity.
There is plenty of evidence that modern farming techniques involve killing
huge numbers of animals, and it's clear that animal husbandry such as
depicted in "The Polyface Farm" involves no suffering of animals or
collateral deaths. This simple but true dichotomy puts to rest the vegan
illusions of moral superiority.
> > You don't see them giving up the use of paper, or wood, or
> > electricity, or roads, or buildings, etc...,
> The Vegan Society defines vegan as: "Vegans, like other vegetarians,
do
> not eat the bodies of animals. In addition, vegans do not consume milk,
eggs
> or honey. More broadly, veganism is a way of life which seeks to avoid
> exploitation of or cruelty to animals for food, clothing or any other
> purpose. Most vegans do not wear leather, wool or silk."
Vegans accept cruelty to animals in virtually every aspect of their lives.
They profess compassion towards a small subset of animals and with no moral
authority to do so, define that as a universal moral imperative.
> There are clear, practical limits to peoples' ability to "seek to"
> control things quite beyond their control, like using paper, wood,
> electricity, etc..
There is plenty of opportunity to try to limit the consumption of those
things, many people do, yet vegans do not, because to vegans only the
appearance of animal exploitation needs to be avoided.
> There is NO mandate for all vegans to eliminate that one
> last molecule of animal damaged by their lifestyles
The mandate is imposed by their sanctimonious and judgmental attitudes
toward those who take a different approach.
as you want to impose on
> them by your dictatorial rants;
Vegans ignore the vast majority of animals harmed to support their cosy
lifestyles.
> most do what they can, by the choices they
> can make.
Nonsense, they do what they find convenient, they do what does not interfere
unduly with their comfort and convenience. Yet they pose as if they were
nearly godlike in nature.
Besides, according to you, all ethics are meaningless subjective nonsense,
so why the fuss about harming animals? You seem to waffle badly on this one
issue.
> YOUR idiotic and continuing attempts to impose YOUR FALSE definition
of
> vegan on everyone else is symptomatic of your own severe psychopathology.
> Let's see, YOU, a cowboy that has exploited animals for profit all
your
> life and who eats them, think you are in a position to dictate the
> parameters of a vegan to people who are actually trying to make a
> difference. You are as insane as noBalls, who, acting like the most
> psychopathic buffoon on the internet, tries to give people lectures about
> "morals".
>
> > As for whether or not the individual
> > animals are lucky to live, ...
> "Lucky" to live a painful,
Livestock lives are not any more "painful" than any other.
> drugged,
hmmm, are drugs that painful?
>totally-unnatural existence as a
> genetically-manipulated mutant?
Is that painful?
> > · Because there are so many different situations
> > involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> > unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> > way, as "ARAs" appear to do.
> Well, then, it is just as "completely unfair" for YOU to try to impose
> YOUR FALSE standards of what a vegan is on "them all in the same
> way", isn't it? Your double standards and conceptual schizophrenia are
> glaringly apparent and always amusing.
He's trying to "turn the tables" on vegans, it's a pathetic, ill-advised
knee-jerk strategy.
voice of reason
> > to be hunted night and day, ...
> Since lions sleep "over 12 hours per day", they are really not hunting
> "night and day".
> http://canis.tamu.edu/wfscCourses/Examples/kat.html
It's an expression.
>
> > year round, by predators who
> > live in the area with them all of the time, ...
> Simple, it is called symbiosis, and current ecological theory points
out
> that such predator/prey relationships are beneficial to BOTH species,
since
> the genetically weak individuals are eaten, unlike domestic animals that
are
> made into genetic freaks intentionally for profit. Thus, carnivores keep
> the gene pool of the prey species healthy by eating the weak, slow, and
> unfit.
Why is it good for species to improve through natural predation but species
that improve due to selective breeding are freakish?
> Predators kill and consume a small percentage of the prey species,
thus
> keeping it healthy; humans kill and consume 100% of the victim species.
So,
> it IS "better" for a prey species to be hunted by natural predators than
to
> be raised specifically for 100% slaughter by humans, since the natural
prey
> species continues to exist and evolve.
So do domestic species.
> Try reading a book for a change.
It wouldn't help you.
mr_freedo...@integrity_z.net
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:0809hv0tip3c75hu3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>Tell us how it is better for animals
>>to be hunted night and day, ...
>
> Since lions sleep "over 12 hours per day", they are really not hunting
> "night and day".
> http://canis.tamu.edu/wfscCourses/Examples/kat.html
>
>
>>year round, by predators who
>>live in the area with them all of the time, ...
>
> Simple, it is called symbiosis, and current ecological theory points out
> that such predator/prey relationships are beneficial to BOTH species,
How could you make such an elementary, stupid mistake,
Larry? Fuckwit is not talking about the species; he's
talking about individual animals.
His observation has zero moral importance, but he is
nonetheless correct in observing that for individual
animals, non-human predation is generally much more
brutal. The species is not the relevant focus of
consideration. As usual, you make a fundamental error.
> since the genetically weak individuals are eaten,
False, Larry. It is the PHYSICALLY weak that are
eaten. That physical weakness may well be simply due
to youth; youth is not a genetic weakness, Larry. You
simply CANNOT get science right, Larry.
> unlike domestic animals that are
> made into genetic freaks intentionally for profit.
What do you have against profit, Larry?
> Thus, carnivores keep
> the gene pool of the prey species healthy by eating the weak, slow, and
> unfit.
In what way does an animal's youthfulness make it
genetically unfit, Larry?
> Predators kill and consume a small percentage of the prey species, thus
> keeping it healthy; humans kill and consume 100% of the victim species.
But we breed them for that, Larry.
Tell me, Larry: how many cattle are there in North
America, and how many head of elk? If reproduction is
THE biological imperative, Larry, which species is more
biologically successful, cattle or elk. The obvious
answer is "cattle", Larry.
You simply CANNOT do science, Larry.
> So,
> it IS "better" for a prey species to be hunted by natural predators than to
> be raised specifically for 100% slaughter by humans, since the natural prey
> species continues to exist and evolve.
You have it wrong. The domestic species exists in far
greater numbers, and they continue to evolve, and at a
FASTER pace than their wild counterparts.
> Try reading a book for a change.
You try it, Larry. It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS you have
never read ANYTHING about evolution and biological
fitness. You simply CANNOT do science, Larry.
>
>
>>and who attack pregnant females ...
>
> Pregnant females, dairy cows, are constantly abused by humans by their
> very unnatural existence, drugging, and genetic manipulation.
What does "abuse" mean, Larry? That word as you use it
is 100% invested with moral meaning, yet you fatuously
claim that morals are subjective, hence meaningless.
We always knew you were lying when you said that, Larry.
>
>
>>and very young animals, ...
>
> Veal?
>
> Larry
>
>
dh...@nomail.com
>I find it insightful and consistent with your
>continuing dishonest machinations that you INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT the FIRST
>dictum for human and animal diets in the Bible.
>
> Gen 1: 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
>face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They
>will be yours for food.
> Gen 1: 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the
>air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the
>breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
>
> Laurie
Genesis 9
dh...@nomail.com
>"Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote
>>
>> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>
>> > In many cases more suffering is involved in the production
>> > of vegetables than in the production of meat.
>
>> You have been challenged for SEVERAL YEARS to support this claim with
>> scientifically-credible research, yet you can NOT do so. An HONEST person
>> would have stopped making this unsupportable claim long ago. Yet you
>refuse
>> to recognize your responsibility to support your claims made in public.
>> HINT: this is called intellectual integrity.
>
>There is plenty of evidence that modern farming techniques involve killing
>huge numbers of animals, and it's clear that animal husbandry such as
>depicted in "The Polyface Farm" involves no suffering of animals or
>collateral deaths.
[...]
Thanks for mentioning the Polyface Farm. It's a welcome and very
unusual thing to learn about something good in these ngs.
dh...@nomail.com
>
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:2409hv8uv6bck5oui...@4ax.com...
>> In many cases more suffering is involved in the production
>> of vegetables than in the production of meat.
> You have been challenged for SEVERAL YEARS to support this claim with
>scientifically-credible research, yet you can NOT do so. An HONEST person
>would have stopped making this unsupportable claim long ago. Yet you refuse
>to recognize your responsibility to support your claims made in public.
>HINT: this is called intellectual integrity.
Lawrence if you don't understand how farm machinery and chemicals kill
animals then the topic is WAY beyond your ability to grasp. On top of that
you "have no interest in the plight of animals".
_________________________________________________________
From: "Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: dh_ld's continuing lack of civility
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:38:52 -0400
Message-ID: <vfmbtdk...@corp.supernews.com>
I have no interest in the plight of animals other than
choosing not to eat their corpses, or other animal products,
because of the devastating health problems they create for
humans
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
What it comes down to is you can't understand, and don't care anyway,
and you don't want other people to discuss it because you're unfit to
participate in the any discussion about cds.
dh...@nomail.com
If God exists in any way, I believe he wants us to
eat animals, or at least that he doesn't object to us
doing so.
mr_freedo...@integrity_z.net
It certainly is. That's why it's so exasperating that
no one ever learns anything good from YOU.
dh...@nomail.com
>Davey wrote:
>>>I've not read in his posts where he believes a doe cannot be a mother,
>>>watch something, or (redundant?!) have a fawn.
>>
>> He put those things in quotes because he doesn't believe they
>> can.
>
>Food. Sex. Territory. That's it, Davey. Animals aren't interested in
>much else, unless conditioned (e.g., a dog or dolphin that does tricks
>for human handlers/masters).
>
>>>I'd disagree with him if
>>>that were his position.
>>
>> It is his position. You are not likely to admit it though, and
>> he is more than likely to lie about everything.
>
>I agree with what he said about a doe not watching as her fawn is torn
>apart and eaten by wolves or mountain lions. At the first presence of
>danger, a doe will flee. The fawn will try to keep up. Sometimes they
>make it, sometimes they turn into food for predators. That's nature for
>ya. Seems that the deer have a better grasp on it than you do.
Everyone knows that deer run from predators, and to think anyone
in these ngs is unaware of it doesn't say much for you. Your view
of other people is a fantasy you create for yourself. As far as deer
watching their offspring killed you seem to have created a fantasy as
well. Whether or not they see their offspring killed would depend on
the situation, and to think it never happens is absurd. Sometimes they
do and sometimes they don't, depending on the conditions of the
event. You believe the world to be a much simpler place than it
really is.
>>>I addressed your other point(s) already.
>>
>> You agreed with Gonad that it's an anthropomorphic projection
>> to believe a doe can feel sadness over the loss of her offspring.
>
>At the first presence of danger, a doe takes off; the fawn's survival
>instinct is to follow its mother, but it's usually not fast enough to
>keep up (which is why fawns get eaten more often than adults). The doe
>is too busy trying to survive. The doe doesn't watch.
>
>You suggest does experience depression when their young are eaten. Do
>does go through post partum depression like human mothers do?
I don't know. So many humans suffer from depression, it would be
absurd to believe that *all* other forms of life are somehow exempt
from it and only humans can suffer from depression imo.
dh...@nomail.com
>Davey wrote:
>>>It's what animals do, Davey. As I stated in another post, ruminants like
>>>deer and cattle are meant to be eaten.
>>
>> "Meant" to be eaten? Meant by what?
>
>Nature. God. It's the natural order of things. Leave a ruminant in a
>cage with a lion and see how long you have two animals.
>
>>>Predation of them is normal,
>>>whether it's by wolves, mountain lions, or humans.
>>
>> Agreed. But the Gonad/"ARAs" want people to believe that I'm
>> wrong in pointing out that the killing by humans is more humane
>> than the killing of non-human predators. But they can't explain
>> why. Can you explain how the killing of any non-human predator
>> could be considered "humane"?
>
>Wrong? Don't know about that. I *do* think your position is silly. Some
>of the more sensitive AR-types say there's nothing humane about killing
>an animal if a human does it. I happen to think it's natural. My point
>in mentioning that slaughterhouses are more humane than lions or tigers
>was to disabuse the notion of Dreck and others that humans are the worst
>cuplrits and threats to other species.
Meat consumers aren't a threat to livestock species. "ARAs" are a
threat to all domestic species.
>> _________________________________________________________
>> One entry found for humane.
>> Main Entry: hu·mane <http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif>
>> Pronunciation: hyü-'mAn, yü-
>> Function: adjective
>> Etymology: Middle English humain
>> Date: circa 1500
>> 1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
>> 2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture
>>
>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>>Animals are not even
>>>safe from predation in zoos, as we learned a couple weeks ago at the
>>>National Zoo in Washington, DC.
>>
>> I'm sure animals are often killed in zoos. What happened in the
>> case you're referring to?
>
>A bald eagle was killed by a red fox.
Thank you.
>>>>And tell us
>>>>what or who it is better for.
>>>
>>>Predators and their young.
>>
>> That would depend on the quality of their lives.
>
>Who's the judge of the quality of animal lives?
You. Me. Gonad. Derek. Everyone who thinks about it.
>>>Animals, including predators, are capable of experiencing hunger if they
>>>don't find ruminants and other prey. I suppose it's possible they feel
>>>some sadness when they're hungry,
>>
>> Only when they're hungry? If you believe it's possible for them to feel
>> it do to other reasons as well, do you feel that loss of their offspring
>> is not one of them?
>
>Maybe temporarily -- measured in minutes or hours rather than weeks. If
>you've ever had a pet or livestock give birth you'd understand that any
>"grief" experienced by the loss of an offspring is quickly forgotten.
I've seen hens carry on for a few days, and the same with cows.
It doesn't destroy their life, but some animals do get upset when they
lose their offspring none the less. It's not anthropomorphic projection
to recognize that they do. It's ignorance to believe they don't until
someone explains it, and disbelieving after it's explained then goes
from ignorance to stupidity.
>Many dogs and cats are quite happy to be rid of their offspring once
>they're weaned. They don't care what kind of homes they're sent off to,
>they just want the added competition out of their territory.
I've seen that happen a number of times, and also seen mothers
eat (the heads off usually) their offspring when they were only a few
days old.
(the rest isn't worth responding to)
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:48:23 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>>>>>Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're stalked and
>>>>>>hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may be messy, but they're not cruel.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uh-oh! That's one of Fuckwit's arguments. He feels it
>>>>>is "better" that wild animals be hunted by humans
>>>>>rather than by large non-human predators, because he
>>>>>feels the killing by humans is more humane.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
>>>>as human hunters Gonad.
>>>
>>>Why should anyone care if they are or aren't, Fuckwit,
>>>you stupid fuck?
>>
>>
>> Because some people consider whether or not human
>> hunting is ethical Gonad, you moron.
>
>Nope. I consider huma hunting to be perfectly ethical,
Why?
>Fuckwit, but I don't care that non-human predators are
>not "humane". In fact, I strongly suspect that NO ONE
>who finds human hunting to be ethical does so on the
>grounds that it is "more" humane than non-human predation.
But it's okay to point out that killing in slaughterhouses
is "more" humane than non-human predation?
>> But you are too stupid to understand that
>
>There is nothing to understand, as usual. You have, as
>usual, cooked up a bogus issue.
>
>> apparently, since you were too
>> stupid to figure it out for yourself, and you still can't understand
>> it even now.
>
>I figure out everything for myself, Fuckwit,
That's a lie Gonad. Even as stupid as you are, you must
have managed to learn something from another person at
some point in your life.
>including
>vast areas of human knowledge and philosophy that you
>could never understand. I am smarter, more insightful,
>more intelligent than you. In fact, I am your
>intellectual superior in every conceivable dimension.
>There is nothing you understand that I do not,
That's another lie, though you are too stupid to understand
why. Everyone understands things that other people don't
Gonad, but even though that is a very basic and simple fact
of life, it's beyond your ability to understand.
>and
>there are vast areas I understand that you do not.
I'm well aware of that.
>> You just sit there with drool running down your
>> chin, getting all over your hands and keyboard,
>
>Funny, Fuckwit; I've had professionals scour my office
>space for cameras and electronic eavesdropping
>equipment, and there is none. You couldn't possibly
>know that I "drool", and in fact I never do.
>
>> stupidly wondering
>> why anyone would care if human hunting is better or worse for
>> prey animals than non-human hunting, but never being able to
>> figure it out.
>
>There's nothing to figure out, Fuckwit. No one opposes
>human hunting on the grounds that human hunting is
>inhumane, *while* non-human predation is humane.
Non-human hunting is not humane you dumbass.
>It's
>something else that causes "aras" to oppose human
>hunting, Fuckwit: something you'll never get.
>
>I do not oppose human hunting, Fuckwit. In fact, I
>strongly support it.
>
>> At least that's what you *want* people to believe.
>
>No.
>
>> But in reality you are a dishonest "ARA"
>
>I am not *any* kind of "ara", Fuckwit, as you have
>always known and continue to know.
>
>>>>Tell us how it is better for animals
>>>>to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
>>>>live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
>>>>pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
>>>>hunted by humans who don't do those things.
>>>
>>>Tell us how it is worse, and how you know, and why
>>>anyone cares, Fuckwit, you stupid fat fuck.
>
>Come on, Fuckwit: tell us how and why non-human
>predation is "worse" for animals than human hunting,
You tell us Gonad, if you understand. If you don't understand
by now, then it's just another thing you're too stupid to understand.
>and how you know it, and why anyone ought to care.
>"aras" do not oppose human hunting for the bogus reason
>you pretend; it is just one more in a long list of
>mischaracterizations you make.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And tell us
>>>>what or who it is better for.
>>>
>>>No, you try it.
>
>Come on, Fuckwit: tell us what or who human hunting is
>better for, and how you know it.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>He
>>>>>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>>>>>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>>>>>I'm not kidding.
>>>>>
>>>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
>>>>Gonad.
>>>
>>>I already have.
>>
>>
>> No dumbass, you have only said that you have.
>
>Nope. I have.
And you can't do it now either.
dh...@nomail.com
>
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> and who attack pregnant females ...
> Pregnant females, dairy cows, are constantly abused by humans by their
>very unnatural existence, drugging, and genetic manipulation.
>
>> and very young animals, ...
> Veal?
>
> Laurie
We're discussing hunting wild animals, not farm animals.
dh...@nomail.com
>"Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote
>>
>> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>>
>> > Tell us how it is better for animals
>> > to be hunted night and day, ...
>> Since lions sleep "over 12 hours per day", they are really not hunting
>> "night and day".
>> http://canis.tamu.edu/wfscCourses/Examples/kat.html
>
>It's an expression.
Yes, but they do hunt both night and day. Humans give them a
break at night, and also for the majority of the year when it's not
hunting season. Nonhuman predators don't give them a break.
Jonathan Ball
To think they "watch" it is what is absurd, Fuckwit.
Your whole story is absurd.
> Sometimes they
> do and sometimes they don't, depending on the conditions of the
> event. You believe the world to be a much simpler place than it
> really is.
You really pretend to know things you know NOTHING
about, Fuckwit. You have never observed a "mother
deer" "watch" her "baby" be eaten by predators. You do
not know what you're talking about.
>
>
>>>>I addressed your other point(s) already.
>>>
>>> You agreed with Gonad that it's an anthropomorphic projection
>>>to believe a doe can feel sadness over the loss of her offspring.
>>
>>At the first presence of danger, a doe takes off; the fawn's survival
>>instinct is to follow its mother, but it's usually not fast enough to
>>keep up (which is why fawns get eaten more often than adults). The doe
>>is too busy trying to survive. The doe doesn't watch.
>>
>>You suggest does experience depression when their young are eaten. Do
>>does go through post partum depression like human mothers do?
>
>
> I don't know.
You're goddamned right you don't know, Fuckwit. You
don't know ANYTHING about deer. Michael Cerkowski
knows more about deer than you do. I'll bet even Sue
Bitchup, that filthy skank, would acknowledge that
Slick knows more about deer than you do.
> So many humans suffer from depression, it would be
> absurd to believe that *all* other forms of life are somehow exempt
> from it and only humans can suffer from depression imo.
That is PURELY anthropomorphic projection, Fuckwit. In
fact, you make it explicit.
>
>
>>Do they have bad hair days?
Come on, Fuckwit. Do deer, or any other non-human
animals, have bad hair days?
usual suspect
>>Food. Sex. Territory. That's it, Davey. Animals aren't interested in
>>much else, unless conditioned (e.g., a dog or dolphin that does tricks
>>for human handlers/masters).
No reply? lol
>>I agree with what he said about a doe not watching as her fawn is torn
>>apart and eaten by wolves or mountain lions. At the first presence of
>>danger, a doe will flee. The fawn will try to keep up. Sometimes they
>>make it, sometimes they turn into food for predators. That's nature for
>>ya. Seems that the deer have a better grasp on it than you do.
>
> Everyone knows that deer run from predators, and to think anyone
> in these ngs is unaware of it doesn't say much for you. Your view
> of other people is a fantasy you create for yourself.
Ad hominem. Attack my position, not me.
> As far as deer
> watching their offspring killed you seem to have created a fantasy as
> well.
Attack my position, not me.
> Whether or not they see their offspring killed would depend on
> the situation, and to think it never happens is absurd.
Are you asking me to prove a negative? It's your position that they DO
feel sadness and that they DO watch as a predator kills and eats their
young. It's thus YOUR argument which YOU should support.
FWIW, I didn't say it *never* happens; but I don't make generalizations
on exceptions to the rules.
> Sometimes they
> do and sometimes they don't, depending on the conditions of the
> event. You believe the world to be a much simpler place than it
> really is.
Nothing I've ever found in this world is as simple as you, Davey.
>>> You agreed with Gonad that it's an anthropomorphic projection
>>>to believe a doe can feel sadness over the loss of her offspring.
>>
>>At the first presence of danger, a doe takes off; the fawn's survival
>>instinct is to follow its mother, but it's usually not fast enough to
>>keep up (which is why fawns get eaten more often than adults). The doe
>>is too busy trying to survive. The doe doesn't watch.
>>
>>You suggest does experience depression when their young are eaten. Do
>>does go through post partum depression like human mothers do?
>
> I don't know. So many humans suffer from depression, it would be
> absurd to believe that *all* other forms of life are somehow exempt
> from it and only humans can suffer from depression imo.
Anthropomorphism.
>>Do they
>>have bad hair days?
No reply? lol
Jonathan Ball
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:34:33 GMT, usual suspect <above...@earth.man> wrote:
>
>>>>Predation of them is normal,
>>>>whether it's by wolves, mountain lions, or humans.
>>>
>>> Agreed. But the Gonad/"ARAs" want people to believe that I'm
>>>wrong in pointing out that the killing by humans is more humane
>>>than the killing of non-human predators. But they can't explain
>>>why. Can you explain how the killing of any non-human predator
>>>could be considered "humane"?
>>
>>Wrong? Don't know about that. I *do* think your position is silly. Some
>>of the more sensitive AR-types say there's nothing humane about killing
>>an animal if a human does it. I happen to think it's natural. My point
>>in mentioning that slaughterhouses are more humane than lions or tigers
>>was to disabuse the notion of Dreck and others that humans are the worst
>>cuplrits and threats to other species.
>
>
> Meat consumers aren't a threat to livestock species.
They clearly are a threat, a 100% effective threat, to
individual animals. I jumped on Lying Larry Forti for
getting confused over species vs. individual animals;
you don't get a free pass, either.
>>>>Animals are not even
>>>>safe from predation in zoos, as we learned a couple weeks ago at the
>>>>National Zoo in Washington, DC.
>>>
>>> I'm sure animals are often killed in zoos. What happened in the
>>>case you're referring to?
>>
>>A bald eagle was killed by a red fox.
>
>
> Thank you.
"Thank you"? You fucking moron, Fuckwit.
>
>
>>>>>And tell us
>>>>>what or who it is better for.
>>>>
>>>>Predators and their young.
>>>
>>> That would depend on the quality of their lives.
>>
>>Who's the judge of the quality of animal lives?
>
>
> You. Me. Gonad. Derek. Everyone who thinks about it.
Everyone who *really* thinks about it concludes that we
don't really know how to evaluate the quality of their
lives, Fuckwit. Your pretense that you know is
laughable yet also despicable.
>
>
>>>>Animals, including predators, are capable of experiencing hunger if they
>>>>don't find ruminants and other prey. I suppose it's possible they feel
>>>>some sadness when they're hungry,
>>>
>>> Only when they're hungry? If you believe it's possible for them to feel
>>>it do
DUE, Fuckwit, not "do".
>>>to other reasons as well, do you feel that loss of their offspring
>>>is not one of them?
>>
>>Maybe temporarily -- measured in minutes or hours rather than weeks. If
>>you've ever had a pet or livestock give birth you'd understand that any
>>"grief" experienced by the loss of an offspring is quickly forgotten.
>
>
> I've seen hens carry on for a few days,
You're lying.
> and the same with cows.
ALL cows look "sad", Fuckwit, all the time.
> It doesn't destroy their life, but some animals do get upset when they
> lose their offspring none the less. It's not anthropomorphic projection
> to recognize that they do. It's ignorance to believe they don't until
> someone explains it, and disbelieving after it's explained then goes
> from ignorance to stupidity.
You are trying to project some kind of anthropomorphic
sentiment onto them, Fuckwit. Some higher animals
likely feel some kind of "down" feeling, but it doesn't
last for long, and in a short time they've forgotten
all about it. Humans can go into a complete tailspin
from the experience, and even among those who don't,
the pain can still be very intense years and years
later. You are INCREDIBLY stupid if you can't see the
difference, but you are INCREDIBLY stupid anyway, so
you probably can't see the difference, which makes you
even MORE INCREDIBLY stupid.
>
>
>>Many dogs and cats are quite happy to be rid of their offspring once
>>they're weaned. They don't care what kind of homes they're sent off to,
>>they just want the added competition out of their territory.
>
>
> I've seen that happen a number of times, and also seen mothers
> eat (the heads off usually) their offspring when they were only a few
> days old.
>
> (the rest isn't worth responding to)
No, it's because you CAN'T respond to it without
looking even MORE INCREDIBLY stupid. I thought this
was a valid question, and you ignored it, because you
know that answering it would make you appear even MORE
INCREDIBLY STUPID:
Fuckwit the INCREDIBLY stupid:
Please present an example of me saying they
experience a general melancholy.
u.s.:
Your doe watching her fawn die and losing sleep over
it. (They don't.)
You asked for an example, and he gave you a solid one.
Jonathan Ball
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:34:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>>>>> Tell us how any non-human predators are as "humane"
>>>>>as human hunters Gonad.
>>>>
>>>>Why should anyone care if they are or aren't, Fuckwit,
>>>>you stupid fuck?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because some people consider whether or not human
>>>hunting is ethical Gonad, you moron.
>>
>>Nope. I consider huma hunting to be perfectly ethical,
>
>
> Why?
Because I evaluate it according to the prevailing
criteria of ethical behavior and find it fits, Fuckwit.
What the fuck is the matter with you (beyond
INCREDIBLE stupidity)?
>
>
>>Fuckwit, but I don't care that non-human predators are
>>not "humane". In fact, I strongly suspect that NO ONE
>>who finds human hunting to be ethical does so on the
>>grounds that it is "more" humane than non-human predation.
>
>
> But it's okay to point out that killing in slaughterhouses
> is "more" humane than non-human predation?
There's no point in pointing it out, Fuckwit. It's
meaningless.
>
>
>>>But you are too stupid to understand that
>>
>>There is nothing to understand, as usual. You have, as
>>usual, cooked up a bogus issue.
No answer, I see. Figures...
>>
>>
>>>apparently, since you were too
>>>stupid to figure it out for yourself, and you still can't understand
>>>it even now.
>>
>>I figure out everything for myself, Fuckwit,
>
>
> That's a lie Gonad.
It isn't, Fuckwit.
> Even as stupid as you are, you must
> have managed to learn something from another person at
> some point in your life.
I have learned a lot from others, Fuckwit. Figuring
something out and learning are not the same thing.
>
>
>>including
>>vast areas of human knowledge and philosophy that you
>>could never understand. I am smarter, more insightful,
>>more intelligent than you. In fact, I am your
>>intellectual superior in every conceivable dimension.
>>There is nothing you understand that I do not,
>
>
> That's another lie,
No, it's the truth.
>
>>and there are vast areas I understand that you do not.
>
>
> I'm well aware of that.
You should also be aware that there is almost nothing
you understand that I do not. The only two conceivable
things I can think of are:
- stuff to do with sound recording technology;
- how to clean up vomit in the beer-bar men's room
>
>
>>>You just sit there with drool running down your
>>>chin, getting all over your hands and keyboard,
>>
>>Funny, Fuckwit; I've had professionals scour my office
>>space for cameras and electronic eavesdropping
>>equipment, and there is none. You couldn't possibly
>>know that I "drool", and in fact I never do.
>>
>>
>>>stupidly wondering
>>>why anyone would care if human hunting is better or worse for
>>>prey animals than non-human hunting, but never being able to
>>>figure it out.
>>
>>There's nothing to figure out, Fuckwit. No one opposes
>>human hunting on the grounds that human hunting is
>>inhumane, *while* non-human predation is humane.
>
>
> Non-human hunting is not humane you dumbass.
By definition, Fuckwit. You missed my point,
predictably.
>
>
>>It's
>>something else that causes "aras" to oppose human
>>hunting, Fuckwit: something you'll never get.
>>
>>I do not oppose human hunting, Fuckwit. In fact, I
>>strongly support it.
>>
>>
>>>At least that's what you *want* people to believe.
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>But in reality you are a dishonest "ARA"
>>
>>I am not *any* kind of "ara", Fuckwit, as you have
>>always known and continue to know.
You know and have always known this, Fuckwit.
>>
>>
>>>>>Tell us how it is better for animals
>>>>>to be hunted night and day, year round, by predators who
>>>>>live in the area with them all of the time, and who attack
>>>>>pregnant females and very young animals, than it is to be
>>>>>hunted by humans who don't do those things.
>>>>
>>>>Tell us how it is worse, and how you know, and why
>>>>anyone cares, Fuckwit, you stupid fat fuck.
>>>
>>Come on, Fuckwit: tell us how and why non-human
>>predation is "worse" for animals than human hunting,
>
>
> You tell us Gonad, if you understand.
No, Fuckwit, YOU tell us how and why non-human
predation is "worse" for animals than human hunting,
*and* how you know it, *and* why anyone ought to care.
You're the one making the claim, and the claim
demands elaboration.
> If you don't understand
> by now, then it's just another thing you're too stupid to understand.
Translation: you know you can't defend the claim.
Thanks, Fuckwit.
>
>
>>and how you know it, and why anyone ought to care.
>>"aras" do not oppose human hunting for the bogus reason
>>you pretend; it is just one more in a long list of
>>mischaracterizations you make.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>And tell us
>>>>>what or who it is better for.
>>>>
>>>>No, you try it.
>>>
>>Come on, Fuckwit: tell us what or who human hunting is
>>better for, and how you know it.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>He
>>>>>>actually once wrote about a "mother deer" feeling "sad"
>>>>>>as she "watched" her "baby" get devoured by wolves.
>>>>>>I'm not kidding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Talk about your "ara"-like anthropomorphic projection...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us exactly which emotions animals are capable of
>>>>>Gonad.
>>>>
>>>>I already have.
>>>
>>>
>>> No dumbass, you have only said that you have.
>>
>>Nope. I have.
>
>
> And you can't do it now either.
I have done it, Fuckwit.
usual suspect
<snip>
>>> Only when they're hungry? If you believe it's possible for them to feel
>>>it do to other reasons as well, do you feel that loss of their offspring
>>>is not one of them?
>>
>>Maybe temporarily -- measured in minutes or hours rather than weeks. If
>>you've ever had a pet or livestock give birth you'd understand that any
>>"grief" experienced by the loss of an offspring is quickly forgotten.
>
> I've seen hens carry on for a few days, and the same with cows.
So have I. They don't seem too worried. They "think" in terms of food,
reproduction, territory. They're not preoccupied with coping with the
death of an offspring. Indeed, I've seen some animals have tried eating
a dead offspring (cat).
> It doesn't destroy their life, but some animals do get upset when they
*Some*? Why not *all*?
> lose their offspring none the less. It's not anthropomorphic projection
> to recognize that they do. It's ignorance to believe they don't until
> someone explains it, and disbelieving after it's explained then goes
> from ignorance to stupidity.
You've not made a very convincing argument here, except that I should
believe you because you say I should. That doesn't work. As noted above,
I've seen how animals behave when losing an offspring: cattle, dogs,
cats, all kinds of birds (including chicken, turkeys, parrots). While
most animals defend their young and nurse them, many are oblivious to
such "duties." I've had dogs who were completely neurotic while nursing
their puppies, only to restore to a more normal and gentle disposition
when the pups left. I've seen cats who savagely attacked their young
right after feeding them.
>>Many dogs and cats are quite happy to be rid of their offspring once
>>they're weaned. They don't care what kind of homes they're sent off to,
>>they just want the added competition out of their territory.
>
> I've seen that happen a number of times, and also seen mothers
> eat (the heads off usually) their offspring when they were only a few
> days old.
Exactly. Food, reproduction, territory. That is all that matters.
Maternal instincts always give way to one or more of those three.
Sometimes it happens a lot sooner than later, and with great violence.
> (the rest isn't worth responding to)
Yes it was.
usual suspect
<snip>
We'd look sad, too, if we were ruminants whose highest calling in life
was to be eaten by predators.
>> (the rest isn't worth responding to)
>
> No, it's because you CAN'T respond to it without looking even MORE
> INCREDIBLY stupid. I thought this was a valid question, and you ignored
> it, because you know that answering it would make you appear even MORE
> INCREDIBLY STUPID:
>
> Fuckwit the INCREDIBLY stupid:
> Please present an example of me saying they
> experience a general melancholy.
>
> u.s.:
> Your doe watching her fawn die and losing sleep over
> it. (They don't.)
>
> You asked for an example, and he gave you a solid one.
Bingo.
Laurie
"voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote in message
news:%25Sa.485225$Vi5.12...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> ... animal husbandry such as depicted in "The Polyface
> Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
Guess again, from:
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/pasturedpoultry.html
"These birds actually live on the ground, catching bugs and scratching in
the soil."
" This supplies the chickens with plenty of fresh insect life...",
so, although this technique is considerably more humane than brood houses,
the chickens' diet itself produces substantial animal biomass collateral
deaths. Chickens are "omnivores", ya know<g>.
Further, since "there should be no more than 500 birds per acre per
year", it is clear that the ecological and spatial costs of production are
much higher per unit of food output than producing plant foods on the same
area. Remember, and I know you and your ilk like to ignore this, animals
are only 5-10% efficient in converting plant protein to animal protein, so
10-20 times as much plant material can be produced on the same land.
And, 100% of the birds are killed; whereas, NO chickens would be killed
in the production of plant foods.
> puts to rest the vegan illusions of moral superiority.
Claims of moral superiority from vegans or meatarians are unfounded, so
what?
> There is plenty of opportunity to try to limit the consumption of those
> things, many people do, yet vegans do not, ...
You have NO idea what millions of vegans, whom you do not know
personally, do or do not do. Are you claiming to be telepathic, like
noBalls and dh?
> The mandate is imposed by their sanctimonious and judgmental
> attitudes toward those who take a different approach.
Exactly what mandate is imposed by the "sanctimonious and judgmental
attitudes" of meatheads?
> Vegans ignore ...
You do not have access to any data necessary to support overly-broad
statements like this. You are being "sanctimonious and judgmental".
>Yet they pose as if they were nearly godlike in nature.
Oh, now you are just making this crap up, in your own "sanctimonious and
judgmental" manner. Is there any valid reason you fail to conform to your
own standards?
> You seem to waffle badly on this one issue.
I do not waffle. You can't provide any concrete examples, just be
"sanctimonious and judgmental".
> Livestock lives are not any more "painful" than any other.
I have given sufficient concrete examples, and this is well known
throughout the industry.
> > drugged,
> hmmm, are drugs that painful?
Drugs are administered to "suppress" "diseases" that would not exist IF
the animal were healthy. Disease is suffering.
> >totally-unnatural existence as a
> > genetically-manipulated mutant?
> Is that painful?
Being involuntarily removed from one's evolutionary path is probably the
most severe form of biological invasion/manipulation.
> > Well, then, it is just as "completely unfair" for YOU to try to
impose
> > YOUR FALSE standards of what a vegan is on "them all in the same
> > way", isn't it? Your double standards and conceptual schizophrenia are
> > glaringly apparent and always amusing.
> He's trying to "turn the tables" on vegans, it's a pathetic, ill-advised
> knee-jerk strategy.
We agree on something! Yet you try to do the same thing, just as
unsuccessfully.
Laurie
voice of reason
> "voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote
>
> > Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
> Guess again, from:
> http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/pasturedpoultry.html
> "These birds actually live on the ground, catching bugs and scratching in
> the soil."
> " This supplies the chickens with plenty of fresh insect life...",
> so, although this technique is considerably more humane than brood houses,
> the chickens' diet itself produces substantial animal biomass collateral
> deaths. Chickens are "omnivores", ya know<g>.
So what if chickens eat insects, how far are you prepared to go to deny
nature?
> Further, since "there should be no more than 500 birds per acre per
> year", it is clear that the ecological and spatial costs of production are
> much higher per unit of food output than producing plant foods on the same
> area.
That's not clear at all. Allowing chickens to forage is relatively
non-intrusive compared to cultivating crops, and the food derived is much
more nutrient dense.
> Remember, and I know you and your ilk like to ignore this, animals
> are only 5-10% efficient in converting plant protein to animal protein, so
> 10-20 times as much plant material can be produced on the same land.
There is plenty of unused arable land free on which to grow plant material.
Go ahead and aquire some and do it.
> And, 100% of the birds are killed; whereas, NO chickens would be
killed
> in the production of plant foods.
Are you implying that there is some moral imperative to not kill chickens?
What happened to morality being subjective, or meaningless?
> > puts to rest the vegan illusions of moral superiority.
> Claims of moral superiority from vegans or meatarians are unfounded,
so
> what?
You just implied that producing chickens is a moral issue.
> > There is plenty of opportunity to try to limit the consumption of those
> > things, many people do, yet vegans do not, ...
> You have NO idea what millions of vegans, whom you do not know
> personally, do or do not do. Are you claiming to be telepathic, like
> noBalls and dh?
It's not necessary to poll every member of a group to make a correct
categorical statement. Read any vegan website, the only issue dealt with is
consumption of "animal products", there is no mention of non-animal products
that are related to decimation of wild animal populations, such as apples.
> > The mandate is imposed by their sanctimonious and judgmental
> > attitudes toward those who take a different approach.
> Exactly what mandate is imposed by the "sanctimonious and judgmental
> attitudes" of meatheads?
Wrong question, as I meat-eater I do not feel it's my place to impose my
diet on anyone else or lay guilt on anyone for their choice of food.
> > Vegans ignore ...
> You do not have access to any data necessary to support overly-broad
> statements like this. You are being "sanctimonious and judgmental".
I have sufficient data to make the statement, gathered from two years on
these newsgroups and reading numerous vegan publications. Your own
terminology (e.g. "meatheads") illustrates the point nicely.
> >Yet they pose as if they were nearly godlike in nature.
> Oh, now you are just making this crap up, in your own "sanctimonious
and
> judgmental" manner. Is there any valid reason you fail to conform to your
> own standards?
It's not made up at all. Sites like http://www.veganoutreach.org/ reek of
self-rightousness. They may as well be Jehovahs Witnesses.
> > You seem to waffle badly on this one issue.
> I do not waffle. You can't provide any concrete examples, just be
> "sanctimonious and judgmental".
You repeatedly claim that ethics are purely subjective, yet you repeatedly
launch into ethical judgments, such as claiming that Jonathan Ball is not
debating ethically, and claiming that raising livestock is unethical. Most
of what you say implies some kind of ethics, yet you repeatedly assert that
ethics are meaningless. You waffle, or rather you consistently contradict
yourself.
> > Livestock lives are not any more "painful" than any other.
> I have given sufficient concrete examples,
You've haven't made a direct comparison, there is suffering in ALL animal
populations. I have given examples where there is relatively little
suffering.
> and this is well known
> throughout the industry.
Ad Numerum fallacy.
> > > drugged,
> > hmmm, are drugs that painful?
> Drugs are administered to "suppress" "diseases" that would not exist
IF
> the animal were healthy. Disease is suffering.
Since the diseases are averted by the drugs, the animals aren't suffering
from them. We do the same for humans, to AVOID suffering.
> > >totally-unnatural existence as a
> > > genetically-manipulated mutant?
> > Is that painful?
> Being involuntarily removed from one's evolutionary path
It becomes the new evolutionary path, you can't be removed from the path
your life takes.
is probably the
> most severe form of biological invasion/manipulation.
I asked if it was painful. The answer is no, in and of itself, selective
breeding does not cause animals any pain.
>
> > > Well, then, it is just as "completely unfair" for YOU to try to
> impose
> > > YOUR FALSE standards of what a vegan is on "them all in the same
> > > way", isn't it? Your double standards and conceptual schizophrenia
are
> > > glaringly apparent and always amusing.
> > He's trying to "turn the tables" on vegans, it's a pathetic, ill-advised
> > knee-jerk strategy.
> We agree on something! Yet you try to do the same thing, just as
> unsuccessfully.
I'm not doing the same thing at all. His approach is to acknowledge that
it's basically wrong to kill animals for food, but then to turn the tables
by introducing the asinine "consideration that they get to experience life".
He's wrong in his basic presumption, it's not wrong to kill animals for
food, it's natural. I'm here to help vegans confront the cognitive
blindness, the lies, fallacies and manipulations that always ensue from
professing veganism.
Gerry
Personally though i have never been bitten by one and wouldn't know. Sorry.
Derek <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bf14ud$9rrds$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...> > nibbled by hyenas.
>
> Have you seen the jaws on them mothers? Nibbled?
>
>
Gerry
christ you moron, it could have meant bhudda you one eyed bible basher.
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:m309hvg222tk9p7du...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:56:35 +0100, "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >> compared to what?,
> >
> >Compared to not having slaughter houses.
> >
> >> nature, i would much rather be stunned and killed than
> >> eaten alive by lions or nibbled by hyenas. Are vegans some kind of
> >> messengers for god,
> >
> >No, but further down the page it seems you're
> >assuming that position yourself.
> >
> >> stating what is moral and what is right? Imagine a vegan
> >> buffallo trying to convince a pride of lions to chill out and eat
veges. God
> >> obviously 'wants us' to eat meat.
> >
> >There you are: a messenger from God.
>
> 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
> as an offering to the LORD.
> 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
> flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
> 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
> was very angry, and his face was downcast.
>
> Genesis 9
> 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful
> and increase in number and fill the earth.
> 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth
> and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along
> the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into
> your hands.
> 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
> you the green plants, I now give you everything.
> 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
> 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
> demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,
> I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
>
> 1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
> 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of
> your year.
> 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this
> month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each
> household.
> [...]
> 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when
> all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them
> at twilight.
> 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides
> and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the
> lambs.
> 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire,
> along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.
> 9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over
> the fire-head, legs and inner parts.
> [...]
> 14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you
> shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance.
>
> Leviticus 1
> 1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.
> He said,
> 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings an
> offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either
> the herd or the flock.
> 3 "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer
> a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the
Tent
> of Meeting so that it[1] will be acceptable to the LORD.
> 4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will
> be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
> 5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
> sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
> altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
> 6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
> 7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
> wood on the fire.
> 8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
> head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
> 9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
> is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an
offering
> made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
>
> Leviticus 12
> 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over,
> she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting
a
> year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for
> a sin offering.
> 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and
> then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. " 'These
are
> the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl.
> 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young
> pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.
In this
> way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'
"
>
> Deuteronomy 12
> 15 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your
> towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were
> gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your
> God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean
> may eat it.
>
> Deuteronomy 14
> 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
> goat,
> 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
> the antelope and the mountain sheep.
> 6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
> that chews the cud.
> 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
> completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
> coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
> hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
> 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not
> chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
> carcasses.
> 9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has
> fins and scales.
> 10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
> for you it is unclean.
> 11 You may eat any clean bird.
> 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
> 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
> 14 any kind of raven,
> 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
> 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
> 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
> 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
> 19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
> 20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
> 21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
> alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
> sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
> God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
>
> 1 Kings 8
> 5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had
> gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep
> and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
> [...]
> 63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the LORD:
> twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand
> sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the
> temple of the LORD.
>
> Mark 7
> 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing
> that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'?
> 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and
> then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
> "clean.")
>
> Mark 14
> 12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it
> was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples
> asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations
> for you to eat the Passover?"
> 13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city,
> and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
> 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
> Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
> disciples?'
>
> (refer to Exodus 12 for details about the Passover food)
>
> Luke 2
> 22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of
> Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
> Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
> 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is
> to be consecrated to the Lord" ),
> 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law
> of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."
>
> Luke 24
> 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;
> a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
> 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
> 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
> amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
> 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
> 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
>
> John 21
> 4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples
> did not realize that it was Jesus.
> 5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they
> answered.
> 6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will
> find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in
> because of the large number of fish.
> [...]
> 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish
> on it, and some bread.
> 10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
> 11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full
> of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.
> 12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast."
>
> Acts 10
> 9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and
> approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
> 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal
> was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
> 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let
> down to earth by its four corners.
> 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles
> of the earth and birds of the air.
> 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
> 14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything
> impure or unclean."
> 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure
> that God has made clean."
> 16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back
> to heaven.
>
> Romans 14
> 1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
> disputable matters.
> 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
> whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
> 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who
> does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not
> condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
> 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own
> master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able
> to make him stand.
> 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
> man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully
> convinced in his own mind.
> 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He
> who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and
> he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
> 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself
> alone.
> 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.
> So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
> 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he
> might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
> 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down
> on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
>
> http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible
>
>
Laurie
"voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote in message
news:uz5Sa.485316$Vi5.12...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Why is it good for species to improve through natural predation
> but species that improve due to selective breeding are freakish?
Selective breeding by humans does not "improve" the breed, but rather it
improves only the profits of the breeder, and it generally results in
reduced health of the victims. Farm animals are frequently dosed with
antibiotics because they are so unhealthy. Most farm animals could not
survive in the wild.
"Pure bred" show dogs, for example are less healthy than "mutts", and
pets are less healthy than their natural source.
> It wouldn't help you.
Insults, the last refuge of the intellectually challenged.
Laurie
>
>
>
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:bp4jhvclqect5ur76...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:25:58 -0400, "Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote:
>
> >I find it insightful and consistent with your
> >continuing dishonest machinations that you INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT the
FIRST
> >dictum for human and animal diets in the Bible.
> >
> > Gen 1: 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
> >face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
They
> >will be yours for food.
> > Gen 1: 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of
the
> >air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the
> >breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
> >
> > Laurie
>
That was well after "the fall", and you still ignore the FIRST dictum,
as I previously stated. Dishonest, as usual.
Laurie
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:gv5jhvs80258gl9nq...@4ax.com...
dh> >> In many cases more suffering is involved in the production
dh> >> of vegetables than in the production of meat.
dh> if you don't understand how farm machinery and chemicals kill
dh> animals then the topic is WAY beyond your ability to grasp.
I have NEVER said this; all I haved done is to challenge your
always-unsupported claims that "more suffering is involved ...", and you can
NOT support your claims.
> On top of that you "have no interest in the plight of animals".
That's right, it is not my business to criticize other peoples' diet on
false "ethical" grounds; however, refuting your meatarian lies is my
concern, and you have NEVER been able to support them.
> What it comes down to is you can't understand, ...
I can understand facts and logic, yet you have never presented ANY, just
your idiotic, unsupported false claims.
Laurie
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:kk6jhv84cefmp5q6d...@4ax.com...
> If God exists in any way, I believe he wants us to
> eat animals, or at least that he doesn't object to us
> doing so.
How do you know this, does He talk to you, personally??
Laurie
b...@oh.oh
> "voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote in message
> news:uz5Sa.485316$Vi5.12...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>
>>Why is it good for species to improve through natural predation
>> but species that improve due to selective breeding are freakish?
>
> Selective breeding by humans does not "improve" the breed,
Of course it improves the breed, Larry, just not in
terms that you appreciate. What a bonehead!
> but rather it improves only the profits of the breeder,
By improving the breed, which generally yields better
quality *and* quantity.
What do you have against profit, Larry? Oh, yes,
that's right: you're a crazed, disaffected leftist.
> and it generally results in
> reduced health of the victims.
Ipse dixit.
> Farm animals are frequently dosed with
> antibiotics because they are so unhealthy.
No, because antibiotics have growth properties.
> Most farm animals could not survive in the wild.
Irrelevant. Survival in the wild is not the standard.
> "Pure bred" show dogs, for example are less healthy than "mutts",
According to what criteria, Larry? What's the average
lifespan of purebred dogs, versus that of mutts, versus
that of wolves?
> and pets are less healthy than their natural source.
Ipse dixit.
>
>
>>It wouldn't help you.
>
> Insults, the last refuge of the intellectually challenged.
Which is why you resort to them first.
usual suspect
>>Why is it good for species to improve through natural predation
>> but species that improve due to selective breeding are freakish?
>
> Selective breeding by humans does not "improve" the breed, but rather it
> improves only the profits of the breeder, and it generally results in
> reduced health of the victims.
Hardly. Selective breeding has been done to ensure a more hardy species.
> Farm animals are frequently dosed with
> antibiotics because they are so unhealthy. Most farm animals could not
> survive in the wild.
Non sequitur. The point was about selective breeding, not antibiotics.
Antibiotics are most frequently used for reasons other than health,
which is why their use is controversial.
Domesticated species frequently DO survive -- and thrive -- in the wild.
We have a feral hog problem nationwide, but it's way out of hand here in
Texas. They're such a problem that they're no longer covered by game
regulations, so hunters can take them year-round without limit.
> "Pure bred" show dogs, for example are less healthy than "mutts", and
> pets are less healthy than their natural source.
Show animals bred for pedigree often have less genetic variance than
"mutts." Many pedigrees come as a result of in-breeding for certain
traits; occurrence of certain other traits, unfortunately, increases
from such breeding. This alone is the reason for their susceptibility to
"less healthy" traits, though to be honest you have to admit that
healthier traits are usually passed along all the same. You raised an
extreme example just to lose the point.
>>It wouldn't help you.
>
> Insults, the last refuge of the intellectually challenged.
It's never kept you from resorting to them, has it?
Laurie
"voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote in message
news:DLESa.498342$Vi5.12...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> So what if chickens eat insects, how far are you prepared to go
> to deny nature?
You said:
> > > ... animal husbandry such as depicted in "The Polyface
> > > Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
The fact that chickens eat insects is proof of collateral deaths.
You lied and you were caught in that lie. That has nothing to do with
"denying nature".
>> Further, since "there should be no more than 500 birds per
>> acre per year", it is clear that the ecological and spatial costs of
>> production are much higher per unit of food output than
>> producing plant foods on the same area.
> That's not clear at all.
Perhaps not to the willfully-ignorant, too lazy to do their homework.
USDA 15 gives for a 1/2 chicken, broilers or friers, meat only, raw
pro = 70.4 g, cho = 0, fat = 10.1 g, so 500 birds would yield
70,400 g pro, and 10,100 g fat.
USDA reports an average wheat production for 2001/2 as 40.2 bushels per
acre.
http://infosys.ars.usda.gov/whyldKS.pdf claims one bushel of wheat weighs 60
lbs., so an acre of wheat would produce 2,412 lbs. (1,095,000 grams) of
wheat, which yields 150,000 g pro, 27,000 g fat, and 779,000 g cho, or 12
TIMES AS MUCH nutrients from the same area, with zero artery-clogging
cholesterol.
> the food derived is much more nutrient dense.
The rampant epidemic of obesity is caused by consuming "nutrient dense"
foods, so what's the point?
> > And, 100% of the birds are killed; whereas, NO chickens would be
> > killed in the production of plant foods.
> Are you implying that there is some moral imperative to not kill chickens?
I am not implying anything, stop twisting my words. There are no
chicken deaths with the production of grains.
> What happened to morality being subjective, or meaningless?
I did not say anything about morality.
> You just implied that producing chickens is a moral issue.
"Implications" occur only in your own twisted imagination, since you are
not honest enough to deal with what I actually say.
> , as I meat-eater I do not feel it's my place to impose my
> diet on anyone else or lay guilt on anyone for their choice of food.
Aren't you one of the meatarian propagandists who choose to try to
impose a zero-molecule standard on all vegans, and then guilt-trip them for
not following YOUR mandate?
> > >Yet they pose as if they were nearly godlike in nature.
> It's not made up at all. Sites like http://www.veganoutreach.org/ reek of
> self-rightousness.
Present specific quotes as to a self-claimed "godlike in nature" made by
the site's authors.
You are accomplished in making broad, unsupported claims, yet you can
not support them when challenged.
> You repeatedly claim that ethics are purely subjective, yet you
> repeatedly launch into ethical judgments, such as claiming that
> Jonathan Ball is not debating ethically,
Is this simple concept REALLY that difficult for you??
There is no objective ethical standard; no one has challenged this
statement.
There are SUBJECTIVE standards, generally agreed-upon by civilized
people in various domains and various cultures; e.g. there are standards of
ISP's and the Internet community, which noBalls voluntarily chooses to
ignore, thus intentionally reducing himself to sub-human status.
There is no contradiction.
> and claiming that raising livestock is unethical.
I NEVER made that claim; I have presented well-known techniques of abuse
and harm, which I believe YOU claimed were unethical.
HINT: simply stating a fact does NOT attach any ethical charge to it.
> Most of what you say implies some kind of ethics,
Your hallucinated implications are YOUR responsibility, not mine.
> > > Livestock lives are not any more "painful" than any other.
> > I have given sufficient concrete examples,
> You've haven't made a direct comparison, ...
How can one make any direct comparisons with conditions that do not
exist in Nature? Overcrowding? No. Growth hormones? No. Antibiotics? No.
Genetic manipulation? No. Castrating? No. Branding? No. Undermining the
gene pool for profit? No.
> Since the diseases are averted by the drugs, the animals aren't
> suffering from them. We do the same for humans, to AVOID suffering.
Apparently you are as ignorant of the medical system and its
consequences as you are about most topics.
The medical industry kills ~250,000 people in the U.S. every year,
according to their own underreported statistics.
http://www.ecologos.org/ushealth.htm
The point you choose to ignore is that the conditions are so unhealthy
that drugs are "necessary" just to keep farm animals alive long enough to
get to market. You also ignore the fact that antibiotic, and other farm
chemical, residues are in the meats and dairy YOU eat, and that these
produce "superbugs" that are resistant to the antibiotics themselves, thus
this practice is threatening human health as well.
> I'm not doing the same thing at all.
Are you not one of the meatarian propagandists that tries to impose a
zero-molecule standard on all vegans, and then criticize them for not
following your dictates?
> He's wrong in his basic presumption, it's not wrong to kill animals for
> food, it's natural.
Yet, you are not courageous enough to even test your belief by killing
and eating raw any animal with your "natural" equipment. This is a bizarre
self-contradiction that you can not resolve.
> I'm here to help vegans confront the cognitive blindness, the lies,
> fallacies and manipulations that always ensue from professing veganism.
How about YOUR willful "cognitive blindness" resulting from your total
and intentional ignorance of the epidemiological evidence that shows that
more meat-eating creates more disease, less meat-eating creates less
disease, and NO meat-eating creates the LEAST disease?
You simply do not have the intellectual integrity to honestly assess
this huge body of scientific evidence, so you are guilty of the same
conceptual manipulations and lies you project on others.
Laurie
voice of reason
>
> "voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote
> > So what if chickens eat insects, how far are you prepared to go
> > to deny nature?
> You said:
> > > > ... animal husbandry such as depicted in "The Polyface
> > > > Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
> The fact that chickens eat insects is proof of collateral deaths.
> You lied and you were caught in that lie. That has nothing to do with
> "denying nature".
It's not a lie, dingbat. Insects are not considered "collateral deaths",
even by those of us who have used the argument to point out vegan hypocrisy.
What's next, microbes? neutrinos? If insect deaths are significant, then the
vegan house of cards really DOES come crashing down.
> >> Further, since "there should be no more than 500 birds per
> >> acre per year", it is clear that the ecological and spatial costs of
> >> production are much higher per unit of food output than
> >> producing plant foods on the same area.
> > That's not clear at all.
> Perhaps not to the willfully-ignorant, too lazy to do their homework.
>
> USDA 15 gives for a 1/2 chicken, broilers or friers, meat only, raw
> pro = 70.4 g, cho = 0, fat = 10.1 g, so 500 birds would yield
> 70,400 g pro, and 10,100 g fat.
> USDA reports an average wheat production for 2001/2 as 40.2 bushels
per
> acre.
> http://infosys.ars.usda.gov/whyldKS.pdf claims one bushel of wheat weighs
60
> lbs., so an acre of wheat would produce 2,412 lbs. (1,095,000 grams) of
> wheat, which yields 150,000 g pro, 27,000 g fat, and 779,000 g cho, or 12
> TIMES AS MUCH nutrients from the same area, with zero artery-clogging
> cholesterol.
>
> > the food derived is much more nutrient dense.
> The rampant epidemic of obesity is caused by consuming "nutrient
dense"
> foods, so what's the point?
You were just arguing that it's important to produce MORE food on the same
parcel of land. MORE food is at least as related to obesity than nutrient
dense food.
> > > And, 100% of the birds are killed; whereas, NO chickens would be
> > > killed in the production of plant foods.
> > Are you implying that there is some moral imperative to not kill
chickens?
> I am not implying anything, stop twisting my words. There are no
> chicken deaths with the production of grains.
So what?
>
> > What happened to morality being subjective, or meaningless?
> I did not say anything about morality.
How about ethics then slick? Is there something unethical about killing
chickens? Why shouldn't I do it?
> > You just implied that producing chickens is a moral issue.
> "Implications" occur only in your own twisted imagination, since you
are
> not honest enough to deal with what I actually say.
I'm smart enough to see the clear implications of what you say. Why raise
the issue of chickens being killed if you don't consider it an ethical/moral
issue? " NO chickens would be killed in the production of plant foods." Why
did you say that?
> > , as I meat-eater I do not feel it's my place to impose my
> > diet on anyone else or lay guilt on anyone for their choice of food.
> Aren't you one of the meatarian propagandists who choose to try to
> impose a zero-molecule standard on all vegans, and then guilt-trip them
for
> not following YOUR mandate?
Vegans call omnivores unethical based on the fact animals are killed to
support their lifestyles (specifically for meat). To have the moral
authority to support this attack, vegans MUST stop killing animals with
their own lifestyles. they barely acknowledge that they do it.
> > > >Yet they pose as if they were nearly godlike in nature.
> > It's not made up at all. Sites like http://www.veganoutreach.org/ reek
of
> > self-righteousness.
> Present specific quotes as to a self-claimed "godlike in nature" made
by
> the site's authors.
The entire site amounts to such a pose, but those were quotes from two
different messages.
> You are accomplished in making broad, unsupported claims, yet you can
> not support them when challenged.
I can support factual claims just fine. Those quotes above were my
subjective opinion of vegans.
> > You repeatedly claim that ethics are purely subjective, yet you
> > repeatedly launch into ethical judgments, such as claiming that
> > Jonathan Ball is not debating ethically,
> Is this simple concept REALLY that difficult for you??
Not at all, but you seem to be all over the map with it.
> There is no objective ethical standard; no one has challenged this
> statement.
Why mention it then? What's the point?
> There are SUBJECTIVE standards, generally agreed-upon by civilized
> people in various domains and various cultures;
One of them is that it's perfectly normal and good to kill and eat animals.
e.g. there are standards of
> ISP's and the Internet community, which noBalls voluntarily chooses to
> ignore, thus intentionally reducing himself to sub-human status.
I'll take this opportunity to remind you of the agreed-upon internet
standard of leaving a space between people's comments. The way you cram
every line tight together is horribly difficult to read. Please stop doing
it.
> There is no contradiction.
I'm not going to waste the time going back through your crap. Do you come
back after weeks of absence deliberately to lose the thread of the
conversation? Is that related to your habit of cramming lines tightly
together to make the conversation hard to follow?
> > and claiming that raising livestock is unethical.
> I NEVER made that claim; I have presented well-known techniques of
abuse
> and harm, which I believe YOU claimed were unethical.
Don't YOU think abuse is unethical?
> HINT: simply stating a fact does NOT attach any ethical charge to it.
Why are you stating such facts then?
> > Most of what you say implies some kind of ethics,
> Your hallucinated implications are YOUR responsibility, not mine.
No hallucination, I repeat, most of what you say implies some kind of
ethics.
Below is a prime example of squashed-together comments and replies
> > > > Livestock lives are not any more "painful" than any other.
> > > I have given sufficient concrete examples,
> > You've haven't made a direct comparison, ...
> How can one make any direct comparisons with conditions that do not
> exist in Nature? Overcrowding? No. Growth hormones? No. Antibiotics? No.
> Genetic manipulation? No. Castrating? No. Branding? No. Undermining the
> gene pool for profit? No.
Why do you avoid mentioning all the negatives about living in the wild? I
won't list them, you know what they are.
The question is, why should I care about branding and castrating? Maybe my
ethics allow it.
> > Since the diseases are averted by the drugs, the animals aren't
> > suffering from them. We do the same for humans, to AVOID suffering.
> Apparently you are as ignorant of the medical system and its
> consequences as you are about most topics.
> The medical industry kills ~250,000 people in the U.S. every year,
> according to their own underreported statistics.
> http://www.ecologos.org/ushealth.htm
> The point you choose to ignore is that the conditions are so unhealthy
> that drugs are "necessary" just to keep farm animals alive long enough to
> get to market. You also ignore the fact that antibiotic, and other farm
> chemical, residues are in the meats and dairy YOU eat, and that these
> produce "superbugs" that are resistant to the antibiotics themselves, thus
> this practice is threatening human health as well.
>
> > I'm not doing the same thing at all.
> Are you not one of the meatarian propagandists that tries to impose a
> zero-molecule standard on all vegans, and then criticize them for not
> following your dictates?
>
> > He's wrong in his basic presumption, it's not wrong to kill animals for
> > food, it's natural.
> Yet, you are not courageous enough to even test your belief by killing
> and eating raw any animal with your "natural" equipment. This is a
bizarre
> self-contradiction that you can not resolve.
There's nothing contradictory about it, except to blinkered vegans, even
pseudo-scientific ones such as yourself.
> > I'm here to help vegans confront the cognitive blindness, the lies,
> > fallacies and manipulations that always ensue from professing veganism.
> How about YOUR willful "cognitive blindness" resulting from your total
> and intentional ignorance of the epidemiological evidence that shows that
> more meat-eating creates more disease, less meat-eating creates less
> disease, and NO meat-eating creates the LEAST disease?
You can't support that conclusion.
> You simply do not have the intellectual integrity to honestly assess
> this huge body of scientific evidence, so you are guilty of the same
> conceptual manipulations and lies you project on others.
You can't see anything but your own brand of extremist vegan dogma. You're
too far gone to bother with.
Gerry
canonical Gospels
Laurie <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote in message
news:vhgpf59...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:m309hvg222tk9p7du...@4ax.com...
> > Genesis 4
> > Genesis 9
> > Exodus 12
> > Leviticus 1
> > Leviticus 12
> > Deuteronomy 12
> > Deuteronomy 14
> > 1 Kings 8
> > Mark 7
> > Mark 14
> > Luke 2
> > Luke 24
> > John 21
> > Acts 10
> > Romans 14
> > http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible
> Consistent with your ongoing, humorous, and annoying habit of
> intentionally distorting the facts to support your mindless cowboy
> philosophy, and recognizing that the Bible is certainly not a
> scientifically-credible nutritional text, and that it was written by
> nutritionally-ignorant humans, and edited by a military dictator several
> hundreds of years ago, I find it insightful and consistent with your
geo...@bush.bosh
> "voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote in message
> news:DLESa.498342$Vi5.12...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>
>>So what if chickens eat insects, how far are you prepared to go
>>to deny nature?
>
> You said:
>
>>>>... animal husbandry such as depicted in "The Polyface
>>>>Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
>
> The fact that chickens eat insects is proof of collateral deaths.
"ara" idiots don't view insects as "subject-of-a-life"
animals.
> You lied and you were caught in that lie. That has nothing to do with
> "denying nature".
>
>
>>> Further, since "there should be no more than 500 birds per
>>>acre per year", it is clear that the ecological and spatial costs of
>>>production are much higher per unit of food output than
>>>producing plant foods on the same area.
>>
>>That's not clear at all.
>
> Perhaps not to the willfully-ignorant, too lazy to do their homework.
>
> USDA 15 gives for a 1/2 chicken, broilers or friers, meat only, raw
> pro = 70.4 g, cho = 0, fat = 10.1 g, so 500 birds would yield
> 70,400 g pro, and 10,100 g fat.
> USDA reports an average wheat production for 2001/2 as 40.2 bushels per
> acre.
> http://infosys.ars.usda.gov/whyldKS.pdf claims one bushel of wheat weighs 60
> lbs., so an acre of wheat would produce 2,412 lbs. (1,095,000 grams) of
> wheat, which yields 150,000 g pro, 27,000 g fat, and 779,000 g cho, or 12
> TIMES AS MUCH nutrients from the same area, with zero artery-clogging
> cholesterol.
Irrelevant. People like chicken, and we can afford to
spend the resources to produce it. Building a
Mercedes-Benz S500 car takes many times the resources
required to produce a bottom of the line Kia, but as
long as someone is willing to pay for it freely,
there's nothing wrong with that allocation of resources.
>
>
>> the food derived is much more nutrient dense.
>
> The rampant epidemic of obesity is caused by consuming "nutrient dense"
> foods, so what's the point?
It's caused by the OVER-consumption of it, lying Larry,
not the basic consumption. I consume some amount of
meat at virtually every lunch and dinner, and I am not
obese AT ALL.
>
>
>>> And, 100% of the birds are killed; whereas, NO chickens would be
>>>killed in the production of plant foods.
>>
>>Are you implying that there is some moral imperative to not kill chickens?
>
> I am not implying anything, stop twisting my words. There are no
> chicken deaths with the production of grains.
>
>
>>What happened to morality being subjective, or meaningless?
>
> I did not say anything about morality.
Yes, you did. You mean the same thing when you use the
word "ethics". In fact, EVERYONE who writes on the
topic really means morality, not ethics. They just are
afraid of sounding sanctimonious, which they do anyway.
>
>
>>You just implied that producing chickens is a moral issue.
>
> "Implications" occur only in your own twisted imagination, since you are
> not honest enough to deal with what I actually say.
No, lying Larry. He correctly used the word "implied".
It is *inferences* which occur in the mind of the
listener, based on the implications you produce.
>
>
>>, as I meat-eater I do not feel it's my place to impose my
>>diet on anyone else or lay guilt on anyone for their choice of food.
>
> Aren't you one of the meatarian propagandists who choose to try to
> impose a zero-molecule standard on all vegans, and then guilt-trip them for
> not following YOUR mandate?
No. No opponent of "vegans" does that. No one except
the "vegans" is talking about "zero molecules". What
we rational opponents of "veganism"/"ar" do is say that
in order for them to be morally consistent, they must
get the CDs caused by their diet down to the comparable
level of human CDs caused by their diet. They don't do
it, and they don't even want to start, which is how we
know they aren't really "ar" believers.
>
>
>>>>Yet they pose as if they were nearly godlike in nature.
>>
>>It's not made up at all. Sites like http://www.veganoutreach.org/ reek of
>>self-rightousness.
>
> Present specific quotes as to a self-claimed "godlike in nature" made by
> the site's authors.
> You are accomplished in making broad, unsupported claims, yet you can
> not support them when challenged.
>
>
>>You repeatedly claim that ethics are purely subjective, yet you
>>repeatedly launch into ethical judgments, such as claiming that
>>Jonathan Ball is not debating ethically,
>
> Is this simple concept REALLY that difficult for you??
> There is no objective ethical standard; no one has challenged this
> statement.
> There are SUBJECTIVE standards, generally agreed-upon by civilized
> people
There is no objective definition of "civilized people",
shitwipe.
> in various domains and various cultures; e.g. there are standards of
> ISP's and the Internet community, which noBalls voluntarily chooses to
> ignore, thus intentionally reducing himself to sub-human status.
> There is no contradiction.
There is a contradction, laughably lying Larry. You
are talking out of both sides of your ass. You can't
make a viable distinction between the "ethics" of
animal usage, and your pseudo-"ethics" of usenet
posting protocol.
>
>
>>and claiming that raising livestock is unethical.
>
> I NEVER made that claim; I have presented well-known techniques of abuse
> and harm, which I believe YOU claimed were unethical.
> HINT: simply stating a fact does NOT attach any ethical charge to it.
>
>
>>Most of what you say implies some kind of ethics,
>
> Your hallucinated implications are YOUR responsibility, not mine.
You are implying what he says, Larry.
>
>
>>>>Livestock lives are not any more "painful" than any other.
>>>
>>> I have given sufficient concrete examples,
>>
>>You've haven't made a direct comparison, ...
>
> How can one make any direct comparisons with conditions that do not
> exist in Nature?
Non sequitur. Why must it exist in nature in order to
allow a direct comparison?
> Overcrowding? No. Growth hormones? No. Antibiotics? No.
> Genetic manipulation? No. Castrating? No. Branding? No. Undermining the
> gene pool for profit? No.
Irrelevant.
>
>
>>Since the diseases are averted by the drugs, the animals aren't
>>suffering from them. We do the same for humans, to AVOID suffering.
>
> Apparently you are as ignorant of the medical system and its
> consequences as you are about most topics.
> The medical industry kills ~250,000 people in the U.S. every year,
> according to their own underreported statistics.
> http://www.ecologos.org/ushealth.htm
No, it doesn't "kill" those people. That's just
inflammatory rhetoric on your part.
> The point you choose to ignore is that the conditions are so unhealthy
> that drugs are "necessary" just to keep farm animals alive long enough to
> get to market.
Prove it.
> You also ignore the fact that antibiotic, and other farm
> chemical, residues are in the meats and dairy YOU eat, and that these
> produce "superbugs" that are resistant to the antibiotics themselves, thus
> this practice is threatening human health as well.
>
>
>>I'm not doing the same thing at all.
>
> Are you not one of the meatarian propagandists
No one is a "meatarian propagandist", lying Larry.
That's a stupid, inflammatory term you made up to
demonize those who rightly and accurately point out the
nutritional benefits of eating meat.
> that tries to impose a
> zero-molecule standard on all vegans,
False. You are lying. No one is attempting to impose
a "zero-molecule standard" on "vegans". The "vegans"
themselves wish to *achieve* a zero-molecule (of animal
parts) *diet*. Opponents of "veganism"/"ar" are only
insisting that the "vegans" behave in a morally
consistent manner, which they do not.
> and then criticize them for not
> following your dictates?
Strawman, lying Larry.
>
>
>>He's wrong in his basic presumption, it's not wrong to kill animals for
>>food, it's natural.
>
> Yet, you are not courageous enough to even test your belief by killing
> and eating raw any animal with your "natural" equipment.
It's not a matter of "courage", lying Larry.
> This is a bizarre
> self-contradiction that you can not resolve.
There is no contradiction, self or otherwise. That's a
red herring.
>
>
>>I'm here to help vegans confront the cognitive blindness, the lies,
>>fallacies and manipulations that always ensue from professing veganism.
>
> How about YOUR willful "cognitive blindness" resulting from your total
> and intentional ignorance of the epidemiological evidence that shows that
> more meat-eating creates more disease, less meat-eating creates less
> disease, and NO meat-eating creates the LEAST disease?
You haven't produced anything that demonstrates what
you have claimed about zero meat consumption. You are
lying, lying Larry. You can not even *read* a bona
fide epidemiological study.
> You simply do not have the intellectual integrity
You are the LAST person in these newsgroups entitled to
criticize anyone's intellectual integrity, shitworm.
Gerry
ancient times it was done by spear (they are atleast killed before eaten),
hence it would be more 'cruel' for an animal to be killed by say a lion,
than by a human, who make sure their prey is killed before they eat it
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3F199CD7...@whitehouse.not...
dh...@nomail.com
>human hunting nowadays is done by way of bullet (eg. instant death), back in
>ancient times it was done by spear (they are atleast killed before eaten),
>hence it would be more 'cruel' for an animal to be killed by say a lion,
>than by a human, who make sure their prey is killed before they eat it
True, but "ARAs" are *very* opposed to us giving consideration
to any aspects of situations that don't support what they want to
accomplish. If the animals would suffer more from starvation,
disease and nonhuman predators than from human hunting, they
will desperately try to prevent people from taking it into consideration.
They don't want to see any decline in donations just because people
give more thought to what they're contributing to.
Laurie
"voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote in message
news:MkEUa.527459$ro6.12...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > > > ... animal husbandry such as depicted in "The Polyface
> > > > > Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
> > The fact that chickens eat insects is proof of collateral deaths.
> > You lied and you were caught in that lie. That has nothing to do
with
> > "denying nature".
> It's not a lie, dingbat. Insects are not considered "collateral deaths",
> even by those of us who have used the argument to point out vegan
> hypocrisy.
Of course not, because considering a -fair- metric, such as total animal
biomass would reveal the total falsity of your propaganda. However, these
same anti-veg*n crusaders, including you, right?, DO count insects and
bacteria in their false insistence that all vegans have taken the
not-one-molecule oath. Thus, again you reveal the double standard which is
central to your propaganda.
> You were just arguing that it's important to produce MORE food
> on the same parcel of land. MORE food is at least as related to
> obesity than nutrient dense food.
Actually, I pointed out that it is more EFFICIENT to produce plant foods
than animals on the same land, and that is always true because of the poor
conversion efficiency of plant protein into animal protein.
Are you really claiming that food PRODUCTION is related to the
individual's choice, or ignorance, to overeat? How ridiculous can you get?
Here's the reason for obesity.
http://www.ecologos.org/obese.htm
> > I am not implying anything, stop twisting my words. There are no
> > chicken deaths with the production of grains.
> So what?
So, the total animal biomass lost/killed in producing free-range
chickens is much more than that of producing plant foods.
> > > What happened to morality being subjective, or meaningless?
> > I did not say anything about morality.
> How about ethics then slick? Is there something unethical about killing
> chickens? Why shouldn't I do it?
You were the one making the argument for free range chickens as
producing less animal suffering/deaths than plant foods, and that was easily
disproven.
> > > You just implied that producing chickens is a moral issue.
>> "Implications" occur only in your own twisted imagination,
>>since you are not honest enough to deal with what I actually say.
> I'm smart enough to see the clear implications of what you say.
YOU create the "implications" and you are responsible for them. You are
just making up false "implications" to attack, simply because you can not
deal with what I actually say in an intelligent manner.
> Why raise
> the issue of chickens being killed if you don't consider it an
ethical/moral
> issue? " NO chickens would be killed in the production of plant foods."
> Why did you say that?
Because YOU were claiming that free range chickens would cause less
animal suffering/death than plant foods raised on the same land, and that
was easily disproven.
> > > , as I meat-eater I do not feel it's my place to impose my
> > > diet on anyone else or lay guilt on anyone for their choice of food.
> > Aren't you one of the meatarian propagandists who choose to
>> try to impose a zero-molecule standard on all vegans, and then
>> guilt-trip them for not following YOUR mandate?
NOTE: no answer to this question, because it refers to your double
standard.
> To have the moral authority ...
Without an objective set of morals, there is no such thing. This is a
false concept made up here by noBalls, the most immoral of all.
> > There is no objective ethical standard; no one has challenged this
> > statement.
> Why mention it then? What's the point?
You don't really understand this, right? Without an objective ethical
standard, there is NO meaningful ethical argument about diet, lifestyle, or
anything else.
>> There are SUBJECTIVE standards, generally agreed-upon by
>> civilized people in various domains and various cultures;
> One of them is that it's perfectly normal and good to kill and eat
animals.
Normal is a statistical concept totally unrelated to local ethical
standards. I have been very clear about killing/eating animals not being an
ethical issue, didn't you understand that the first hundred times I said it?
> I'll take this opportunity to remind you of the agreed-upon internet
> standard of leaving a space between people's comments.
Reference?
> > I NEVER made that claim; I have presented well-known techniques of
> > abuse and harm, which I believe YOU claimed were unethical.
> Don't YOU think abuse is unethical?
We are using YOUR standard of "harm" being unethical, and by YOUR
standard such abuse, harm, and killing is indeed "unethical". Interesting
how you want to change your own definitions from line to line in
poorly-disguised and "unethical" trickery.
> > HINT: simply stating a fact does NOT attach any ethical charge to
it.
> Why are you stating such facts then?
Because, rational people, and apparently that excludes you, base their
intellectual exchanges on facts and logic. Facts transcend the vague
nonsensical babble about ethics.
> Why do you avoid mentioning all the negatives about living in the wild?
There are none, especially when compared with human global ecocide and
omni-destructive practices. Nature is about gene poole, not individuals.
> The question is, why should I care about branding and castrating?
> Maybe my ethics allow it.
Because YOUR definition of "harm" as being "unethical". If you don't
believe these practices are harmful, then have them done on you and report
your experiences here.
>>> He's wrong in his basic presumption, it's not wrong to kill animals for
>>> food, it's natural.
>> Yet, you are not courageous enough to even test your belief by
killing
>> and eating raw any animal with your "natural" equipment. This is a
>> bizarre self-contradiction that you can not resolve.
> There's nothing contradictory about it, ...
Lying won't change anything.
ALL natural flesh-eaters on the planet have all the special
physical/biochemical adaptations to do so with their natural equipment.
HINT: this means without knives or cooking. YOU do not, and YOU are afraid
to eat your flesh in the manner that ALL natural flesh-eaters do. Thus,
your claim that you are a "natural" flesh-eater and your refusal to do it in
the established "natural" manner is a severe contradiction that refutes this
silly assertion.
> except to blinkered vegans, even
> pseudo-scientific ones such as yourself.
Ah, yes, personal insults are a valid substitute for reasoned analysis
in your "ethical" system.
> > How about YOUR willful "cognitive blindness" resulting from
>> your total and intentional ignorance of the epidemiological evidence
>> that shows that more meat-eating creates more disease, less
>> meat-eating creates less disease, and NO meat-eating
>> creates the LEAST disease?
> You can't support that conclusion.
There are several hundred abstracts of the current scientific literature
on my site that say exactly that. Your willful ignorance of the
epidemiology involved will not make it go away.
http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html and pick the degenerative disease of your
choice.
Laurie
fri...@rational.and.calm
> "voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote in message
> news:MkEUa.527459$ro6.12...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>
>>>>>>... animal husbandry such as depicted in "The Polyface
>>>>>>Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
>>>
>>> The fact that chickens eat insects is proof of collateral deaths.
>>> You lied and you were caught in that lie. That has nothing to do
>
> with
>
>>>"denying nature".
>>
>>It's not a lie, dingbat. Insects are not considered "collateral deaths",
>>even by those of us who have used the argument to point out vegan
>>hypocrisy.
>
> Of course not, because considering a -fair- metric, such as total animal
> biomass would reveal the total falsity of your propaganda.
"fair" is an absurd moral term, lying Larry.
Your "metric" of biomass is equally absurd, lying
Larry. The debate, whether you like it or not, is
about ethics. In that context, the "biomass" of a cow
has no more ethical weight than the "biomass" of a mouse.
You are quite evidently a skinny dweeb, Larry. If
someone murders a hulking 350 pound NFL lineman, and
someone else murders skinny geeky dweeby Larry Forti,
should the first person receive a harsher penalty
because he cause the illegal death of more "biomass"?
You stupid, STUPID extremist. You're a dope, lying
Larry Forti, and you'll always be a dope.
rick etter
>
> "voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote in message
> news:MkEUa.527459$ro6.12...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > > > > > ... animal husbandry such as depicted in "The Polyface
> > > > > > Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
> > > The fact that chickens eat insects is proof of collateral deaths.
> > > You lied and you were caught in that lie. That has nothing to do
> with
> > > "denying nature".
> > It's not a lie, dingbat. Insects are not considered "collateral deaths",
> > even by those of us who have used the argument to point out vegan
> > hypocrisy.
> Of course not, because considering a -fair- metric, such as total
animal
> biomass would reveal the total falsity of your propaganda. However, these
> same anti-veg*n crusaders, including you, right?, DO count insects and
> bacteria in their false insistence that all vegans have taken the
> not-one-molecule oath. Thus, again you reveal the double standard which
is
> central to your propaganda.
Nope. The only people I keep seeing referring tobugs are AR/vegan loons
trying to argue their way out of their death toll by saying something about
counting bugs as animals. No one on this right side of the arguement is
counting bugs, but if you'd like to, then go right ahead, you'll that
argument too.
>
> > You were just arguing that it's important to produce MORE food
> > on the same parcel of land. MORE food is at least as related to
> > obesity than nutrient dense food.
> Actually, I pointed out that it is more EFFICIENT to produce plant
foods
> than animals on the same land, and that is always true because of the poor
> conversion efficiency of plant protein into animal protein.
=================
nope. Not all land is capable of crop farming, but it will support animals.
Besides, turning natural grasslands into monoculture farmland isn't really
all that animal friendly, now is it?
> Are you really claiming that food PRODUCTION is related to the
> individual's choice, or ignorance, to overeat? How ridiculous can you
get?
> Here's the reason for obesity.
> http://www.ecologos.org/obese.htm
>
> > > I am not implying anything, stop twisting my words. There are no
> > > chicken deaths with the production of grains.
> > So what?
> So, the total animal biomass lost/killed in producing free-range
> chickens is much more than that of producing plant foods.
====================
What a hoot! You don't even know what you're talking about. You've read
some stupidity on a pro[-aganda site and now try to argue you know
something.
>
> > > > What happened to morality being subjective, or meaningless?
> > > I did not say anything about morality.
> > How about ethics then slick? Is there something unethical about killing
> > chickens? Why shouldn't I do it?
> You were the one making the argument for free range chickens as
> producing less animal suffering/deaths than plant foods, and that was
easily
> disproven.
>
> > > > You just implied that producing chickens is a moral issue.
> >> "Implications" occur only in your own twisted imagination,
> >>since you are not honest enough to deal with what I actually say.
> > I'm smart enough to see the clear implications of what you say.
> YOU create the "implications" and you are responsible for them. You
are
> just making up false "implications" to attack, simply because you can not
> deal with what I actually say in an intelligent manner.
>
> > Why raise
> > the issue of chickens being killed if you don't consider it an
> ethical/moral
> > issue? " NO chickens would be killed in the production of plant foods."
> > Why did you say that?
> Because YOU were claiming that free range chickens would cause less
> animal suffering/death than plant foods raised on the same land, and that
> was easily disproven.
==============
Really? haven't seen you do that, killer.
>
> > > > , as I meat-eater I do not feel it's my place to impose my
> > > > diet on anyone else or lay guilt on anyone for their choice of food.
> > > Aren't you one of the meatarian propagandists who choose to
> >> try to impose a zero-molecule standard on all vegans, and then
> >> guilt-trip them for not following YOUR mandate?
> NOTE: no answer to this question, because it refers to your double
> standard.
>
> > To have the moral authority ...
> Without an objective set of morals, there is no such thing. This is a
> false concept made up here by noBalls, the most immoral of all.
>
> > > There is no objective ethical standard; no one has challenged this
> > > statement.
> > Why mention it then? What's the point?
> You don't really understand this, right? Without an objective ethical
> standard, there is NO meaningful ethical argument about diet, lifestyle,
or
> anything else.
================
Bingo, and vegan have no moral or ethical ground to stand on. Especially
those of you that continue to post your ignorance and stupidity to usenet.
=====================
really? Man you are this stupid, aren't you? Not all natural meat eaters
have any special means of catching food more than we do. That you don't
want to understand that just means you're to stupid to engage in this
debate.
Thus,
> your claim that you are a "natural" flesh-eater and your refusal to do it
in
> the established "natural" manner is a severe contradiction that refutes
this
> silly assertion.
==================
No, your assertion that we are only made to eat veggies is a severe
contradiction of facts.
dh...@nomail.com
How does the total animal biomass that experiences life due to
producing free-range chickens, compare to that of animal biomass
lost/killed due to producing free-range chickens Larry?
> Laurie
That "Laurie" shit is a disgusting lie. You insult all women by
referring to yourself in such a dishonest way.
voice of reason
>
> "voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote
>
> > > > > > Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
> > > The fact that chickens eat insects is proof of collateral deaths.
> > > You lied and you were caught in that lie. That has nothing to do
> with
> > > "denying nature".
> > It's not a lie, dingbat. Insects are not considered "collateral deaths",
> > even by those of us who have used the argument to point out vegan
> > hypocrisy.
> Of course not, because considering a -fair- metric, such as total
animal
> biomass would reveal the total falsity of your propaganda.
Please explain the relevance of "total animal biomass".
> However, these
> same anti-veg*n crusaders, including you, right?
Veganism as an ethical/moral/political/health movement is fundamentally and
mortally flawed, if that's what you mean.
> DO count insects and
> bacteria
No, I specifically *omit* insects when considering the collateral impact of
diets.
> in their false insistence that all vegans have taken the
> not-one-molecule oath. Thus, again you reveal the double standard which
is
> central to your propaganda.
Not at all, we do NOT mean insects in that argument, we mean such things as
anchovy paste and gelatin.
> > You were just arguing that it's important to produce MORE food
> > on the same parcel of land. MORE food is at least as related to
> > obesity than nutrient dense food.
> Actually, I pointed out that it is more EFFICIENT to produce plant
foods
> than animals on the same land, and that is always true because of the poor
> conversion efficiency of plant protein into animal protein.
And I said that the food produced by processing through animals is more
nutrient dense. We eat to obtain nutrients. Calories are mostly
counter-health.
> Are you really claiming that food PRODUCTION is related to the
> individual's choice, or ignorance, to overeat? How ridiculous can you
get?
> Here's the reason for obesity.
> http://www.ecologos.org/obese.htm
Your reply (which you snipped away without noting) was "The rampant epidemic
of obesity is caused by consuming "nutrient dense" foods".
Are you really claiming that nutritious food causes people to overeat? How
ridiculous can YOU get?
> > > I am not implying anything, stop twisting my words. There are no
> > > chicken deaths with the production of grains.
> > So what?
> So, the total animal biomass lost/killed in producing free-range
> chickens is much more than that of producing plant foods.
So what?
> > > > What happened to morality being subjective, or meaningless?
> > > I did not say anything about morality.
> > How about ethics then slick? Is there something unethical about killing
> > chickens? Why shouldn't I do it?
> You were the one making the argument for free range chickens as
> producing less animal suffering/deaths than plant foods, and that was
easily
> disproven.
Where did I make that argument?
> > > > You just implied that producing chickens is a moral issue.
> >> "Implications" occur only in your own twisted imagination,
> >>since you are not honest enough to deal with what I actually say.
> > I'm smart enough to see the clear implications of what you say.
> YOU create the "implications" and you are responsible for them. You
are
> just making up false "implications" to attack, simply because you can not
> deal with what I actually say in an intelligent manner.
You aren't saying anything coherent.
> > Why raise
> > the issue of chickens being killed if you don't consider it an
> ethical/moral
> > issue? " NO chickens would be killed in the production of plant foods."
> > Why did you say that?
> Because YOU were claiming that free range chickens would cause less
> animal suffering/death than plant foods raised on the same land, and that
> was easily disproven.
You're hopelessly confused. Try responding in a timely fashion for a change
and you won't get lost.
> > > > , as I meat-eater I do not feel it's my place to impose my
> > > > diet on anyone else or lay guilt on anyone for their choice of food.
> > > Aren't you one of the meatarian propagandists who choose to
> >> try to impose a zero-molecule standard on all vegans, and then
> >> guilt-trip them for not following YOUR mandate?
> NOTE: no answer to this question, because it refers to your double
> standard.
The only double standard in this discussion is held by vegans who support
the mass destruction of animals with their agribusiness, monoculture farmed,
plant-based diets while they self-righteously accuse omnivores of harming
animals.
> > To have the moral authority ...
> Without an objective set of morals, there is no such thing. This is a
> false concept made up here by noBalls, the most immoral of all.
Wrong
> > > There is no objective ethical standard; no one has challenged this
> > > statement.
> > Why mention it then? What's the point?
> You don't really understand this, right? Without an objective ethical
> standard, there is NO meaningful ethical argument about diet, lifestyle,
or
> anything else.
Nonsense, you said yourself, there are more-or-less agreed-upon sets of
standard ethics that we use. That's what we have always been talking about.
This "there is objective..." crap is more of your irrelevant hot-air hooey.
> >> There are SUBJECTIVE standards, generally agreed-upon by
> >> civilized people in various domains and various cultures;
As I just said, THAT'S what ethics we're talking about.
> > One of them is that it's perfectly normal and good to kill and eat
> animals.
> Normal is a statistical concept totally unrelated to local ethical
> standards. I have been very clear about killing/eating animals not being
an
> ethical issue, didn't you understand that the first hundred times I said
it?
Yes, but I don't find you credible. In my view, with considerable evidence
from your own comments, you hold a set of AR beliefs but you pretend they
are scientific beliefs.
> > I'll take this opportunity to remind you of the agreed-upon internet
> > standard of leaving a space between people's comments.
> Reference?
http://info.borland.com/newsgroups/netiquette.html
2. Separate paragraphs with a blank line. Also, separate your text from
quoted text with a blank line.
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/usenet/writing-style/part1.html
* White space is not wasted space -- it greatly improves clarity.
A blank line only adds a byte to the article length, so don't be
stingy if it will help make your meaning clearer.
There are plenty more, but most obvious of all, Clue#1-A for Dummies
EVERYONE else does it!
> > > I NEVER made that claim; I have presented well-known techniques of
> > > abuse and harm, which I believe YOU claimed were unethical.
> > Don't YOU think abuse is unethical?
> We are using YOUR standard of "harm" being unethical, and by YOUR
> standard such abuse, harm, and killing is indeed "unethical". Interesting
> how you want to change your own definitions from line to line in
> poorly-disguised and "unethical" trickery.
Stop dodging and answer the question. Do you think it's unethical to abuse
animals?
> > > HINT: simply stating a fact does NOT attach any ethical charge to
> it.
> > Why are you stating such facts then?
> Because, rational people, and apparently that excludes you, base their
> intellectual exchanges on facts and logic. Facts transcend the vague
> nonsensical babble about ethics.
Facts in and of themselves have no importance unless you attach some
measurement to them, good, bad, right, wrong.
> > Why do you avoid mentioning all the negatives about living in the wild?
> There are none,
Really...
>especially when compared with human global ecocide and
> omni-destructive practices. Nature is about gene poole, not individuals.
You're obfuscating again, it's all you do. Those goalposts must be getting
heavy...
You say that domestic animals' lives are awful, implying that there is some
ethic (i.e. I should care). I'm telling you that wild animals face
starvation, freezing, drought, predation, competition and many other deadly
obstacles that domestic animals do not.
> > The question is, why should I care about branding and castrating?
> > Maybe my ethics allow it.
> Because YOUR definition of "harm" as being "unethical".
Stop tossing it back on me, it's not MY claim that it's bad to brand
animals, you implied it when you mentioned it.
> If you don't
> believe these practices are harmful, then have them done on you and report
> your experiences here.
Why should I care that steers have to endure branding? You brought it up,
not me.
>
> >>> He's wrong in his basic presumption, it's not wrong to kill animals
for
> >>> food, it's natural.
> >> Yet, you are not courageous enough to even test your belief by
> killing
> >> and eating raw any animal with your "natural" equipment. This is a
> >> bizarre self-contradiction that you can not resolve.
> > There's nothing contradictory about it, ...
> Lying won't change anything.
I'm not lying.
> ALL natural flesh-eaters on the planet have all the special
> physical/biochemical adaptations to do so with their natural equipment.
Humans have all the adaptations they need and you know it.
> HINT: this means without knives or cooking.
Why? Are you forcing lions to kill prey without fangs?
> YOU do not, and YOU are afraid
> to eat your flesh in the manner that ALL natural flesh-eaters do. Thus,
> your claim that you are a "natural" flesh-eater and your refusal to do it
in
> the established "natural" manner is a severe contradiction that refutes
this
> silly assertion.
Chimpanzees cannot cature termites without using a piece of straw to fish
them out of the nest. Does this mean that termites are an "unnatural" food
for chimps? No, that's ridiculous, the development of tools is part of our
adaptation.
GET IT YET?
> > except to blinkered vegans, even
> > pseudo-scientific ones such as yourself.
> Ah, yes, personal insults are a valid substitute for reasoned analysis
> in your "ethical" system.
No, I have used plenty of reason, insults are just a little release for this
"corpse-cruncher" who gets a little weary with your constant obfuscation and
lack of adherence to the etiquette of usenet, such as indicating snips and
leaving blank spaces before and after your comments.
> > > How about YOUR willful "cognitive blindness" resulting from
> >> your total and intentional ignorance of the epidemiological evidence
> >> that shows that more meat-eating creates more disease, less
> >> meat-eating creates less disease, and NO meat-eating
> >> creates the LEAST disease?
> > You can't support that conclusion.
> There are several hundred abstracts of the current scientific
literature
> on my site that say exactly that. Your willful ignorance of the
> epidemiology involved will not make it go away.
> http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html and pick the degenerative disease of
your
> choice.
Poor Larry, you actually believe that meat is poisonous don't you? Even the
research you have on your own site doesn't say that. What research says is
that the health risks of a plant-based diet have be over-estimated. Research
also shows that meat (in excess) is bad for human health. Guess what, tofu
in excess is bad for health too.
Jonathan Ball
> "Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote
>
>>"voice of reason" <don't...@even.bother> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>>>... animal husbandry such as depicted in "The Polyface
>>>>>>>Farm" involves no suffering of animals or collateral deaths.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that chickens eat insects is proof of collateral deaths.
>>>> You lied and you were caught in that lie. That has nothing to do
>>
>>with
>>
>>>>"denying nature".
>>>
>>>It's not a lie, dingbat. Insects are not considered "collateral deaths",
>>>even by those of us who have used the argument to point out vegan
>>>hypocrisy.
>>
>> Of course not, because considering a -fair- metric, such as total
>
> animal
>
>>biomass would reveal the total falsity of your propaganda.
>
>
> Please explain the relevance of "total animal biomass".
He can't. It's a made-up term, and it has no relevance
in the discussion at hand.
>
>
>>However, these
>>same anti-veg*n crusaders, including you, right?
>
>
> Veganism as an ethical/moral/political/health movement is fundamentally and
> mortally flawed, if that's what you mean.
Lying Larry pretends to be above ethics. However, you
don't have to push him hard to get him to say something
with an implied ethics behind it.
voice of reason
> Lying Larry pretends to be above ethics. However, you
> don't have to push him hard to get him to say something
> with an implied ethics behind it.
Exactly my perception. He seems like an "ethical vegetarian" dressed up as a
pseudo-scientist.
Jonathan Ball
Spot on. He's as "vegan" as they get, and a lot of his
rationale is "ethics", but he knows he can't defend it,
and he's embarrassed about it, so he has constructed a
bizarre, impenetrable veneer of pseudo-science around it.
Jonathan Ball
It *is* goofy for Lawrence Forti to refer to himself as
"Laurie". However, what's *really* disgusting,
Fuckwit, is for you to try to set yourself up as some
kind of gallant knight, defending the honor of "all
women". Just eat shit and fuck off, Fuckwit.
Larry
> > > > "denying nature".
> > > It's not a lie, dingbat. Insects are not considered "collateral
deaths",
> > > even by those of us who have used the argument to point out vegan
> > > hypocrisy.
> > Of course not, because considering a -fair- metric, such as total
> animal
> > biomass would reveal the total falsity of your propaganda. However,
these
> > same anti-veg*n crusaders, including you, right?, DO count insects and
> > bacteria in their false insistence that all vegans have taken the
> > not-one-molecule oath. Thus, again you reveal the double standard which
> is
> > central to your propaganda.
> ====================
> Nope. The only people I keep seeing referring tobugs are AR/vegan loons
> trying to argue their way out of their death toll by saying something
about
> counting bugs as animals. No one on this right side of the arguement is
> counting bugs, but if you'd like to, then go right ahead, you'll that
> argument too.
You seem unable to accept that most don't eat the ethically ideal cow's meat
(grass fed, kindly killed etc.) Some even eat lamb, dog and other barbaric
foods. You want to compare some ideal meat eater's diet (a hypothetical)
with the average vegetarians diet (unfair). Yet few who eat meat are truly
interested in maintaining that diet - because they don't accept the
vegetarians belief that some diets can be more moral that others. You live
in a fantasy land.
Do you truly believe all morality is up to the observer? That there is no
objective truth - it's all relative? So if we convince you that meat
eating causes more death and suffering of higher animals and more collateral
deaths, you'll still go on eating meat? If so, there's probably no use
discussing this stuff with you.
Why can't the others get Larry and Laurie straight. It's not so hard. You
can tell from our writing styles we are two different people. Just
remember - she is the pure vegetarian and I am the semi-vegetarian.
Does anyone else here believe it is better or preferable to eat lower in the
evolutionary/intelligence tree (less sentient and less sapient animals as
opposed to mammals)? Or do all think this is rubbish? If you were forced
to eat meat against your will - would you choose clam over veal? And if so
why?
usual suspect
> You seem unable to accept that most don't eat the ethically ideal cow's meat
> (grass fed, kindly killed etc.) Some even eat lamb, dog and other barbaric
> foods.
What's barbaric about eating lamb?
> You want to compare some ideal meat eater's diet (a hypothetical)
> with the average vegetarians diet (unfair). Yet few who eat meat are truly
> interested in maintaining that diet - because they don't accept the
> vegetarians belief that some diets can be more moral that others. You live
> in a fantasy land.
Why are "some diets" more moral than others?
<snip>
> Do you truly believe all morality is up to the observer? That there is no
> objective truth - it's all relative? So if we convince you that meat
> eating causes more death and suffering of higher animals and more collateral
> deaths, you'll still go on eating meat? If so, there's probably no use
> discussing this stuff with you.
What are "higher animals"? Is it okay to eat the "lower" ones? If Rick
and others cannot get you to comprehend that animals die regardless of
animal production, why do you bother discussing it with them? Their
views are consistent. Yours are not.
> Why can't the others get Larry and Laurie straight. It's not so hard. You
> can tell from our writing styles we are two different people. Just
> remember - she is the pure vegetarian and I am the semi-vegetarian.
The other Larry is also a he. You don't appear to differ that much in
philosophy.
> Does anyone else here believe it is better or preferable to eat lower in the
> evolutionary/intelligence tree (less sentient and less sapient animals as
> opposed to mammals)? Or do all think this is rubbish? If you were forced
> to eat meat against your will - would you choose clam over veal? And if so
> why?
There is nothing inherently immoral about eating veal. There is nothing
inherently immoral about eating clams. It is personal preference. What
IS immoral is projecting your personal preferences as standards for
others to accept. You have no right to connive others about their choice
of diet.
Larry
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:u8d_a.156398$TJ.93...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Larry wrote:
> > You seem unable to accept that most don't eat the ethically ideal cow's
meat
> > (grass fed, kindly killed etc.) Some even eat lamb, dog and other
barbaric
> > foods.
>
> What's barbaric about eating lamb?
>
> > You want to compare some ideal meat eater's diet (a hypothetical)
> > with the average vegetarians diet (unfair). Yet few who eat meat are
truly
> > interested in maintaining that diet - because they don't accept the
> > vegetarians belief that some diets can be more moral that others. You
live
> > in a fantasy land.
>
> Why are "some diets" more moral than others?
Do you think it's immoral to hunt for sport (kill deer if their not
overpopulated and not to use for food?) If so than why kill deer and other
mammals for food if you can eat something else and do just fine?
>
> <snip>
> > Do you truly believe all morality is up to the observer? That there is
no
> > objective truth - it's all relative? So if we convince you that meat
> > eating causes more death and suffering of higher animals and more
collateral
> > deaths, you'll still go on eating meat? If so, there's probably no use
> > discussing this stuff with you.
>
> What are "higher animals"? Is it okay to eat the "lower" ones? If Rick
> and others cannot get you to comprehend that animals die regardless of
> animal production, why do you bother discussing it with them? Their
> views are consistent. Yours are not.
Higher animals are animals like dogs, dophins, and chimps as opposed to ants
or clams. Do you see any difference in which you kill for food? I think
there is a difference. I think some have more valuable lives than others.
>
> > Why can't the others get Larry and Laurie straight. It's not so hard.
You
> > can tell from our writing styles we are two different people. Just
> > remember - she is the pure vegetarian and I am the semi-vegetarian.
>
> The other Larry is also a he. You don't appear to differ that much in
> philosophy.
I'll have to study her/his philosophy more.
>
> > Does anyone else here believe it is better or preferable to eat lower in
the
> > evolutionary/intelligence tree (less sentient and less sapient animals
as
> > opposed to mammals)? Or do all think this is rubbish? If you were
forced
> > to eat meat against your will - would you choose clam over veal? And if
so
> > why?
>
> There is nothing inherently immoral about eating veal. There is nothing
> inherently immoral about eating clams. It is personal preference. What
> IS immoral is projecting your personal preferences as standards for
> others to accept. You have no right to connive others about their choice
> of diet.
I would never project my morals onto you, God forbid. Do you think it's
unethical to club baby seals for their fur if you could, theoretically, get
by with something that causes less suffering? Say where you live it's not
that cold, but you happen to prefer real fur because among your circle of
friends it's more stylish and admired.
rick etter
"Larry" <noe...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Wk2dnSoZydP...@comcast.com...
You seem unable to grasp that almost all veggie foods are intensivly farmed
too, yet have nothing agaisn't using them. Besides, I keep saying that not
everyone has to eat grass-fed meats, or game, just those hypocrites that
contiue to 'claim' that they care about animals and all they do is remove
them from their plates.
Some even eat lamb, dog and other barbaric
> foods. You want to compare some ideal meat eater's diet (a hypothetical)
> with the average vegetarians diet (unfair). Yet few who eat meat are
truly
> interested in maintaining that diet - because they don't accept the
> vegetarians belief that some diets can be more moral that others. You
live
> in a fantasy land.
=====================
It's you delusions that make it automatiocally better to eat veggies than
meat because of your lys and delusions.
=======================
Sure, if my belief is that animals are there for us to eat, period. the
problem is that the vegans make an absolute claim that their diet is
superior morally and ethically yet it can be shown that such is not
automatically the case. those are the so-called ethics I discuss.
If so, there's probably no use
> discussing this stuff with you.
===============
As with you, since you mind is firmly locked around the vegan lys and
delusions of supriority.
>
> Why can't the others get Larry and Laurie straight. It's not so hard.
You
> can tell from our writing styles we are two different people. Just
> remember - she is the pure vegetarian and I am the semi-vegetarian.
>
> Does anyone else here believe it is better or preferable to eat lower in
the
> evolutionary/intelligence tree (less sentient and less sapient animals as
> opposed to mammals)?
===================
Why? At what cost to other animals or the environment?
Or do all think this is rubbish? If you were forced
> to eat meat against your will - would you choose clam over veal? And if
so
> why?
==================
Why the wierd choices that are not the norm, again? Why is it you can never
compare two normal dietary foods? What would you choose between potatoes or
rice? Broccolili or carrots? You think everyone of your choices is
cruelty-free?
>
Larry
> >
> > Do you truly believe all morality is up to the observer? That there is
no
> > objective truth - it's all relative? So if we convince you that meat
> > eating causes more death and suffering of higher animals and more
> collateral
> > deaths, you'll still go on eating meat?
> =======================
> Sure, if my belief is that animals are there for us to eat, period. the
> problem is that the vegans make an absolute claim that their diet is
> superior morally and ethically yet it can be shown that such is not
> automatically the case. those are the so-called ethics I discuss.
"There for us to eat". But don't we have complex minds that can think about
what we eat and whether or not it's a good choice. Is this a religious
belief? What is it based on? You can eat any animal you want and feel
just fine about it? Millions of years have gone into the evolution of your
brains/minds and you want to accept the incredibly simplistic "I can eat any
animal I want to - it's there for me to eat"
Would you eat endangered species? Higher mammals like chimps - if they were
tasty? You need to think about your diet a bit.
rick etter
>
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:u8d_a.156398$TJ.93...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > Larry wrote:
> > > You seem unable to accept that most don't eat the ethically ideal
cow's
> meat
> > > (grass fed, kindly killed etc.) Some even eat lamb, dog and other
> barbaric
> > > foods.
> >
> > What's barbaric about eating lamb?
> >
> > > You want to compare some ideal meat eater's diet (a hypothetical)
> > > with the average vegetarians diet (unfair). Yet few who eat meat are
> truly
> > > interested in maintaining that diet - because they don't accept the
> > > vegetarians belief that some diets can be more moral that others. You
> live
> > > in a fantasy land.
> >
> > Why are "some diets" more moral than others?
>
> Do you think it's immoral to hunt for sport (kill deer if their not
> overpopulated and not to use for food?)
You do realize don't you that is by far closer to the vegan norm than any
hunting norm. I dno't know anybody that hunts and doesn't eat, or give away
the meat. As for vegans, leaving dead animals to rot where they fall is the
norm.
If so than why kill deer and other
> mammals for food if you can eat something else and do just fine?
=========
Far more animals die for you veggies than die at the hands of hunters and
are just left to rot. Why is it ok to kill millions and millions of animals
for the food 'on' your plate just to keep meat 'off' your plate?
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Do you truly believe all morality is up to the observer? That there
is
> no
> > > objective truth - it's all relative? So if we convince you that meat
> > > eating causes more death and suffering of higher animals and more
> collateral
> > > deaths, you'll still go on eating meat? If so, there's probably no
use
> > > discussing this stuff with you.
> >
> > What are "higher animals"? Is it okay to eat the "lower" ones? If Rick
> > and others cannot get you to comprehend that animals die regardless of
> > animal production, why do you bother discussing it with them? Their
> > views are consistent. Yours are not.
>
> Higher animals are animals like dogs, dophins, and chimps as opposed to
ants
> or clams.
==================
Now, take it a step further, where to mice, voles, birds, snakes, rabbits,
ampbibians, and many more small mammals fall into you range of animals that
are 'ok' to kill? Why are voles any more precious than dogs? Mice any
more so than dolphins? rabbits more so than cows? You cause the death and
suffering of these animals, many of them deliberately, just for your cheap,
convenient veggies.
Do you see any difference in which you kill for food?
=================
Do you?
I think
> there is a difference. I think some have more valuable lives than others.
=================
No, you don't. You never mention the ones that die for your dinner plate.
Why is that killer?
>
> >
> > > Why can't the others get Larry and Laurie straight. It's not so hard.
> You
> > > can tell from our writing styles we are two different people. Just
> > > remember - she is the pure vegetarian and I am the semi-vegetarian.
> >
> > The other Larry is also a he. You don't appear to differ that much in
> > philosophy.
>
> I'll have to study her/his philosophy more.
===============
Except for you lack of a bogus web-site and dozens of cut-n-paste propganda
pieces, you look pretty much the same...
>
> >
> > > Does anyone else here believe it is better or preferable to eat lower
in
> the
> > > evolutionary/intelligence tree (less sentient and less sapient animals
> as
> > > opposed to mammals)? Or do all think this is rubbish? If you were
> forced
> > > to eat meat against your will - would you choose clam over veal? And
if
> so
> > > why?
> >
> > There is nothing inherently immoral about eating veal. There is nothing
> > inherently immoral about eating clams. It is personal preference. What
> > IS immoral is projecting your personal preferences as standards for
> > others to accept. You have no right to connive others about their choice
> > of diet.
>
> I would never project my morals onto you, God forbid. Do you think it's
> unethical to club baby seals for their fur if you could, theoretically,
get
> by with something that causes less suffering?
====================
Like what?
Say where you live it's not
> that cold, but you happen to prefer real fur because among your circle of
> friends it's more stylish and admired.
====================
Nope, don't own any, but that doesn't mean your substitute cause less death
and suffering overall. Why would you think otherwise? All the propaganda
you've read?
>
>
rick etter
>
> > >
> > > Do you truly believe all morality is up to the observer? That there
is
> no
> > > objective truth - it's all relative? So if we convince you that meat
> > > eating causes more death and suffering of higher animals and more
> > collateral
> > > deaths, you'll still go on eating meat?
> > =======================
> > Sure, if my belief is that animals are there for us to eat, period. the
> > problem is that the vegans make an absolute claim that their diet is
> > superior morally and ethically yet it can be shown that such is not
> > automatically the case. those are the so-called ethics I discuss.
>
> "There for us to eat". But don't we have complex minds that can think
about
> what we eat and whether or not it's a good choice.
So you get to decide what is not a good choice? Why is meat not a ggod
choice? There are many veggies that cause far more death and suffering to
animals, yet you seem to have no problem with their deaths. Why is that?
Your convenience at stake with those? Why is the vegan focus always on the
animals they think others are killing, and never give a thought to the
animals they wantonly kill for cheap, convenient veggies?
Is this a religious
> belief? What is it based on? You can eat any animal you want and feel
> just fine about it? Millions of years have gone into the evolution of
your
> brains/minds and you want to accept the incredibly simplistic "I can eat
any
> animal I want to - it's there for me to eat"
====================
Just as you justfi to your self the killing of even more animals just to
keep some off your plate. What's more simplistic than that, killer? A
single, simplistic rule that no animal bits get onto my plate, regardless of
how many more die to keep it that way.
>
> Would you eat endangered species? Higher mammals like chimps - if they
were
> tasty? You need to think about your diet a bit.
===================
Again, all you have are choices that are not the norm. Why is that? You
know your 'argument' is so specious that it can't stand up to what normal
people eat in their diet? There are many meats I do not already eat. Some
for taste, some for price, some for lack of convenience, some for
aesthetics. It's your diet that you need to think about. Why are you so
willing to kill them and let them rot?
>
>
Dutch
You answered his question with a question.
> > <snip>
> > > Do you truly believe all morality is up to the observer? That
there is
> no
> > > objective truth - it's all relative? So if we convince you that
meat
> > > eating causes more death and suffering of higher animals and more
> collateral
> > > deaths, you'll still go on eating meat? If so, there's probably
no use
> > > discussing this stuff with you.
> >
> > What are "higher animals"? Is it okay to eat the "lower" ones? If
Rick
> > and others cannot get you to comprehend that animals die regardless
of
> > animal production, why do you bother discussing it with them? Their
> > views are consistent. Yours are not.
>
> Higher animals are animals like dogs, dophins, and chimps as opposed
to ants
> or clams. Do you see any difference in which you kill for food? I
think
> there is a difference. I think some have more valuable lives than
others.
Who eats dogs, dolphins and chimps? Why don't you use animals that
people can relate to? (that's a serious question, I want to know why you
use those species you did and not pigs, cows and chickens)
> > > Why can't the others get Larry and Laurie straight. It's not so
hard.
> You
> > > can tell from our writing styles we are two different people.
Just
> > > remember - she is the pure vegetarian and I am the
semi-vegetarian.
> >
> > The other Larry is also a he. You don't appear to differ that much
in
> > philosophy.
>
> I'll have to study her/his philosophy more.
He's a raving lunatic, you're just mildly irrational.
The "baby seal" argument.. how trite. Can you get any more predictable?
Larry
> > > > interested in maintaining that diet - because they don't accept
> the
> > > > vegetarians belief that some diets can be more moral that others.
> You
> > live
> > > > in a fantasy land.
> > >
> > > Why are "some diets" more moral than others?
> >
> > Do you think it's immoral to hunt for sport (kill deer if their not
> > overpopulated and not to use for food?) If so than why kill deer and
> other
> > mammals for food if you can eat something else and do just fine?
>
> You answered his question with a question.
Because I can't believe he can think one diet cannot be more moral than
another. What if I only like to eat dolphin hearts and throw the rest of
the animal away. There is no other diet that is more moral than this one?
Surely you jest.
swamp
Surely *you* jest. What if one happens to eat most of the steer's
muscles, and uses the rest to make building products, feed, glue,
fertilizer, clothing, etc., say 90% utilization? A good part of
veggies get buried under. Who's to say it's better for the soil and
regeneration of life than what's left after an animal dies?
--swamp
Dutch
Again you resort to a fallacy, this time ad absurdum. Just answer, why
are "some diets" more moral than others?
Your last answer implies that you think it's waste that makes a diet
immoral. Why not just say that?
> There is no other diet that is more moral than this one?
> Surely you jest.
Don't cherry-pick, answer the questions asked. And quit beating around
the bush, what are you afraid of?
usual suspect
>>What's barbaric about eating lamb?
Why didn't you answer this question?
>>Why are "some diets" more moral than others?
>
> Do you think it's immoral to hunt for sport (kill deer if their not
> overpopulated and not to use for food?) If so than why kill deer and other
> mammals for food if you can eat something else and do just fine?
You didn't answer my question. Please try again.
As for your irrelevant questions, I think it's immoral to allow deer
populations to explode to the point where the ecosystem can no longer
support them so they range closer to cities and wander out in traffic,
causing human injury and death. BTW, those deer involved in collisions
with cars, trucks, school buses, and mini-vans full of children are
either maimed or killed as a result. Why subject humans to needless
trauma to protect a non-endangered ruminant on non-scientific, emotional
grounds?
As for your second question, deer and other mammals ARE food. Those who
wish to eat them should be allowed to eat them without being subjected
to your little hissy fits and emoting about what else they could eat
instead. Personal preferences should be sacred in a free and open
society like ours.
>>What are "higher animals"? Is it okay to eat the "lower" ones? If Rick
>>and others cannot get you to comprehend that animals die regardless of
>>animal production, why do you bother discussing it with them? Their
>>views are consistent. Yours are not.
>
> Higher animals are animals like dogs, dophins, and chimps as opposed to ants
> or clams. Do you see any difference in which you kill for food? I think
> there is a difference. I think some have more valuable lives than others.
Most people in our culture do not eat dogs, dolphins, or chimpanzees.
Nor do many people in our culture eat ants, though clams are a regional
delicacy. I see no difference in choice of food outside of culture.
>>The other Larry is also a he. You don't appear to differ that much in
>>philosophy.
>
> I'll have to study her/his philosophy more.
Why would you want to do that?
>>There is nothing inherently immoral about eating veal. There is nothing
>>inherently immoral about eating clams. It is personal preference. What
>>IS immoral is projecting your personal preferences as standards for
>>others to accept. You have no right to connive others about their choice
>>of diet.
>
> I would never project my morals onto you, God forbid. Do you think it's
> unethical to club baby seals for their fur if you could, theoretically, get
> by with something that causes less suffering? Say where you live it's not
> that cold, but you happen to prefer real fur because among your circle of
> friends it's more stylish and admired.
I'm sure baby seal fur is warmer than most synthetics, not to mention
waterproof. Synthetics are very unnatural and cause a lot more pollution
from refining than would a baby seal pelt. I'm not terribly worried
since I live near enough to the tropics that it's not an issue.
rick etter
LOL It's you that are in jest. You can't defend your so-called ethical
diet except with preposterous examples of things people don't even eat. You
truly are losing, killer. Why is it morally 'ethical' to kill millions and
millions of animals and then leave them to rot in fields? You 'use' none of
their carcass, except for the exploitation involved to keep your veggies
clean, cheap, and convenient. Now, go ahead, ask another question without
answering, yet again. You can't answer, because you have nothing to say.
Your diet is a false, sanctimonious, hypocritical feel-good agenda.
>
>
rick etter
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:mfg_a.8629$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...