Better to be an ethical meat eater, than an ethical veg*n.
David
Though there are no doubt cruel and abusive situations
imposed on many animals that are raised for the production
of food, there are also many animals in the food industry
that have decent lives. The "Animal Rights" way of thinking
encourages people to believe that *all* animals raised in
the food industry live lives of torture and suffering. That
is a way of intentionally causing people to develop an
incorrect impression of reality.
This is not really surprising, since the main goal of
the "Animal Rights" movement appears to be to "save" these
animals from being killed, by causing them to never get to
experience life. 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.
The food industry is an environment in which animals
live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
other environment--they are totally dependant on that
industry for their lives. Their lives can be made as good or
bad as the industry decides to make them.
The consumers are the people who influence the way these
animals are raised, and how/if their lives will be improved
in the future. People who do not eat any animal products are
*not* encouraging life (better or worse) for any of them.
People who eat products from animals that are raised in
ways that they feel are decent, are encouraging the lives of
those animals.
If those consumers show growing interest in how animals
are raised, and steadily buy more products from animals that
are raised in better conditions, the industry will steadily
improve the conditions in which they raise animals.
By consuming products from animals that they feel are
raised in decent ways, people are not only encouraging life
for those animals, but *better* lives for animals in general.
Rat & Swan
the fields, blessin' Massa fo' his kind condescention"
argument lately. Here it is again, sort of like a
bad smell rising again from a neglected sewer system....
Rat
Tony Martin
wrote:
> The food industry is an environment in which animals
> live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
> are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
> other environment--they are totally dependant on that
> industry for their lives.
So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights,
no matter how much you whine.
--
"My dog is nicer than you. He is too."
tonym...@vegetarians.com
http://come.to/tony
Martin Martens
> So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights,
> no matter how much you whine.
So why do we worry about ecological conservation?
If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't
we simply consume everything in the present generation?
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Tony Martin wrote:
.>
.> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not
have rights,
.> > no matter how much you whine.
.>
.> So why do we worry about ecological conservation?
.>
.> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't
.> we simply consume everything in the present generation?
Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between
acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall
have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of
beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*.
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
Martin Martens
>
> Martin Martens wrote:
> .>
> .> Tony Martin wrote:
> .>
> .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not
> .> > no matter how much you whine.
> .>
> .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation?
> .>
> .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't
> .> we simply consume everything in the present generation?
>
> Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between
> acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall
> have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of
> beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*.
I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far
exceeds yours and Tony's, for that matter. Feel free to attempt
to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself.
You now believe you can predict the future?
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> >
.> > Martin Martens wrote:
.> > .>
.> > .> Tony Martin wrote:
.> > .>
.> > .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do
not
.> > .> > no matter how much you whine.
.> > .>
.> > .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation?
.> > .>
.> > .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't
.> >
.> > Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between
.> > acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall
.> > have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of
.> > beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*.
.>
.> I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far
.> exceeds yours and Tony's, for that matter. Feel free to attempt
.> to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself.
Hmm, now why does the phrase 'over-inflated ego' spring
to mind...?
>. You now believe you can predict the future?
One has only to reason it out this way: in the future,
there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably*
have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the
reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough
shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite
different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation
suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get
to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists.
Martin Martens
Very good so far Michael. Now, show me where in the above
statement you've contradicted my statement to Tony or that I've
made the claim that you are attributing to me.
You are merely and as usual whacking away at your strawman.
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> > .> > .> Tony Martin wrote:
.> > .> > .>
.> > .> > .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn
do not
.> > .> > .> > no matter how much you whine.
.> > .> > .>
.> > .> > .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation?
.> > .> > .>
.> > .> > .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why
don't
.> > .> >
.> > .> > Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between
.> > .> > have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of
.> > .> > beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed
injustice*.
.> > .>
.> > .> I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far
.> > .> to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself.
.> >
.> > Hmm, now why does the phrase 'over-inflated ego' spring
.> > to mind...?
.> >
.> > >. You now believe you can predict the future?
.> >
.> > One has only to reason it out this way: in the future,
.> > there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably*
.> > have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the
.> > reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough
.> > shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite
.> > different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation
.> > suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get
.> > to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists.
.>
.> Very good so far Michael. Now, show me where in the above
.> statement you've contradicted my statement to Tony or that I've
.> made the claim that you are attributing to me.
My, you do have a short memory. It's right above, but
I'll repost it:
"If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't
we simply consume everything in the present generation?"
The answer, of course, is that the unborn *don't*
have rights. When people are born in the future, they
will acquire them *then*. If you were simply asking
for enlightenment instead of stating your position,
then consider yourself...well, more enlightened,
anyway.
>
> You are merely and as usual whacking away at your strawman.
You've been hanging with Master James, I see.
Martin Martens
>
> Martin Martens wrote:
> .>
> .> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
[...]
> .> > One has only to reason it out this way: in the future,
> .> > there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably*
> .> > have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the
> .> > reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough
> .> > shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite
> .> > different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation
> .> > suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get
> .> > to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists.
> .>
> .> Very good so far Michael. Now, show me where in the above
> .> statement you've contradicted my statement to Tony or that I've
> .> made the claim that you are attributing to me.
>
> My, you do have a short memory. It's right above, but
> I'll repost it:
>
> "If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't
> we simply consume everything in the present generation?"
Gee, I don't see anything there about "...the deprivation
suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings...".
> The answer, of course, is that the unborn *don't*
> have rights.
In your opinion but as we saw in the other post, your
credibility on the subject of rights is quite weak.
> When people are born in the future, they
> will acquire them *then*.
There you go predicting the future again. What was it that
Gordon said about that? Something about not knowing what could
happen in the future. Why I seem to recall someone who was
sharply criticizing a certain organization for making
categorical claims about the future. Why that was *you*, wasn't
it? Have you suddenly changed your position and now agree with
AMPEF's claim of fact?
> If you were simply asking
> for enlightenment instead of stating your position,
> then consider yourself...well, more enlightened,
> anyway.
I'm more than happy to shine a light on your ignorance any day
Michael. Keep whacking, I predict that you will shortly start to
spin away.
[...]
Martin Martens
>
> Once you resort to nothing but weak insults, it's
> clear that you've thrown in the towel, Martin. Snip
> all you want; people can still read the exchange and
> decide who won that one.
Um, Michael, you snipped the whole thing out. Cut and run...
I'm waiting for you to show that you can predict the future.
David
>Wow. We haven't seen the "happy darkies singin' in
> the fields, blessin' Massa fo' his kind condescention"
> argument lately. Here it is again, sort of like a
> bad smell rising again from a neglected sewer system....
>
> Rat
Man, that was beautiful. It brings to mind images of
the gentle Black Angus, hollerin' in the pastures on a
moonlit night. They loudly and proudly sing their songs
of the promised land, and of the freedom they once
knew (err...well maybe not) and will know again some
day if these people will ever quit killing them.
The cows explain each night to their calves that
the reason they have to endure this live of pain and
torture--living confined in fields and pastures, forced
to eat grass all day, and sometimes that "grain" stuff
--is that they are going to be killed by the humans.
"The humans will cut you up into pre-determined
slices, and they and their children are going to eat
you Sweetie" a mother will sadly explain. "And they
are going to rip your skin off and make it into clothes
for themselves, and items for sexual pleasures, etc."
"Why mommy? Why must it be this way???" the
young ones ask. "As we learned from 'the Lion King',
lions, who are carnivores, can be encouraged to eat
nothing but grubs and beetles (which are yucky and
no cares about anyway). So why must humans, who
are not even omnivores, but just self glorified
vegetarians no better than us cows--wannabees!!!--
keep on killing us for no good reason?"
"Because they are brutal and selfish murderers
who care only for themselves" their mothers will tell
them. "Just be thankful that you are not a veal calf
instead of a beef calf Darling......".
But the fowl stench of real life is in the air, to
corrupt the ridiculous illusion just described. Rising
straight from the neglected sewers of truth, here is
some putrid old *reality* :
Animals don't know that they are being raised by
humans. They certainly don't know what they are being
raised for. They don't have a language with which to
communicate ideas which are as detailed as the concept
that they will be killed so that humans can eat them.
If they did know, that would make their lives a *lot*
different, since they would have to live with the
knowledge that they will be killed. They also don't
see their brethren killed until the time comes for
them to die--and they don't understand it even then.
The animals don't know that they are being raised to
be killed. What is cruel *to the animals* is what matters
--*not!* what "feels" unethical to some humans. If we are
thinking about what's best for the animals, we would
have to *try* to think about it from the animals' point of
view. In order to even get an idea of how they feel
about their lives, we would have to try to ignore all of
the things that we know, but they do not know. But
instead of that, people *often* do just the opposite.
Instead of trying to understand how the animals would
perceive their lives, they instead deliberately ignore
that idea, and try to apply their own "ethical" feelings
to animals that know nothing about them. That is not
fair to the animals!!
Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. When we think about the truth of it, the animals
are not being cheated out of any part of their life by
being raised for food, but instead they are getting the
opportunity to experience whatever life they get as a
result of it.
Michael Cerkowski
clear that you've thrown in the towel, Martin. Snip
all you want; people can still read the exchange and
decide who won that one.
David
>In article <37d3859e...@news.mindspring.com> , dh...@yahoo.com (David)
>wrote:
>
>> The food industry is an environment in which animals
>> live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
>> are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
>> other environment--they are totally dependant on that
>> industry for their lives.
>
>
>
>So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights,
>no matter how much you whine.
If it's wrong to kill them, it's even worse to deny them of
every second of what life they could have had......(pretty
simple and obvious really).
That has nothing to do with "rights", and "rights" have
nothing to do with what I said, so I guess we agree that
"rights" have nothing to do with it?
>
>--
>
>"My dog is nicer than you. He is too."
He probably cares more about other animals than you do
too (at least he doesn't encourage people in this ng to feel
that they shouldn't consider them), so chances are he's also
nicer than you are.
David
>Martin Martens wrote:
>.>
>.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>.> >
>.> > Martin Martens wrote:
>.> > .>
>.> > .> Tony Martin wrote:
>.> > .>
>.> > .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do
>not
>.> > .> > have rights,
>.> > .> > no matter how much you whine.
>.> > .>
>.> > .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation?
>.> > .>
>.> > .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't
>.> > .> we simply consume everything in the present generation?
>.> >
>.> > Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between
>.> > acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall
>.> > have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of
>.> > beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*.
>.>
>.> I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far
>.> exceeds yours and Tony's, for that matter. Feel free to attempt
>.> to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself.
>
> Hmm, now why does the phrase 'over-inflated ego' spring
>to mind...?
>
>>. You now believe you can predict the future?
>
> One has only to reason it out this way: in the future,
>there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably*
>have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the
>reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough
>shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite
>different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation
>suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get
>to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists.
Taking the lives of future animals into consideration is
just that, whether they are human or not.
"Ethical" veg*ns and "Animal Rights" people consistently
encourage meat eaters not to care about the lives of future
animals who are not human....while at the same time they
pretend to care more about those same animals than the
meat eaters do. Right?
Michael Cerkowski
(...)
.> Taking the lives of future animals into consideration is
.> just that, whether they are human or not.
.> "Ethical" veg*ns and "Animal Rights" people consistently
.> encourage meat eaters not to care about the lives of future
.> animals who are not human....while at the same time they
.> pretend to care more about those same animals than the
.> meat eaters do. Right?
Wrong. ARAs do what we do mainly *because* we care about
future animals. The difference is that we care about whatever
animals *will actually exist* in the future, not about those
that will never exist. If you haven't gotten that distinction
by now, then I doubt that you ever will...
G*rd*n
| > The food industry is an environment in which animals
| > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
| > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
| > other environment--they are totally dependant on that
| > industry for their lives.
"Tony Martin " <tonym...@vegetarians.com>:
| So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights,
| no matter how much you whine.
I think everyone on Usenet has tried to explain to David
that the non-existent do not have rights / interests / lives,
but he doesn't get it and doesn't appear to be about to get
it. The regular production of a FAQ is simply an extension
of his customary method of argument, which is to repeat his
original assertion indefinitely without supporting evidence
or logic. Might as well leave it alone.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 9/5/99 }
James Hepler
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>
> Once you resort to nothing but weak insults, it's
> clear that you've thrown in the towel, Martin. Snip
> all you want; people can still read the exchange and
> decide who won that one.
As usual, not you!
James Hepler
James Hepler
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> > You are merely and as usual whacking away at your strawman.
>
> You've been hanging with Master James, I see.
And everyone else who sees your posts as they really are, silly child!
David
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
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.
If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even
*worse* to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all.
That is a point that surely should be ignored if you are
only trying to promote vegetarianism, but if you are really
thinking about what's best for the animals, it is something
that should be given the highest consideration. It's a
pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them
than anything else.....even their death.
People have often pointed out that there is an
infinite number of possible future lives, so there is
no point in trying to worry about all of them. A more
realistic way of thinking about that same thing, is to
believe that since there are an infinite number of
possible future lives, each being that gets to actually
be born and experience life to some degree, is *very*
fortunate to get that opportunity, since the infinite
odds are against all of them (us).
David
>dh...@yahoo.com (David)
>| > The food industry is an environment in which animals
>| > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
>| > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
>| > other environment--they are totally dependant on that
>| > industry for their lives.
>
>"Tony Martin " <tonym...@vegetarians.com>:
>| So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights,
>| no matter how much you whine.
>
>I think everyone on Usenet has tried to explain to David
>that the non-existent do not have rights / interests / lives,
>but he doesn't get it and doesn't appear to be about to get
>it.
What I'm saying is true. It will only be significant to
people who are more interested in the animals themselves,
than they are in promoting vegetarianism....obviously.
Those are the people who I am trying to encourage to think
the whole thing through.
The veg*ns who have a lot of time invested in their diet,
aren't likely to decide it has not been the right course of
action after all. Encouraging better lives for the billions of
animals we use for food, and encouraging vegetarianism
are conflicting ideas. Vegetarians can not afford to care
about future animals, but meat eaters most certainly can.
> The regular production of a FAQ is simply an extension
>of his customary method of argument, which is to repeat his
>original assertion indefinitely without supporting evidence
>or logic.
Here's some more (it's the same reply I made to Michael):
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.
If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even
*worse* to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all.
That is a point that surely should be ignored if you are
only trying to promote vegetarianism, but if you are really
thinking about what's best for the animals, it is something
that should be given the highest consideration. It's a
pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them
than anything else.....even their death.
People have often pointed out that there is an
infinite number of possible future lives, so there is
no point in trying to worry about all of them. A more
realistic way of thinking about that same thing, is to
believe that since there are an infinite number of
possible future lives, each being that gets to actually
be born and experience life to some degree, is *very*
fortunate to get that opportunity, since the infinite
odds are against all of them (us).
> Might as well leave it alone.
Since it is true, you can't prove it wrong. If you
are a veg*n, you can't really afford to agree. You
don't have many choices.
Lesley Dove
<tonym...@vegetarians.com> wrote:
>In article <37d3859e...@news.mindspring.com> , dh...@yahoo.com (David)
>wrote:
>
>> The food industry is an environment in which animals
>> live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
>> are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
>> other environment--they are totally dependant on that
>> industry for their lives.
>
>
>
>So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights,
>no matter how much you whine.
But animals don't have rights either, no matter how much you whine.
That's not to say it is a good thing that they do not have rights.
I am with you on this, that they should have rights.
Sorry, but in the USA certainly there are more people clamouring for
unborn children to be granted rights, than are vegan or vegetarian.
That is simply the truth, the abortion issue gets far more attention
than AR.
I am equally pro-life on both issues.
>
>"My dog is nicer than you. He is too."
Quite possibly, I am a bad-tempered bitch!
Lesley Dove
>
>tonym...@vegetarians.com
>http://come.to/tony
>
James Hepler
David wrote:
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >dh...@yahoo.com (David)
> >| > The food industry is an environment in which animals
> >| > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
> >| > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
> >| > other environment--they are totally dependant on that
> >| > industry for their lives.
> >
> >"Tony Martin " <tonym...@vegetarians.com>:
> >| So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights,
> >| no matter how much you whine.
> >
> >I think everyone on Usenet has tried to explain to David
> >that the non-existent do not have rights / interests / lives,
> >but he doesn't get it and doesn't appear to be about to get
> >it.
>
> What I'm saying is true. It will only be significant to
> people who are more interested in the animals themselves,
> than they are in promoting vegetarianism....obviously.
> Those are the people who I am trying to encourage to think
> the whole thing through.
Funny. Support a philosophy that advocates the extinction of multiple
species and call it Animal Rights. That never ceases to surprise me.
That's kinda how all extinction works, right? "They'd be better off not
existing"?!? Coming from an ARA it sounds more absurd than coming from
people who hunt California Condors.
James Hepler
--
"I've learned there's nothing quite as pressing as those doing the
pressing want you to believe".
-Bright Eyes
Laura Hailey
your heart and soul, these things, or are you only trying to outwit each
other in the spirit of a good debate? Every thread I've read so far is
the same way, phrases such as 'how do you explain what you just said?'
'how will you get out of the place you just wedged yourself into?' and
'now show me where in the above statement you've contradicted my
statement.' Are you people actually IN politics? Do you actually MAKE
laws that determine an animal's future? If not, you people are
seriously wasting your time. Your arguments are juvenile and
unconstructive.
David is actually, so far, the only one writing in this group that
sounds like he has any sense. ANIMALS eat other animals, for crying out
loud! However, just because we eat animals does not give us the right
to, in ANY way, abuse these animals, no matter what kind of animal it
is! I can't believe there is actually a need to regulate this. I would
think that humans would naturally, inately, feel responsible for the
treatment of slaughter animals. I would think there would be procedures
in place to INSURE that an animal is killed INSTANTLY and PAINLESSLY and
then rendered for food. It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to be humane in the
treatment of ALL God's animals. I think that slaughter animals should
be allowed to live a normal life, experiencing growth and birth before
its life is ended. I also think that if we CAN'T provide a decent,
humane life for all these animals, if it is found to actually be
feasibly impossible, then we should think of other sources of food. For
example, horsemeat. Horses sent to slaughter houses are PURPOSELY not
killed instantly because they claim the meat MUST stay alive until the
last minute for it to be any good by the time it reaches dinner tables
in other countries. Now, we don't HAVE to export horsemeat. Companies
are doing it only for the money. In other words, your body does not
have to have it to live healthily. This is where animal rights groups
can do a lot of good. These horses are suffering tremendously and
needlessly. This is NOT RIGHT! I can't believe there are humans on
this earth who feel it's just okay to do this. They feel nothing for
the animal that it's being done to. It's unbelieveable!! Premarin is a
drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived
from pregnant mare urine. Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and
made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are
then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened
for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is
cruel. How can people do this? How can this be just okay with people?
If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
is narrow."
I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
Laura Hailey
llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
David wrote:
> (Posted monthly. Revisions likely.)
>
> Though there are no doubt cruel and abusive situations
> imposed on many animals that are raised for the production
> of food, there are also many animals in the food industry
> that have decent lives. The "Animal Rights" way of thinking
> encourages people to believe that *all* animals raised in
> the food industry live lives of torture and suffering. That
> is a way of intentionally causing people to develop an
> incorrect impression of reality.
> This is not really surprising, since the main goal of
> the "Animal Rights" movement appears to be to "save" these
> animals from being killed, by causing them to never get to
> experience life. 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.
>
> The food industry is an environment in which animals
> live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
> are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
> other environment--they are totally dependant on that
Martin Martens
>
> He is NOT predicting the future,
Um, yes he is. He is claiming that he knows how the concept of
rights will exist in the future.
"When people are born in the future, they will acquire them
*then*." That statement requires the knowledge that rights will
exist in the future. Considering that the modern notion and
usage of the concept of rights has only been around for a few
hundred years, he doesn't have much to go on.
Just like he condemned AMPEF for stating that medical research
will require the use of animals.
That's why he threw in the towel, cut, and ran.
You aren't doing a good job of defending Michael but he does
need all the help he can get.
[...]
Laura Hailey
He was only going by the last million years or so. Animals, as have
people, have been reproducing for centuries, why would there be any
question whether this practice would continue? This argument is
STUPID! Matter of fact, it's past being stupid, it's downright silly.
Laura Hailey
llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
Martin Martens wrote:
> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> >
> > Once you resort to nothing but weak insults, it's
> > clear that you've thrown in the towel, Martin. Snip
> > all you want; people can still read the exchange and
> > decide who won that one.
>
R Bishop
Laura Hailey <llha...@memphis.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>Premarin is a
>drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived
>from pregnant mare urine. Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
>tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and
>made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are
>then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened
>for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is
>cruel. How can people do this? How can this be just okay with people?
>If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
>is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
>is narrow."
Totally ridiculous. And totally untrue. Laura, you obviously know
NOTHING about the production of premarin. The mares are NOT confined,
their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are sold,
mostly to people who want them for riding. The mare IS rebred, but
that's normal. Horses in the wild get pregnant within nine days of
having a foal. That's the way their reproduction cycle works.
>
>I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
And I hope you read this and learn a bit about horses.
>
>Laura Hailey
>llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
Sue
Smoke Often
Die Young
Laura Hailey
you might as well say that animals, or for that matter, medical
research, might not exist, either, so we shouldn't be making plans to do
medical research using animals.
I don't think you're doing so hot yourself!
Laura
Jonathan Ball
"If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse* to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all. That is a point that surely should be ignored if you are only trying to promote vegetarianism, but if you are really thinking about what's best for the animals, it is something that should be given the highest consideration. It's a pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them than anything else.....even their death."
"Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed. When we think about the truth of it, the animals are not being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are getting the opportunity to experience whatever life they get as a result of it."
These are pathetic attempts to try to catch the goofy "ARAs" and vegans in a trap of their own making. The meateaters don't and shouldn't feel "better" about their dietary choice because of some intrinsic value of the animals' lives before slaughter. And the goofballs, goofy as they are, can't and shouldn't be expected to try to balance the intrinsic worth of the animals' lives with their deaths. They've made plain that the deaths tip the scales, regardless of the "content" of the lives.
The goofballs have made no headway in demonstrating *why* this is an ethical issue to begin with, nor why their ethics are superior to those of meateaters. But David doesn't help the cause of people (e.g., Mercer) doing a good job of illuminating the gaping holes in "AR" and "ethical" vegetarianism. He's an embarrassment to the whole debate.
It makes me wonder if you realize this yourself, and are trying to damn the anti- "AR"/"EV" side with faint praise by saying that its worst representative makes the most sense. We're not buying that, either.
Martin Martens
>
> Well, if you're going to say that we don't know if rights will exist,
> you might as well say that animals, or for that matter, medical
> research, might not exist, either, so we shouldn't be making plans to do
> medical research using animals.
Have you been taking lessons from Michael on how to build
strawman arguments?
All I'm saying on this point is that Michael made a statement
that is exactly like one that he has roundly condemned and he
knows it.
You, on the other hand, need to learn the difference between a
physical thing and a hypothetical construct.
[...]
Laura Hailey
around as I have. Watch the videos of the foals at the slaughterhouse. You
must be or know a PMU farm owner.
Laura Hailey
llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
R Bishop wrote:
> In article <37D6A7B9...@memphis.edu>,
> Laura Hailey <llha...@memphis.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Premarin is a
> >drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived
> >from pregnant mare urine. Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
> >tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and
> >made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are
> >then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened
> >for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is
> >cruel. How can people do this? How can this be just okay with people?
> >If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
> >is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
> >is narrow."
>
> Totally ridiculous. And totally untrue. Laura, you obviously know
> NOTHING about the production of premarin. The mares are NOT confined,
> their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are sold,
> mostly to people who want them for riding. The mare IS rebred, but
> that's normal. Horses in the wild get pregnant within nine days of
> having a foal. That's the way their reproduction cycle works.
>
> >
> >I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
>
Laura Hailey
Do you honestly think that Wyeth Ayerst has time to wait for each horse to mate
on their own? NO. They artificially inseminate them to insure success. They
don't have time for nature to take its course in a multi-million dollar
business.
Laura Hailey
Laura Hailey wrote:
> Pictures do not lie as people do. See for yourself. Look into it. Ask
> around as I have. Watch the videos of the foals at the slaughterhouse. You
> must be or know a PMU farm owner.
>
> Laura Hailey
> llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
>
> R Bishop wrote:
>
> > In article <37D6A7B9...@memphis.edu>,
> > Laura Hailey <llha...@memphis.edu> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Premarin is a
> > >drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived
> > >from pregnant mare urine. Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
> > >tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and
> > >made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are
> > >then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened
> > >for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is
> > >cruel. How can people do this? How can this be just okay with people?
> > >If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
> > >is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
> > >is narrow."
> >
> > Totally ridiculous. And totally untrue. Laura, you obviously know
> > NOTHING about the production of premarin. The mares are NOT confined,
> > their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are sold,
> > mostly to people who want them for riding. The mare IS rebred, but
> > that's normal. Horses in the wild get pregnant within nine days of
> > having a foal. That's the way their reproduction cycle works.
> >
> > >
> > >I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
> >
Laura Hailey
Laura Hailey
Laura Hailey
Martin Martens
>
> You know what, I don't know David, I don't know you, or
> anybody else on this list. I came here to see if there was
> any activity going on about horses. I am not interested in
> getting into another rediculous, name-calling,
You came in swinging wildly and cluelessly. Quit bitching about
having your ass handed to you.
Jonathan Ball
> You know what, I don't know David, I don't know you, or anybody else
> on this list. I came here to see if there was any activity going on
> about horses. I am not interested in getting into another rediculous,
> name-calling, good-for-nothing argument. I am not a vegan, I am not
> even a PETA person. But I am definitely not anti-PETA, either. I
> love animals, I respect the lives of animals. I care whether or not I
> cause physical pain to another living being, unless that pain is
> absolutely necessary for their wellbeing, such as giving a shot. I
> don't know what you people's game is. Maybe you're all lawyers trying
> to see who is the most learned. Some of you sound like those that
> might like a good game of kick the cat. Whatever your game is, I
> don't think you're helping any animals here. You all can get back to
> your finger-fighting.
You seriously went to newsgroups entitled alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
and talk.politics.animals looking for information on horses?!? Such
as, whether horses are vegetarian out of a sense of ethics; or perhaps,
the percentages of horses registered to the major political parties?
What's wrong with you?
Rat & Swan
> Pictures do not lie as people do.
And Sue is well known for lying here, both about
issues, and about people. She has no credibility
on any topic.
<snip>
Rat
R Bishop
Laura Hailey <llha...@memphis.edu> wrote:
>Pictures do not lie as people do. See for yourself. Look into it. Ask
>around as I have. Watch the videos of the foals at the slaughterhouse. You
>must be or know a PMU farm owner.
>
Laura, see my email to you. BTW, turn off the email, I don't need to see
two copies of everything you post.
I obviously know quite a bit more about the PMU farms than you do. I've
read the joint American and Canadian Veterinary Associations report, I've
talked to horse people who have visited the farms, I've seen posts from
one person who boards their riding horse at a PMU farm. You seem to
have fallen for the PeTa lies.
Sue
>Laura Hailey
>llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
>
>R Bishop wrote:
>
>> In article <37D6A7B9...@memphis.edu>,
>> Laura Hailey <llha...@memphis.edu> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Premarin is a
>> >drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived
>> >from pregnant mare urine. Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
>> >tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and
>> >made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are
>> >then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened
>> >for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is
>> >cruel. How can people do this? How can this be just okay with people?
>> >If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
>> >is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
>> >is narrow."
>>
>> Totally ridiculous. And totally untrue. Laura, you obviously know
>> NOTHING about the production of premarin. The mares are NOT confined,
>> their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are sold,
>> mostly to people who want them for riding. The mare IS rebred, but
>> that's normal. Horses in the wild get pregnant within nine days of
>> having a foal. That's the way their reproduction cycle works.
>>
>> >
>> >I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
>>
>> And I hope you read this and learn a bit about horses.
>>
>> >
>> >Laura Hailey
>> >llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
>>
>> Sue
>>
>> Smoke Often
>>
>> Die Young
>
Smoke Often
Die Young
R Bishop
Laura Hailey <llha...@memphis.edu> wrote:
>Sue,
>
>Do you honestly think that Wyeth Ayerst has time to wait for each horse to mate
>on their own? NO. They artificially inseminate them to insure success. They
>don't have time for nature to take its course in a multi-million dollar
>business.
Laura, so what? Lots of horse owners use artificial insemination to breed
their mares. In fact, many TB farms use it with the stallion right there
in the next room. Why? Because it's a bit safer for the stallion AND for
the mare.
Sue
>
>Laura Hailey
>
>Laura Hailey wrote:
>
>> Pictures do not lie as people do. See for yourself. Look into it. Ask
>> around as I have. Watch the videos of the foals at the slaughterhouse. You
>> must be or know a PMU farm owner.
>>
>> Laura Hailey
>> llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
>>
>> R Bishop wrote:
>>
>> > In article <37D6A7B9...@memphis.edu>,
>> > Laura Hailey <llha...@memphis.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > >Premarin is a
>> > >drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived
>> > >from pregnant mare urine. Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
>> > >tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and
>> > >made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are
>> > >then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened
>> > >for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is
>> > >cruel. How can people do this? How can this be just okay with people?
>> > >If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
>> > >is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
>> > >is narrow."
>> >
>> > Totally ridiculous. And totally untrue. Laura, you obviously know
>> > NOTHING about the production of premarin. The mares are NOT confined,
>> > their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are sold,
>> > mostly to people who want them for riding. The mare IS rebred, but
>> > that's normal. Horses in the wild get pregnant within nine days of
>> > having a foal. That's the way their reproduction cycle works.
>> >
>> > >
>> > >I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
>> >
R Bishop
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Laura Hailey wrote:
>
>> Pictures do not lie as people do.
>
> And Sue is well known for lying here, both about
> issues, and about people. She has no credibility
> on any topic.
>
Gee, Rat, I thought you'd get all hot and bothered by the AI
thread. Just THINK What you could do with all that equipment?
> <snip>
>
> Rat
R Bishop
Martin Martens <martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
>Laura Hailey wrote:
>>
>> You know what, I don't know David, I don't know you, or
>> anybody else on this list. I came here to see if there was
>> any activity going on about horses. I am not interested in
>> getting into another rediculous, name-calling,
>> good-for-nothing argument. [...]
>
>You came in swinging wildly and cluelessly. Quit bitching about
>having your ass handed to you.
It's a good thing she didn't show up on the rec.eq group slinging
her ridiculous PMU ideas. She'd have her head handed to her.
The PeTa lies have been totally debunked a dozen times on the
various horse groups and just mentioning it will bring the fires
of hell down.
R Bishop
Martin Martens <martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
>R Bishop wrote:
>>
>> In article <37D6E521...@ragingbull.com>,
>> Martin Martens <martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Laura Hailey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You know what, I don't know David, I don't know you, or
>> >> anybody else on this list. I came here to see if there was
>> >> any activity going on about horses. I am not interested in
>> >> getting into another rediculous, name-calling,
>> >> good-for-nothing argument. [...]
>> >
>> >You came in swinging wildly and cluelessly. Quit bitching about
>> >having your ass handed to you.
>>
>> It's a good thing she didn't show up on the rec.eq group slinging
>> her ridiculous PMU ideas. She'd have her head handed to her.
>> The PeTa lies have been totally debunked a dozen times on the
>> various horse groups and just mentioning it will bring the fires
>> of hell down.
>
>
>Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
>usenet group and did it.
>
Wow. Talk about suicidal!!
R Bishop
frlpwr <frl...@flash.net> wrote:
>R Bishop wrote:
>>
>(snip)
>>
>> I obviously know quite a bit more about the PMU farms than you do.
>
>There are two subjects you don't know anything about, self-evaluation
>and good manners.
>
ROTFL!! The bitchiest of the bitches is lecturing ME on manners!
>You have spent your entire life in the same place, among the same
>people. The only thing you "know" more about than anyone else is your
>tiny, constricted world and, I think you will find, that no one is much
>interested in this "knowledge".
Poor dear FeralAss. I have traveled widely. I have friends in many locales,
many of which have horses. I've visited a great many of the states in
this big country of ours. Just came back from Idaho and Montana.
So, when you start whining about how I've spent my life, you'd better
realize you don't know shit about me or where I've been.
>
>If you have information about the treatment of horses at PMU farms,
>let's have it and your sources. In the meantime, your pronouncements
>are nothing but opinions.
Why should I bother? Why don't you just trot your skinny nasty little
ass over to Rec.Equestrian and ask the many horse folks who post on there.
Or go to Dejanews and search the rec.equestrian group listings for PMU
farms. There's tons and tons and TONS of posts about it. And, surprise,
surprise, you'll find that the vast majority of the people who raise and
ride and love horses don't have a problem with them.
>
>> >> The mares are NOT confined,
>> >> their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are
>> >> sold, mostly to people who want them for riding.
>
>I'm sure you have support for this statement, where is it?
It's in the report written by the Canadian and American Veterinary Associations.
Dated May 1998, I think, or maybe 1997. Not long ago at all. The farms
are also inspected often.
>
>> >>The mare IS rebred, but
>> >> that's normal. Horses in the wild get pregnant within nine days of
>> >> having a foal.
>
>What happens to the mares that don't become pregnant again within nine
>days of parturition?
Duh. They come in heat again at 30 days. Natural process. They come
in heat (if not bred) AGAIN in another three weeks. Most mares have
a four week cycle. One week in heat, three weeks off. Makes it very
interesting to ride an unpregnant mare, some of them get a bit bitchy
during the 'on' cycle. Not unlike you.
Do you also wish to know the average amount of time in the pregnancy?
Martin Martens
>
> In article <37D6E521...@ragingbull.com>,
> Martin Martens <martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
>
> >Laura Hailey wrote:
> >>
> >> anybody else on this list. I came here to see if there was
> >> any activity going on about horses. I am not interested in
> >> getting into another rediculous, name-calling,
> >
> >You came in swinging wildly and cluelessly. Quit bitching about
> >having your ass handed to you.
>
> It's a good thing she didn't show up on the rec.eq group slinging
> her ridiculous PMU ideas. She'd have her head handed to her.
> The PeTa lies have been totally debunked a dozen times on the
> various horse groups and just mentioning it will bring the fires
> of hell down.
Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
usenet group and did it.
>
David
>
>
>David wrote:
>>
>> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> >dh...@yahoo.com (David)
>> >| > The food industry is an environment in which animals
>> >| > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that
>> >| > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any
>> >| > other environment--they are totally dependant on that
>> >| > industry for their lives.
>> >
>> >"Tony Martin " <tonym...@vegetarians.com>:
>> >| So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights,
>> >| no matter how much you whine.
>> >
>> >I think everyone on Usenet has tried to explain to David
>> >that the non-existent do not have rights / interests / lives,
>> >but he doesn't get it and doesn't appear to be about to get
>> >it.
>>
>> What I'm saying is true. It will only be significant to
>> people who are more interested in the animals themselves,
>> than they are in promoting vegetarianism....obviously.
>> Those are the people who I am trying to encourage to think
>> the whole thing through.
>
>Funny. Support a philosophy that advocates the extinction of multiple
>species and call it Animal Rights. That never ceases to surprise me.
I can still hardly believe it myself. It would be sort of funny if
it weren't so damn sad.......sad in all directions.
>That's kinda how all extinction works, right? "They'd be better off not
>existing"?!?
I guess natural extinctions are like that, since they come
about when animals can no longer exist and/or reproduce in
the environment they had been living in. Another theory I've
heard about the dinosaurs is that many of them may have
gone extinct due to the spread of disease. The appearance
of land bridges made it possible for animals to move into new
areas, spreading plagues. That is something like the vegetarian
movement, since it would no doubt be a "plague" that would
end the animals' ability to reproduce.
> Coming from an ARA it sounds more absurd than coming from
>people who hunt California Condors.
LOL!
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> I obviously know quite a bit more about the PMU farms than you do.
There are two subjects you don't know anything about, self-evaluation
and good manners.
You have spent your entire life in the same place, among the same
people. The only thing you "know" more about than anyone else is your
tiny, constricted world and, I think you will find, that no one is much
interested in this "knowledge".
If you have information about the treatment of horses at PMU farms,
let's have it and your sources. In the meantime, your pronouncements
are nothing but opinions.
> >> The mares are NOT confined,
> >> their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are
> >> sold, mostly to people who want them for riding.
I'm sure you have support for this statement, where is it?
> >>The mare IS rebred, but
David
>
>--------------6683AD28EFB4297445CF453D
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>While the "ARAs" and vegans are uniformly uninformed and goofy, David
>probably does more harm than good with his own frail attempts at
>logically refuting them. As just one example, he repeatedly posts the
>following, verbatim, that he's copied from who-knows-where:
That I copy from who knows where? It's from a folder that I
call "Stock Answers". What I'm saying is simple and easy, so
I may as well post the same replies over and over. If you don't
agree with it the first time you hear my argument, chances are
that you'll never actually care enough about the animals
themselves to take what I'm saying as important. It's the
people who actually care more about the animals than they
do about vegetarianism that I'm trying to influence.
> "If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse*
> to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all. That is
> a point that surely should be ignored if you are only trying
> to promote vegetarianism, but if you are really thinking about
> what's best for the animals, it is something that should be
> given the highest consideration. It's a pretty safe bet that
> the animals' lives mean more to them than anything
> else.....even their death."
>
>And:
>
> "Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we
> didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we
> think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed.
> When we think about the truth of it, the animals are not being
> cheated out of any part of their life by being raised for
> food, but instead they are getting the opportunity to
> experience whatever life they get as a result of it."
>
>Take the first sentece of the first ridiculous paragraph: "If it is
>wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse* to try to keep them
>from ever getting to live at all." He offers no support for his
>conclusion.
Does it need support? Is it wrong to kill them? If so, why? If
you prove that it is wrong to kill them, maybe from there I can
support why it is worse to keep them from getting to live at all.
If it's not wrong to kill them, then what I said obviously does
not apply.
> And the ending sentence of the same sack-o-crap: "It's a
>pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them than anything
>else.....even their death." Elsewhere, he claims that the animals
>aren't even aware of their impending deaths. He's right about that, but
>it contradicts what's in his nice little pat paragraph.
Really? How does it contradict?
>These are pathetic attempts to try to catch the goofy "ARAs" and vegans
>in a trap of their own making. The meateaters don't and shouldn't feel
>"better" about their dietary choice because of some intrinsic value of
>the animals' lives before slaughter.
Why not?
Which *particular* animals are you referring to?
> And the goofballs, goofy as they
>are, can't and shouldn't be expected to try to balance the intrinsic
>worth of the animals' lives with their deaths. They've made plain that
>the deaths tip the scales, regardless of the "content" of the lives.
Are you inferring that there are more deaths than lives?
>The goofballs have made no headway in demonstrating *why* this is an
>ethical issue to begin with, nor why their ethics are superior to those
>of meateaters. But David doesn't help the cause of people (e.g.,
>Mercer) doing a good job of illuminating the gaping holes in "AR" and
>"ethical" vegetarianism. He's an embarrassment to the whole debate.
I have one point to make. It has nothing to do with anyone else's
arguments as far as I can tell. If it does, I'm sorry to whoever it may be.
I'm also sorry to any veg*ns who might feel bad if they realize the
truth in what I'm saying..... I am *very!* sorry if there are any such
people out there, but it is something that people should think about,
and that's all there is to it IMO. At least it should make some people
feel better for the animals themselves to appreciate the *life* they
get, instead of thinking only about their *deaths*.
>It makes me wonder if you realize this yourself, and are trying to damn
>the anti- "AR"/"EV" side with faint praise by saying that its worst
>representative makes the most sense. We're not buying that, either.
What I'm saying it true. You are just another person who doesn't
want to think about it. The reason Laura sees the truth in what
I'm saying, is that she has nothing to lose by accepting the truth
of it..... That's how most people are by the way.
David
<snip>
> Whatever your game is, I don't think you're helping
>any animals here.
You hit the nail right on the head Laura. They *do not* care about
the animals.....at least not the animals of the future. Future animals
are not yet conceived, and therefore have not rights, cannot be
hurt, and should not be considered--the "Animal Rights" people,
and/or "ethical" veg*ns have told me that over and over again. Not
only that *they* don't care about them, but that *I* shouldn't care
about them either. They can't afford to care about the lives of the
very animals that they are trying to discourage.
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> >Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
> >usenet group and did it.
> Wow. Talk about suicidal!!
Well, not really. I was taking the drug for hormone
replacement until I found out how it was made,
whereupon, I stopped taking it. PETA has asked
post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
response. I would think many compassionate menopausal
women would _like_ to know they are supporting abuse of
animals by taking Premarin. Or do you assume all women
lose their compassion along with their hormones?
Rat
James Hepler
Laura Hailey wrote:
>
> I've just GOT to ask you people something. Do you really feel, with
> your heart and soul, these things, or are you only trying to outwit each
> other in the spirit of a good debate?
All of the above and none of the above. What difference does it make to
you?
> Every thread I've read so far is
> the same way, phrases such as 'how do you explain what you just said?'
> 'how will you get out of the place you just wedged yourself into?' and
> 'now show me where in the above statement you've contradicted my
> statement.' Are you people actually IN politics? Do you actually MAKE
> laws that determine an animal's future? If not, you people are
> seriously wasting your time. Your arguments are juvenile and
> unconstructive.
What the hell are you doing here? Did you come to stand atop your
freaking pedestal and spew criticism at all of us lowly subscribers? Go
fuck yourself if you don't like this group.
> David is actually, so far, the only one writing in this group that
> sounds like he has any sense. ANIMALS eat other animals, for crying out
> loud! However, just because we eat animals does not give us the right
> to, in ANY way, abuse these animals, no matter what kind of animal it
> is!
Abuse how? Do you not consider killing an animal abuse? I don't, but
if someone killed my dog, I wouldn't have a case, because apparently to
you killing it isn't abusive. Maybe you are just oblivious to the fact
that there are a lot of different opinions here ranging from extreme
ARA's to extreme antis. Maybe you should lurk awhile longer.
> I can't believe there is actually a need to regulate this. I would
> think that humans would naturally, inately, feel responsible for the
> treatment of slaughter animals.
Despite what you WOULD think, I doubt you are qualified to say what they
DO think, and from what I've seen, people don't feel responsible for the
slaughter of animals, from the destruction of habitat for power lines,
phone lines, strip malls, roads, and urban sprawl to buying ground chuck
at the local Piggly Wiggly. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE DEBATING. WE DON'T
ALL AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT.
> I would think there would be procedures
> in place to INSURE that an animal is killed INSTANTLY and PAINLESSLY and
> then rendered for food.
Despite what you WOULD think, you are wrong. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE
DEBATING. SOME PEOPLE HAVE INFORMATION YOU HAVE YET TO SEE. YOU ARE
NOT OMNIPOTENT.
> It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to be humane in the
> treatment of ALL God's animals.
Who is this God person, and why are they his? Is he the guy I pay my
mortgage to?
> I think that slaughter animals should
> be allowed to live a normal life, experiencing growth and birth before
> its life is ended.
Well, gee. How prolific. You believe animals should experience birth
before it experiences death? How unique!
> I also think that if we CAN'T provide a decent,
> humane life for all these animals, if it is found to actually be
> feasibly impossible, then we should think of other sources of food.
Like?
> For
> example, horsemeat.
Why would killing horses be automatically more humane? Who was the
person I was debating self control with? Here is your clueless, nice
person. Where is the credibility?
> Horses sent to slaughter houses are PURPOSELY not
> killed instantly because they claim the meat MUST stay alive until the
> last minute for it to be any good by the time it reaches dinner tables
> in other countries. Now, we don't HAVE to export horsemeat. Companies
> are doing it only for the money. In other words, your body does not
> have to have it to live healthily.
Oh jesus. You are all over the place.
> This is where animal rights groups
> can do a lot of good. These horses are suffering tremendously and
> needlessly. This is NOT RIGHT! I can't believe there are humans on
> this earth who feel it's just okay to do this. They feel nothing for
> the animal that it's being done to. It's unbelieveable!! Premarin is a
> drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived
> from pregnant mare urine.
Here comes the point. Sheesh.
> Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
> tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and
> made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are
> then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened
> for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is
> cruel. How can people do this?
Long metal tubes with which they shoot the semen into the horse. Kinda
gross.
> How can this be just okay with people?
Here is where I call you an idiot. Idiot, how can you not see that some
people feel the same way about other animals and how they are treated?
> If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
> is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
> is narrow."
Here is that God person again. Who is he? What is righteousness? Is
that anything like Charlotte? The path to Charlotte is narrow, but they
are widening it to six lanes.
> I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
Did you know that PeTA wouldn't accept a cure for AIDS if animal testing
brought it about? Did you know that the long term goal for PeTA is to
end pet ownership? Did you know PetA claims Jesus was vegetarian?
James Hepler
James Hepler
Laura Hailey wrote:
>
> You know what, I don't know David, I don't know you, or anybody else
> on this list. I came here to see if there was any activity going on
> about horses. I am not interested in getting into another rediculous,
> name-calling, good-for-nothing argument.
Unless it is about horses right?
> I am not a vegan, I am not
> even a PETA person. But I am definitely not anti-PETA, either. I
> love animals, I respect the lives of animals. I care whether or not I
> cause physical pain to another living being, unless that pain is
> absolutely necessary for their wellbeing, such as giving a shot.
Or having their testicles ripped out? Is violation of an animals
reproductive ability necessary for their well being?
> I
> don't know what you people's game is. Maybe you're all lawyers trying
> to see who is the most learned. Some of you sound like those that
> might like a good game of kick the cat. Whatever your game is, I
> don't think you're helping any animals here. You all can get back to
> your finger-fighting.
And you get back on your high horse and ride your sorry ass off this
group, moron.
James Hepler
--
James Hepler
Laura Hailey wrote:
>
> One last thought, do you people know each other? Because I have often
> wondered whenever I happen onto one of these sights where everyone's
> calling everyone names. Would you do that in person? Or are you only
> that brave because you can't see their face? It's your fingers that
> are brave, ain't it?
Laura Laura Laura. It is a shame I have to spell it out for you. Do
you want the easy lesson or the hard one? YEs, people use this forum as
an opportunity to say what they wouldn't in person. Big Fucking Deal.
Now, your job, if you stick around long enough (I won't hold my breath),
is to tell me exactly what is wrong with it? If you don't like it
LEAVE. If you do like it, which apparently you do, since basically the
only thing you have contributed is judgments against us, then stick
around so we can stick it to you some more.
Either way, stop bitching.
James Hepler
--
Martin L. Martens
That is brutally tempting but somehow I'll have to pass...
>
> Rat
James Hepler
Laura Hailey wrote:
> Pictures do not lie as people do.
IDIOT! FUCKING IDIOT! Pictures DO lie, worse than people do. Telling
people they don't is a tool for those with the pictures to further
mislead people. Jesus. Every trip to the grocery store and I am
bombarded with PICTURES of women on magazines with perfect faces,
perfect curves, perfect teeth, and perfect hair. And bullshit
statements like "Pictures don't lie as people do" create a situation in
our society that forces teen girls to be bulimic, anorexic, down on
themselves as humans because they can't look like those pictures.
Pictures do lie, and so do you, Laura. You are what's wrong.
> See for yourself. Look into it. Ask
> around as I have. Watch the videos of the foals at the slaughterhouse.
But you are OK with eating meat, right?
> You
> must be or know a PMU farm owner.
blah blah blah. For the first time, I am seriously considering using a
killfile.
James Hepler
> Laura Hailey
> llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
>
> R Bishop wrote:
>
> > In article <37D6A7B9...@memphis.edu>,
> > Laura Hailey <llha...@memphis.edu> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Premarin is a
> > >drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived
> > >from pregnant mare urine. Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
> > >tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and
> > >made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are
> > >then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened
> > >for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is
> > >cruel. How can people do this? How can this be just okay with people?
> > >If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
> > >is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
> > >is narrow."
> >
> > Totally ridiculous. And totally untrue. Laura, you obviously know
> > NOTHING about the production of premarin. The mares are NOT confined,
> > their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are sold,
> > mostly to people who want them for riding. The mare IS rebred, but
> > that's normal. Horses in the wild get pregnant within nine days of
> > having a foal. That's the way their reproduction cycle works.
> >
> > >
> > >I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
> >
> > And I hope you read this and learn a bit about horses.
> >
> > >
> > >Laura Hailey
> > >llha...@mocha.memphis.edu
> >
> > Sue
> >
> > Smoke Often
> >
> > Die Young
--
R Bishop
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>R Bishop wrote:
>
><snip>
>> >Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
>> >usenet group and did it.
>
>> Wow. Talk about suicidal!!
>
> Well, not really. I was taking the drug for hormone
> replacement until I found out how it was made,
> whereupon, I stopped taking it. PETA has asked
> post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
> not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
> response. I would think many compassionate menopausal
> women would _like_ to know they are supporting abuse of
> animals by taking Premarin. Or do you assume all women
> lose their compassion along with their hormones?
OK, Rat. TRY posting to the group (include a cross-post to rec.equestrian)
and see what kind of response YOU get.
>
> Rat
James Hepler
alternatives on the market. Is this true? Or, more clearly:
1) are there alternatives?
if so:
2) are they effective?
3) are they cost efficient?
4) how do they use animals?
If the answers to these indicate that safe, effective, cheap, more
animal friendly alternatives exist, then is there a reason to continue
with premarin?
James Hepler
--
"I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
would want you to believe".
-Bright Eyes
R Bishop
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>Now, my premarin knowledge leads me to believe there are adequate
>alternatives on the market. Is this true? Or, more clearly:
>
>1) are there alternatives?
Yes.
>
>if so:
>
>2) are they effective?
It depends. They are artificial constructs and don't work adequately
for a majority of women. They also tend to have more side-effects.
>
>3) are they cost efficient?
Probably.
>
>4) how do they use animals?
I don't know the answer to this one.
>
>If the answers to these indicate that safe, effective, cheap, more
>animal friendly alternatives exist, then is there a reason to continue
>with premarin?
Because many women cannot use the alternatives. HRT has been shown to
be extremely effective in preventing osteoporosis. The side-effects are
few. The benefits are many.
Then there are women who refuse all HRT. Sometimes they tend to become
moody, irrational and obnoxious. By Jove, NOW we know what the matter is
with FeralPee.....
>
>James Hepler
Sue
Smoke Often
Die Young
jnilsen
# Now, my premarin knowledge leads me to believe there are adequate
# alternatives on the market. Is this true? Or, more clearly:
# 1) are there alternatives?
# if so:
# 2) are they effective?
There are alternatives to Premarin, but their effectiveness is nil to good
to depending on who you ask and what symptoms one wishes to treat.
Genistein (ie. soy) seems to work quite well for hot flushes. Preliminary
animal studies show some effectiveness on bone density and blood lipid
profiles.
In europe it is more wiely believed that estradiol by itself is as
effective as Premarin, but in the U.S. the current consesnsus is that
the other substances in Premarin have effects not mediated by estradiol
alone.
Raloxifene is starting to show some promise, as it was developed as an
anti-oteoporetic agent and may have benefical cognitive/Alzheimer's
effects, but it does induce or not affect hot flushes.
# 3) are they cost efficient?
Genestein in the form of dietary intake is extremely cheap. It is also
available in pill/powder form from numerous supplement companies.
Estradiol is cheap to synthesize, and has npo patent issues as with
Premarin.
Raloxifene is cheaply synthesized, but has patent issues.
# 4) how do they use animals?
None of these possible alternatives use animals in the general sense (i.e.
synthesis, harvesting)
# If the answers to these indicate that safe, effective, cheap, more
# animal friendly alternatives exist, then is there a reason to continue
# with premarin?
This is a question of much great debate, especially between the US and
Europe. Premarin has a relatively long proven track record. Additionally,
there are many factors to weigh in regarding hormone replaceent therapy,
not limited to which symptoms to treat (osteoporosis, heart disease,
cognitive decline, Alzheimer's risk, mood), side effects (unopposed
estradiol is risky for gynecological cancers). These various factors need
to be analyzed for efficacy and effectiveness of alternatives before
foregoing a working treatment.
# James Hepler
# R Bishop wrote:
# >
# > In article <37D7BE...@pacbell.net>,
# > Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
# >
# > >R Bishop wrote:
# > >
# > ><snip>
# > >> >Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
# > >> >usenet group and did it.
# > >
# > >> Wow. Talk about suicidal!!
# > >
# > > Well, not really. I was taking the drug for hormone
# > > replacement until I found out how it was made,
# > > whereupon, I stopped taking it. PETA has asked
# > > post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
# > > not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
# > > response. I would think many compassionate menopausal
# > > women would _like_ to know they are supporting abuse of
# > > animals by taking Premarin. Or do you assume all women
# > > lose their compassion along with their hormones?
# >
# > OK, Rat. TRY posting to the group (include a cross-post to rec.equestrian)
# > and see what kind of response YOU get.
# >
# > >
# > > Rat
# >
# >
# > Sue
# >
# > Smoke Often
# >
# > Die Young
# --
# "I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
# would want you to believe".
# -Bright Eyes
James Hepler
animal friendly (at least moreso. I won't go so far as to assume it is
completely so, since it is a prescription drug), and as safe, although
the side effects of both premarin and estrace are kinda scary. So why
are most people on premarin?
James Hepler
James Hepler wrote:
>
> Now, my premarin knowledge leads me to believe there are adequate
> alternatives on the market. Is this true? Or, more clearly:
>
> 1) are there alternatives?
>
> if so:
>
> 2) are they effective?
>
> 3) are they cost efficient?
>
> 4) how do they use animals?
>
> If the answers to these indicate that safe, effective, cheap, more
> animal friendly alternatives exist, then is there a reason to continue
> with premarin?
>
> James Hepler
>
> R Bishop wrote:
> >
> > In article <37D7BE...@pacbell.net>,
> > Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >R Bishop wrote:
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >> >Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
> > >> >usenet group and did it.
> > >
> > >> Wow. Talk about suicidal!!
> > >
> > > Well, not really. I was taking the drug for hormone
> > > replacement until I found out how it was made,
> > > whereupon, I stopped taking it. PETA has asked
> > > post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
> > > not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
> > > response. I would think many compassionate menopausal
> > > women would _like_ to know they are supporting abuse of
> > > animals by taking Premarin. Or do you assume all women
> > > lose their compassion along with their hormones?
> >
> > OK, Rat. TRY posting to the group (include a cross-post to rec.equestrian)
> > and see what kind of response YOU get.
> >
> > >
> > > Rat
> >
> >
> > Sue
> >
> > Smoke Often
> >
> > Die Young
>
> --
> "I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
> would want you to believe".
> -Bright Eyes
--
"I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
would want you to believe".
-Bright Eyes
John Mercer
---snip---
> Premarin is a
> drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause.
That looks like an attempt to trivialize benefits while presenting a
phony utilitarian equation. For example, estrogen therapy has been shown
to reduce the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, too. Why
not mention that, Laura?
Which reduces risk more, estrogen therapy or PeTA's prescription--a
vegan diet?
> It is derived from pregnant mare urine.
Natural is good, isn't it?
> Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
> tubes are connected to the horse's uretha.
How else would one collect horse urine? What happens to a middle-aged
man after prostate surgery?
> The horse is impregnated
Wow. Are you implying that females are just passive receptacles?
> and made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy.
Is this true? Where did you read this? Why would they need to stand in
one spot if the bag is attached to the leg?
> They are then allowed to foal,
Is allowing them to foal cruel?
> the baby
Anthropomorphism. Why not call it a foal?
> is sent to a feedlot
Which feedlot?
> where it is fattened
> for slaughter.
Is this true? What is your source?
> Then the baby's mother is impregnated again.
Artificially or naturally?
> This is cruel.
Is it true?
> How can people do this?
How can people believe PeTA's claim that cell culture is a "non-animal
alternative" when it uses products of the veal industry?
> How can this be just okay with people?
Is it true?
> If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
> is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
> is narrow."
>
> I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
Are you a pro-PeTA person?
--
John Mercer
Jonathan Ball
Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>--------------6683AD28EFB4297445CF453D
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>While the "ARAs" and vegans are uniformly uninformed and goofy, David
>probably does more harm than good with his own frail attempts at
>logically refuting them. As just one example, he repeatedly posts the
>following, verbatim, that he's copied from who-knows-where:
That I copy from who knows where? It's from a folder that I
call "Stock Answers". What I'm saying is simple and easy, so
I may as well post the same replies over and over. If you don't
agree with it the first time you hear my argument, chances are
that you'll never actually care enough about the animals
themselves to take what I'm saying as important. It's the
people who actually care more about the animals than they
do about vegetarianism that I'm trying to influence.
No one is interested in your "stock" answers. Why don't you try to say something original and pertinent?
*You* say it's "simple and easy". You'll get no argument on "simple". "Easy" is your opinion. You equate agreeing to your simple-minded and logically fallacious argument with "caring about the animals". That's another logical fallacy.
> "If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse*
> to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all. That is
> a point that surely should be ignored if you are only trying
> to promote vegetarianism, but if you are really thinking about
> what's best for the animals, it is something that should be
> given the highest consideration. It's a pretty safe bet that
> the animals' lives mean more to them than anything
> else.....even their death."
>
>And:
>
> "Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we
> didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we
> think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed.
> When we think about the truth of it, the animals are not being
> cheated out of any part of their life by being raised for
> food, but instead they are getting the opportunity to
> experience whatever life they get as a result of it."
>
>Take the first sentece of the first ridiculous paragraph: "If it is
>wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse* to try to keep them
>from ever getting to live at all." He offers no support for his
>conclusion.
Does it need support? Is it wrong to kill them? If so, why? If
you prove that it is wrong to kill them, maybe from there I can
support why it is worse to keep them from getting to live at all.
If it's not wrong to kill them, then what I said obviously does
not apply.
I don't believe it is wrong to kill them. I eat meat, and have no intention of quitting.
But from the shaky perspective of a so-called "ethical" vegetarian, it *is* wrong to kill them. If you're going to try to persuade them, you *do* indeed have to support your conclusion that it is even worse to prevent them from being born. You want to base your statement that it is even more wrong to prevent the animals from being born on this belief of theirs, and you imply that this greater "wrong" logically follows from their belief. So yes, you have to demonstrate that. You can't just state it as fact.
> And the ending sentence of the same sack-o-crap: "It's a
>pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them than anything
>else.....even their death." Elsewhere, he claims that the animals
>aren't even aware of their impending deaths. He's right about that, but
>it contradicts what's in his nice little pat paragraph.
Because for their lives to "mean" something to them, animals have to have a self-conscious awareness of their lives, including the fact that their lives will end. But you state that they don't have an awareness of their death, even as they see others like them being slaughtered. Therefore, they have no awareness (in the self-conscious manner of humans that you plainly mean) of their lives. Therefore, you have contradicted yourself.Really? How does it contradict?
Elsewhere you wrote (part of another repetitiously posted stock answer):
"In order to even get an idea of how they feel about their lives, we would have to try to ignore all of the things that we know, but they do not know."But you claim you *do* know how they feel about their lives: "It's a pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them than anything else.....even their death." So, in order to make this "safe bet", did you ignore, or try to ignore, all of the things that you, uh, "know"?
>These are pathetic attempts to try to catch the goofy "ARAs" and vegans
>in a trap of their own making. The meateaters don't and shouldn't feel
>"better" about their dietary choice because of some intrinsic value of
>the animals' lives before slaughter.
Why not?
Which *particular* animals are you referring to?
Huh? The animals they're going to eat, you saphead.
> And the goofballs, goofy as they
>are, can't and shouldn't be expected to try to balance the intrinsic
>worth of the animals' lives with their deaths. They've made plain that
>the deaths tip the scales, regardless of the "content" of the lives.
No, you twit. Nothing in there says anything about the numbers of deaths or lives. What's wrong with you? Do you know what a "balance" is? It measures weight, not integers. The "EV"/"ARF" goofballs feel that the death of an animal at the hands of a human being outweighs all aspects of its life. I think they're nuts, but you are attempting to tell them that they are wrong, and you haven't come close to making your case.Are you inferring that there are more deaths than lives?
>The goofballs have made no headway in demonstrating *why* this is an
>ethical issue to begin with, nor why their ethics are superior to those
>of meateaters. But David doesn't help the cause of people (e.g.,
>Mercer) doing a good job of illuminating the gaping holes in "AR" and
>"ethical" vegetarianism. He's an embarrassment to the whole debate.
I have one point to make. It has nothing to do with anyone else's
arguments as far as I can tell. If it does, I'm sorry to whoever it may be.
I'm also sorry to any veg*ns who might feel bad if they realize the
truth in what I'm saying..... I am *very!* sorry if there are any such
people out there, but it is something that people should think about,
and that's all there is to it IMO. At least it should make some people
feel better for the animals themselves to appreciate the *life* they
get, instead of thinking only about their *deaths*.
Having a point would be a very good start for you.
And are you going to explain *why* this is the "truth", or are we to take your word for it?
>It makes me wonder if you realize this yourself, and are trying to damn
>the anti- "AR"/"EV" side with faint praise by saying that its worst
>representative makes the most sense. We're not buying that, either.
What I'm saying it true. You are just another person who doesn't
want to think about it. The reason Laura sees the truth in what
I'm saying, is that she has nothing to lose by accepting the truth
of it..... That's how most people are by the way.
You haven't demonstrated that what you are saying is true. Look up "ipse dixit".
You are an embarrassment to the people trying to point out the fallacies
of "EV" religion and "AR" fascism.
Terri
snip
PETA has asked
> post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
> not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
> response.
Exactly what is one supposed to send a picture of and
where does it end up?
:)
Terri
James Hepler
John Mercer wrote:
> > Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and
> > tubes are connected to the horse's uretha.
>
> How else would one collect horse urine? What happens to a middle-aged
> man after prostate surgery?
At least she could spell urethra right.
> > and made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy.
>
> Is this true? Where did you read this? Why would they need to stand in
> one spot if the bag is attached to the leg?
Come on! Pictures don't lie! The horse was standing completely still
in the photo. Isn't that proof enough?
> > They are then allowed to foal,
>
> Is allowing them to foal cruel?
Does she have a choice?
> > the baby
>
> Anthropomorphism. Why not call it a foal?
Interesting. I want to see a horse give birth to a baby. "Hey, it has
Mikey C's eyes!"
<snip>
> > How can this be just okay with people?
>
> Is it true?
It's not just OK, it's Grrrrrrreat!TM
> > If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it
> > is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness
> > is narrow."
> >
> > I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
>
> Are you a pro-PeTA person?
Pro horse, that is if she has ever seen one.
James Hepler
James Hepler
Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> David Ipse Dixit wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >--------------6683AD28EFB4297445CF453D
> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > >While the "ARAs" and vegans are uniformly uninformed and goofy,
> > David
> > >probably does more harm than good with his own frail attempts at
> > >logically refuting them. As just one example, he repeatedly posts
> > the
> > >following, verbatim, that he's copied from who-knows-where:
> >
> > That I copy from who knows where? It's from a folder that I
> > call "Stock Answers". What I'm saying is simple and easy, so
> > I may as well post the same replies over and over. If you don't
> > agree with it the first time you hear my argument, chances are
> > that you'll never actually care enough about the animals
> > themselves to take what I'm saying as important. It's the
> > people who actually care more about the animals than they
> > do about vegetarianism that I'm trying to influence.
>
> No one is interested in your "stock" answers.
Can I call you Jonathan Ipse Dixit Ball from now on? Stop speaking for
me. That's why I have fingers. 'K?
> Why don't you try to
> say something original and pertinent?
Everything has been said. You just haven't been around long enough.
> *You* say it's "simple and easy". You'll get no argument on
> "simple". "Easy" is your opinion.
You are telling him how easy it is for him to say something, or are you
telling him how easy it is to understand his argument?
> You equate agreeing to your
> simple-minded and logically fallacious argument with "caring about the
> animals". That's another logical fallacy.
Which one is it? You seem to have no trouble naming them, yet you balk
on this one? Why are you not arguing his point? You say his argument
is logically fallacious, yet you provide no counter argument. In fact,
your claim that his argument is logically fallacious, and the fact that
you have yet to back up your claim, land you well within the boundaries
of Ipse Dixit yourself, pally. So can I call you Jonathan Ipse Dixit
Ball, or just plain old "freaking hypocrite"?
His statement IMO is a mild non sequiter, since it doesn't necessarily
follow that if you think killing them is wrong then you have to think
that not letting them exist is worse. If you are going to claim that he
employs logical fallacies, try to avoid using them yourself.
> > >Take the first sentece of the first ridiculous paragraph: "If it is
> >
> > >wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse* to try to keep
> > them
> > >from ever getting to live at all." He offers no support for his
> > >conclusion.
> >
> > Does it need support? Is it wrong to kill them? If so, why? If
> > you prove that it is wrong to kill them, maybe from there I can
> > support why it is worse to keep them from getting to live at all.
> > If it's not wrong to kill them, then what I said obviously does
> > not apply.
>
> I don't believe it is wrong to kill them. I eat meat, and have no
> intention of quitting.
>
> But from the shaky perspective of a so-called "ethical" vegetarian, it
> *is* wrong to kill them. If you're going to try to persuade them, you
> *do* indeed have to support your conclusion that it is even worse to
> prevent them from being born.
Here you are at least right. I think a logical parallel would be the
ole abortion comparison. If you think it is wrong to kill living
children, you certainly don't have to think that abortion is wrong.
> You want to base your statement that it
> is even more wrong to prevent the animals from being born on this
> belief of theirs, and you imply that this greater "wrong" logically
> follows from their belief. So yes, you have to demonstrate that. You
> can't just state it as fact.
For some it is true for others not. I think non sequiter applies.
> > > And the ending sentence of the same
> > sack-o-crap: "It's a
> > >pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them than
> > anything
> > >else.....even their death." Elsewhere, he claims that the animals
> > >aren't even aware of their impending deaths. He's right about
> > that, but
> > >it contradicts what's in his nice little pat paragraph.
> >
> > Really? How does it contradict?
>
> Because for their lives to "mean" something to them, animals have to
> have a self-conscious awareness of their lives, including the fact
> that their lives will end. But you state that they don't have an
> awareness of their death, even as they see others like them being
> slaughtered. Therefore, they have no awareness (in the self-conscious
> manner of humans that you plainly mean) of their lives. Therefore,
> you have contradicted yourself.
Here is a good point. Thanks.
<snip>
> > >The goofballs have made no headway in demonstrating *why* this is
> > an
> > >ethical issue to begin with, nor why their ethics are superior to
> > those
> > >of meateaters. But David doesn't help the cause of people (e.g.,
> > >Mercer) doing a good job of illuminating the gaping holes in "AR"
> > and
> > >"ethical" vegetarianism. He's an embarrassment to the whole
> > debate.
> >
> > I have one point to make. It has nothing to do with anyone
> > else's
> > arguments as far as I can tell. If it does, I'm sorry to whoever it
> > may be.
> > I'm also sorry to any veg*ns who might feel bad if they realize the
> > truth in what I'm saying..... I am *very!* sorry if there are any
> > such
> > people out there, but it is something that people should think
> > about,
> > and that's all there is to it IMO. At least it should make some
> > people
> > feel better for the animals themselves to appreciate the *life* they
> >
> > get, instead of thinking only about their *deaths*.
>
> Having a point would be a very good start for you.
I think he is on to something. Just going around it though. If the
ARA's care about animals, how can they be in favor of any species'
extinction? One would think that the ARA's would want to prevent
extinction, yet they adamantly support it:
"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and
out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They
are creations of human selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, as quoted in
Animal People, May, 1993)
If they are human creations, and therefore worthy of extinction, then
what basis is there for their protection while living?
> And are you going to explain *why* this is the "truth", or are we to
> take your word for it?
There is always the option of seeking out the truth in what he says, if
there is any. Call it option C. Research. You don't have to do it,
but if you really want answers to your question, give it a shot.
> > >It makes me wonder if you realize this yourself, and are trying to
> > damn
> > >the anti- "AR"/"EV" side with faint praise by saying that its worst
> >
> > >representative makes the most sense. We're not buying that,
> > either.
> >
> > What I'm saying it true. You are just another person who doesn't
> >
> > want to think about it. The reason Laura sees the truth in what
> > I'm saying, is that she has nothing to lose by accepting the truth
> > of it..... That's how most people are by the way.
>
> You haven't demonstrated that what you are saying is true. Look up
> "ipse dixit".
Check yourself, coolio, before you wreck yourself. Ipse Dixit indeed.
You would recognize it, wouldn't you?
> You are an embarrassment to the people trying to point out the
> fallacies of "EV" religion and "AR" fascism.
And you're a big help, aren't you?
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> Poor dear FeralAss. I have traveled widely.
I'm not talking about strapping yourself in the deluxe camper and going
for a ride.
> I've visited a great many of the states in this big country of ours.
That's nice. Bring back lots of T-shirts and coffee mugs for the
folks?
> Just came back from Idaho and Montana.
Oh, great. I suppose this means that we will soon be blessed with
hearing, "It is obvious that I know more about Idaho and Montana than
anyone else."
> So, when you start whining about how I've spent my life, you'd better
> realize you don't know shit about me or where I've been.
Why would I "whine" about your little life? I'm trying to do you a
favor and let you know how ridiculously arrogant you sound when you tell
people that they know nothing and you know everything about whatever
subject is being discussed.
What was that you said about guillotined mice? Are you going up against
the Great One? If you are going to tell Mercer that you know more about
killing rodents in research than he does, I want to make sure that I
don't miss it.
> >
> >If you have information about the treatment of horses at PMU farms,
> >let's have it and your sources. In the meantime, your pronouncements
> >are nothing but opinions.
>
> Why should I bother? Why don't you just trot your skinny nasty little
> ass over to Rec.Equestrian and ask the many horse folks who post on
> there.
If you can't post verifiable facts to support your sloppy,
doublewide-assed pronouncements, just say so. Trust me, no one will be
shocked.
> Or go to Dejanews and search the rec.equestrian group listings for PMU
> farms. There's tons and tons and TONS of posts about it. And,
> surprise, surprise, you'll find that the vast majority of the people
> who raise and ride and love horses don't have a problem with them.
Facts, Sue. There are just as many people who love horses that are
opposed to PMU farms.
> >
> >> >> The mares are NOT confined,
> >> >> their foals stay with them until they are weaned, then they are
> >> >> sold, mostly to people who want them for riding.
> >
> >I'm sure you have support for this statement, where is it?
>
> It's in the report written by the Canadian and American Veterinary > Associations. Dated May 1998, I think, or maybe 1997.
Is this on-line? I could find nothing exculpatory about PMU farms. I
did find these horse-lover organizations that are opposed to PMU farms:
Horse Education and Rescue Alliance
United Pegasus Foundation
Horseaid
Equine Advocates, Inc.
California Equestrian Concern
Equine Rescue
> Not long ago at all. The farms
> are also inspected often.
>
Yeah, these are voluntary inspections by industry-hired veterinarians.
This is exactly like inspections of fur farms, meaningless.
> >
(snip)
> Duh. They come in heat again at 30 days. Natural process. They come
> in heat (if not bred) AGAIN in another three weeks.
Duh. How long do you think mares are kept that are not easily
impregnated? Or have difficulty with spontaneous abortions? IOW, what
happens to mares that are not reliable urine-producing machines? How do
you reconcile their fate with your "love" of horses?
If you "love" horses like you "rescue" animals, horses can't depend on
you for shit.
> Makes it very interesting to ride an unpregnant mare, some of them
> get a bit bitchy during the 'on' cycle. Not unlike you.
>
I can't tell if you are saying that I should get pregnant, (I'm still
oozing my own estrogen.), or hinting that you want to ride me. Neither
suggestion has the least appeal to me.
> Do you also wish to know the average amount of time in the pregnancy?
>
If you would like to tell me the average amount of time that mares are
hooked up to urine collection devices or the amount of water they are
rationed to produce highly concentrated urine, go ahead.
Otherwise, we can put this Bishopfact in the wastebin with the rest of
your "Ain't life grand down on the farm." wisdom.
R Bishop
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>OK. A little research has shown me that Estrace is cheaper, effective,
>animal friendly (at least moreso. I won't go so far as to assume it is
>completely so, since it is a prescription drug), and as safe, although
>the side effects of both premarin and estrace are kinda scary. So why
>are most people on premarin?
>
Well, let's put it this way. Which do YOU prefer? Your wife or an
artificial dummy? Artificial hormones are not the same as natural
hormones.
Sue
>James Hepler
>
>James Hepler wrote:
>>
>> Now, my premarin knowledge leads me to believe there are adequate
>> alternatives on the market. Is this true? Or, more clearly:
>>
>> 1) are there alternatives?
>>
>> if so:
>>
>> 2) are they effective?
>>
>> 3) are they cost efficient?
>>
>> 4) how do they use animals?
>>
>> If the answers to these indicate that safe, effective, cheap, more
>> animal friendly alternatives exist, then is there a reason to continue
>> with premarin?
>>
>> James Hepler
>>
>> R Bishop wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <37D7BE...@pacbell.net>,
>> > Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >R Bishop wrote:
>> > >
>> > ><snip>
>> > >> >Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
>> > >> >usenet group and did it.
>> > >
>> > >> Wow. Talk about suicidal!!
>> > >
>> > > Well, not really. I was taking the drug for hormone
>> > > replacement until I found out how it was made,
>> > > whereupon, I stopped taking it. PETA has asked
>> > > post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
>> > > not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
>> > > response. I would think many compassionate menopausal
>> > > women would _like_ to know they are supporting abuse of
>> > > animals by taking Premarin. Or do you assume all women
>> > > lose their compassion along with their hormones?
>> >
>> > OK, Rat. TRY posting to the group (include a cross-post to rec.equestrian)
>> > and see what kind of response YOU get.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Rat
>> >
>> >
>> > Sue
>> >
>> > Smoke Often
>> >
>> > Die Young
>>
>> --
>> "I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
>> would want you to believe".
>> -Bright Eyes
>
>--
>"I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
>would want you to believe".
>-Bright Eyes
Smoke Often
Die Young
Jonathan Ball
James Hepler wrote:
Neither. I am stating that he merely says it's "simple and easy", but that
doesn't make it so. And I am calling his argument "simple", as in
simple-minded.
> > You equate agreeing to your
> > simple-minded and logically fallacious argument with "caring about the
> > animals". That's another logical fallacy.
>
> Which one is it? You seem to have no trouble naming them, yet you balk
> on this one?
The fallacy of equivocation, you dope. You think because I didn't name it I
don't know it? That's a demerit for you, too.
> Why are you not arguing his point?
His fallacy doesn't constitute a point. I don't have to argue it.
> You say his argument
> is logically fallacious, yet you provide no counter argument.
Not obliged to, but you're wrong: I did see below. The presence or absence
of a counter-argument doesn't change the fact that his argument is
fallacious.
> In fact,
> your claim that his argument is logically fallacious, and the fact that
> you have yet to back up your claim,
But I did back it up. He equates not agreeing with his, uh, "argument" with
not caring for the animals.
> land you well within the boundaries
> of Ipse Dixit yourself, pally. So can I call you Jonathan Ipse Dixit
> Ball, or just plain old "freaking hypocrite"?
>
> His statement IMO is a mild
What?!? His whole story falls apart on it.
> non sequiter, since it doesn't necessarily
> follow that if you think killing them is wrong then you have to think
> that not letting them exist is worse. If you are going to claim that he
> employs logical fallacies, try to avoid using them yourself.
Tell me which one I used. Define it, too, "pally" (I like that one, too),
because I don't think you know what they mean.
> > > >Take the first sentece of the first ridiculous paragraph: "If it is
> > >
> > > >wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse* to try to keep
> > > them
> > > >from ever getting to live at all." He offers no support for his
> > > >conclusion.
> > >
> > > Does it need support? Is it wrong to kill them? If so, why? If
> > > you prove that it is wrong to kill them, maybe from there I can
> > > support why it is worse to keep them from getting to live at all.
> > > If it's not wrong to kill them, then what I said obviously does
> > > not apply.
> >
> > I don't believe it is wrong to kill them. I eat meat, and have no
> > intention of quitting.
> >
> > But from the shaky perspective of a so-called "ethical" vegetarian, it
> > *is* wrong to kill them. If you're going to try to persuade them, you
> > *do* indeed have to support your conclusion that it is even worse to
> > prevent them from being born.
>
> Here you are at least right. I think a logical parallel would be the
> ole abortion comparison. If you think it is wrong to kill living
> children, you certainly don't have to think that abortion is wrong.
Thank you. Or how about just preventing pregnancy to begin with?
> > You want to base your statement that it
> > is even more wrong to prevent the animals from being born on this
> > belief of theirs, and you imply that this greater "wrong" logically
> > follows from their belief. So yes, you have to demonstrate that. You
> > can't just state it as fact.
>
> For some it is true for others not. I think non sequiter applies.
I don't know what you mean. He is stating that his contention - that it is
even more wrong to prevent animals from being born - logically follows from
the "ethical" vegetarians' belief; he has to show the logic. But he hasn't
done it; he merely keeps repeating the contention: "If it is wrong to take
the life of animals[,] it is even *worse* to try to keep them from ever
getting to live at all." The "if" is what makes it a, uh, (hesitate to use
the word here; need quotes) "logical" argument: the "worseness" is presumed
to follow, somehow - he hasn't shown how - from the "wrongness".
I don't know if it *ultimately* would prove to be non sequitur or not.
Until he offers some supporting argument for the conclusion, I'll assume it
is.
IMO, no one values the breeds of livestock esthetically, the way some people
seem to value wild species. These livestock breeds are correctly seen as
contrivances. Mighty useful to us meat-eaters, but contrivances
nonetheless.
> If they are human creations, and therefore worthy of extinction, then
> what basis is there for their protection while living?
You have the ARFs (thanks to Bacon for illuminating me as to the "F") by the
short and curlies here. They are once again shown as utter hypocrites.
BTW, I think this is evidence in support of the idea that they don't care at
all about any animals; they only care about their own feelings.
> > And are you going to explain *why* this is the "truth", or are we to
> > take your word for it?
>
> There is always the option of seeking out the truth in what he says, if
> there is any. Call it option C. Research. You don't have to do it,
> but if you really want answers to your question, give it a shot.
If he is claiming to have constructed a logical argument, as opposed to
amassing facts, the burden is on him to expose his logical structure, so
others can attempt to judge for themselves if his conclusion follows from
his premises. He hasn't even come close.
> > > >It makes me wonder if you realize this yourself, and are trying to
> > > damn
> > > >the anti- "AR"/"EV" side with faint praise by saying that its worst
> > >
> > > >representative makes the most sense. We're not buying that,
> > > either.
> > >
> > > What I'm saying it true. You are just another person who doesn't
> > >
> > > want to think about it. The reason Laura sees the truth in what
> > > I'm saying, is that she has nothing to lose by accepting the truth
> > > of it..... That's how most people are by the way.
> >
> > You haven't demonstrated that what you are saying is true. Look up
> > "ipse dixit".
>
> Check yourself, coolio, before you wreck yourself. Ipse Dixit indeed.
> You would recognize it, wouldn't you?
Nice try...pally. I've said that I don't believe David has shown that his
one key conclusion - that it is worse to keep the animals from being born -
logically follows from his premise. He repeatedly posts his simplistic
"if-then" sentence, but I'm looking for a "because" in there somewhere. He
has tried to suggest that the "because" is implicit in his belief that the
ARFs value the lives of the animals, so therefore it ought logically to
follow that they shouldn't want to prevent the animals from being born. But
it is clear from the ARFs themselves that they "value" the deaths far higher
in absolute terms than the lives. There's my counter-arugment that you
asked for above - contained in the previous post, please note - that David
has not logically demonstrated his conclusion. But since you seem to be
accusing me of ipse dixit in claiming that David has offered no basis for
his conclusion, perhaps you might like to point out his logic to me (unless
you feel it was the implicit "because" I mentioned above).
> > You are an embarrassment to the people trying to point out the
> > fallacies of "EV" religion and "AR" fascism.
>
> And you're a big help, aren't you?
Don't know. Apparently not to you. But I don't want to engage in the small
sample bias.
> James Hepler
>
> --
> "I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
> would want you to believe".
> -Bright Eyes
James, you seem to be falling victim, IMO, to a fallacy yourself: thinking
that the enemy of your enemy must be your friend. Save your ammo for the
ARF/EV loonies. David is no friend. When a shrill hysteric like Laura
Hailey sees David as making some "sense", I think that supports the idea
that he is no friend of those trying to expose the emotional illogic of the
ARFs.
I don't claim to speak for all anti-ARAs (notwithstanding my "No one is
interested..." comment in the previous post, intended as humor but which
seems not to have amused you; sorry), but in my opinion, those of us opposed
to the very notions of "animal rights" and so-called "ethical" vegetarianism
don't need an illogical dumbass like David on our side. In his own special
way, he's another Laura Hailey.
Rat & Swan
> Rat & Swan wrote:
> snip
> > post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
> > not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
> > response.
> where does it end up?
A picture of the woman holding a sign saying she
pledges never to use Premarin. Some of them are
published in the PETA magazine, and I believe PETA
uses the pictures in publicity.
Rat
Rat & Swan
> In article <37D88F...@pacbell.net>,
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > A picture of the woman holding a sign saying she
> > pledges never to use Premarin. Some of them are
> > published in the PETA magazine, and I believe PETA
> > uses the pictures in publicity.
> Do they show the same women ten years later, bent over with osteoporosis,
> leaning on their canes?
No. I am an example: I stopped taking Premarin about
ten years ago, and I still work a 40 hour week,
frequently lifting and carrying 40 pounds or more
at age 54. I have a vegan diet, and take a daily
multivitamin as my only supplement.
Rat
David
>
>--------------3957771F734BFC7DE5AE6C6F
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>David Ipse Dixit wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >--------------6683AD28EFB4297445CF453D
>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> >
>> >While the "ARAs" and vegans are uniformly uninformed and goofy, David
>> >probably does more harm than good with his own frail attempts at
>> >logically refuting them. As just one example, he repeatedly posts the
>> >following, verbatim, that he's copied from who-knows-where:
>>
>> That I copy from who knows where? It's from a folder that I
>> call "Stock Answers". What I'm saying is simple and easy, so
>> I may as well post the same replies over and over. If you don't
>> agree with it the first time you hear my argument, chances are
>> that you'll never actually care enough about the animals
>> themselves to take what I'm saying as important. It's the
>> people who actually care more about the animals than they
>> do about vegetarianism that I'm trying to influence.
>
>No one is interested in your "stock" answers.
Obviously you aren't. Who makes you read them?
> Why don't you try to say something original
>and pertinent?
Oh no....I'm way too stupid for that. I'm not going to and you
can't make me.
Obviously I can and do. That's what you're bitchin' about.... If someone proves
me wrong I'll stop, and if I don't they can keep on proving me wrong. Lotta' fun,
lotta' fun.
>> > And the ending sentence of the same sack-o-crap: "It's a
>> >pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them than anything
>> >else.....even their death." Elsewhere, he claims that the animals
>> >aren't even aware of their impending deaths. He's right about that, but
>> >it contradicts what's in his nice little pat paragraph.
>>
>> Really? How does it contradict?
>
>Because for their lives to "mean" something to them, animals have to have a self-conscious
>awareness of their lives, including the fact that their lives will end.
What makes you "think" that. Or are you going to prove it as a fact?
(It's only fair that you do, to set a good example.)
> But you state that
>they don't have an awareness of their death, even as they see others like them being
>slaughtered. Therefore, they have no awareness (in the self-conscious manner of humans that
>you plainly mean) of their lives.
If you want to believe they have no awareness of their lives that's up
to you, but I think they do. I think they prove it with every move they
make. If you prove that they don't, I'll be impressed.
> Therefore, you have contradicted yourself.
Well, the way you explained the contradiction doesn't make me feel
too bad about it that's for sure.
>Elsewhere you wrote (part of another repetitiously posted stock answer):
>
> "In order to even get an idea of how they feel about their lives, we would have to
> try to ignore all of the things that we know, but they do not know."
>
>But you claim you *do* know how they feel about their lives:
I said "It's a pretty safe bet"....not "I *do* know how they feel".
They are not the same thing.
> "It's
>a pretty safe bet that
>the animals' lives mean more to them than anything else.....even their death." So, in order
>to make this "safe bet", did you ignore, or try to ignore, all of the things that you, uh,
>"know"?
What I know and they do not is what I try to ignore, not what their lives
mean to them. Personally I don't believe that animals even think about how
much their lives mean to them, but their life does "mean" they get to live,
whether they think about it that way or not.
>> >These are pathetic attempts to try to catch the goofy "ARAs" and vegans
>> >in a trap of their own making. The meateaters don't and shouldn't feel
>> >"better" about their dietary choice because of some intrinsic value of
>> >the animals' lives before slaughter.
>>
>> Why not?
>> Which *particular* animals are you referring to?
>
>Huh? The animals they're going to eat, you saphead.
Which *particular* animals are you referring to, you genius(?)?
There is more than one kind of animal that people eat. And
there is more than one way that animals are raised. I don't
think of beef cattle grazing in fields the same way I think of
veal calves, since they have completely different kinds of
lives.
Why shouldn't meat eaters feel "better" about encouraging
life for animals that they feel have decent enough lives to be
worth living?
>> > And the goofballs, goofy as they
>> >are, can't and shouldn't be expected to try to balance the intrinsic
>> >worth of the animals' lives with their deaths. They've made plain that
>> >the deaths tip the scales, regardless of the "content" of the lives.
>>
>> Are you inferring that there are more deaths than lives?
>
>No, you twit. Nothing in there says anything about the numbers of deaths or lives. What's
>wrong with you?
Let's see, where shall I begin??? Wait a minute...that's none of your
damn business!
> Do you know what a "balance" is? It measures weight, not integers. The
>"EV"/"ARF" goofballs feel that the death of an animal at the hands of a human being
>outweighs all aspects of its life. I think they're nuts, but you are attempting to tell
>them that they are wrong, and you haven't come close to making your case.
Good enough. Please demonstrate how I should do it then. I'm just a
dumbass that works in a bar and has a computer, so I'll take all the help
I can get. If you give a good example, can I use it as a stock answer?
>> >The goofballs have made no headway in demonstrating *why* this is an
>> >ethical issue to begin with, nor why their ethics are superior to those
>> >of meateaters. But David doesn't help the cause of people (e.g.,
>> >Mercer) doing a good job of illuminating the gaping holes in "AR" and
>> >"ethical" vegetarianism. He's an embarrassment to the whole debate.
>>
>> I have one point to make. It has nothing to do with anyone else's
>> arguments as far as I can tell. If it does, I'm sorry to whoever it may be.
>> I'm also sorry to any veg*ns who might feel bad if they realize the
>> truth in what I'm saying..... I am *very!* sorry if there are any such
>> people out there, but it is something that people should think about,
>> and that's all there is to it IMO. At least it should make some people
>> feel better for the animals themselves to appreciate the *life* they
>> get, instead of thinking only about their *deaths*.
>
>Having a point would be a very good start for you.
The "point" is: it would be better *for the animals* to encourage better
lives for them, than to encourage no life at all, as "ethical" veg*ns are
doing.
>And are you going to explain *why* this is the "truth", or are we to take your word for it?
Are you going to explain *why* it is not the "truth", or am I to take your word for it?
>> >It makes me wonder if you realize this yourself, and are trying to damn
>> >the anti- "AR"/"EV" side with faint praise by saying that its worst
>> >representative makes the most sense. We're not buying that, either.
>>
>> What I'm saying it true. You are just another person who doesn't
>> want to think about it. The reason Laura sees the truth in what
>> I'm saying, is that she has nothing to lose by accepting the truth
>> of it..... That's how most people are by the way.
>
>You haven't demonstrated that what you are saying is true. Look up "ipse dixit".
You haven't demonstrated that it's not....and you won't.
>You are an embarrassment to the people trying to point out the fallacies of "EV"
What's "EV"?
> religion
>and "AR" fascism.
I said I was sorry. I can also point out that none of them should
let it bother them.
R Bishop
>Terri wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>> snip
>> PETA has asked
>> > post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
>> > not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
>> > response.
>
>> Exactly what is one supposed to send a picture of and
>> where does it end up?
>
> A picture of the woman holding a sign saying she
> pledges never to use Premarin. Some of them are
> published in the PETA magazine, and I believe PETA
> uses the pictures in publicity.
Do they show the same women ten years later, bent over with osteoporosis,
leaning on their canes?
>
David
<snip>
>If he is claiming to have constructed a logical argument,
Which I am not.
> as opposed to
>amassing facts, the burden is on him to expose his logical structure, so
>others can attempt to judge for themselves if his conclusion follows from
>his premises. He hasn't even come close.
Think about it like this: I barely passed English my senior year in high
school. I did a little better in college. It has been 19 years since I've
tried doing anything of that nature at all. I don't claim to be any kind of
literary genius, or master of debate, or anything like that. I don't have the
slightest idea what the rules are. So accept it! If you don't like the way I
present my arguments, maybe it would be better for you to *not read them*?
(just an idea....) They are certainly not directed at you, since you are a
meat eater.
>> > > >It makes me wonder if you realize this yourself, and are trying to
>> > > damn
>> > > >the anti- "AR"/"EV" side with faint praise by saying that its worst
>> > >
>> > > >representative makes the most sense. We're not buying that,
>> > > either.
>> > >
>> > > What I'm saying it true. You are just another person who doesn't
>> > >
>> > > want to think about it. The reason Laura sees the truth in what
>> > > I'm saying, is that she has nothing to lose by accepting the truth
>> > > of it..... That's how most people are by the way.
>> >
>> > You haven't demonstrated that what you are saying is true. Look up
>> > "ipse dixit".
>>
>> Check yourself, coolio, before you wreck yourself. Ipse Dixit indeed.
>> You would recognize it, wouldn't you?
>
>Nice try...pally. I've said that I don't believe David has shown that his
>one key conclusion - that it is worse to keep the animals from being born -
>logically follows from his premise. He repeatedly posts his simplistic
>"if-then" sentence, but I'm looking for a "because" in there somewhere. He
>has tried to suggest that the "because" is implicit in his belief that the
>ARFs value the lives of the animals,
I didn't say what I fealt the "because" is. I was waiting for you to tell
me why it's wrong to kill them, "if" it is. AFAIK it is not wrong to kill them,
and if not, what I said doesn't apply at all.
> so therefore it ought logically to
>follow that they shouldn't want to prevent the animals from being born. But
>it is clear from the ARFs themselves that they "value" the deaths far higher
>in absolute terms than the lives.
Holy poop! We agree on something! :-)
> There's my counter-arugment that you
>asked for above - contained in the previous post, please note - that David
>has not logically demonstrated his conclusion. But since you seem to be
>accusing me of ipse dixit in claiming that David has offered no basis for
>his conclusion, perhaps you might like to point out his logic to me (unless
>you feel it was the implicit "because" I mentioned above).
>
>
>> > You are an embarrassment to the people trying to point out the
>> > fallacies of "EV" religion and "AR" fascism.
>>
>> And you're a big help, aren't you?
>
>Don't know. Apparently not to you. But I don't want to engage in the small
>sample bias.
>
>> James Hepler
>>
>> --
>> "I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
>> would want you to believe".
>> -Bright Eyes
>
>James, you seem to be falling victim, IMO, to a fallacy yourself: thinking
>that the enemy of your enemy must be your friend. Save your ammo for the
>ARF/EV loonies. David is no friend. When a shrill hysteric like Laura
>Hailey sees David as making some "sense", I think that supports the idea
>that he is no friend of those trying to expose the emotional illogic of the
>ARFs.
As I said before, you are just another person who doesn't want to
think about the truth of what I'm saying. That is for your own reasons.
Laura had no reason to avoid the truth of it (as veg*ns do, and
apparently you do also), so it was easy for her to appreciate it.
>I don't claim to speak for all anti-ARAs (notwithstanding my "No one is
>interested..." comment in the previous post, intended as humor but which
>seems not to have amused you; sorry), but in my opinion, those of us opposed
>to the very notions of "animal rights" and so-called "ethical" vegetarianism
>don't need an illogical dumbass like David on our side. In his own special
>way, he's another Laura Hailey.
So far I've been alone in what I'm saying, and what I'm trying to encourage
people to think about. You have a lot of damn nerve to say that I'm on your
side IMO. I am encouraging people to eat animals that they feel are raised in
ways that are decent. That has between little and nothing to do with *you* as
far as I can tell.
If there are any reasons at all that I should justify my methods of argument to
you, or any reasons at all that you have any business criticizing them, prove it.
If you can't do that, then you have no business doing it, so why not tend to
your own affairs and leave me the hell alone with mine?!!
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
>
> In article <37D7F017...@email.unc.edu>,
> James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> >OK. A little research has shown me that Estrace is cheaper, effective,
> >animal friendly (at least moreso. I won't go so far as to assume it is
> >completely so, since it is a prescription drug), and as safe, although
> >the side effects of both premarin and estrace are kinda scary. So why
> >are most people on premarin?
> >
>
> Well, let's put it this way. Which do YOU prefer? Your wife or an
> artificial dummy? Artificial hormones are not the same as natural
> hormones.
According to the chart I saw, Estrace is plant based, from soy and yam.
The chart had a different category for synthetics, like Alora, Estinyl,
Fempatch, etc. Can it be synthetic AND plant based?
The thing is, the only decent resource I found for comparisons is HSUS.
Get your acrobat reader handy:
http://animalchannel.net/graphics/hrtcht.pdf
Please look at the info before you immediately discount the source.
But could they get away with lying about the sources of drugs? Do they
go that far? And scientists wanna clear me up, or do I have to contact
UNC Hospitals?
James Hepler
>
> Sue
>
> >James Hepler
> >
> >James Hepler wrote:
> >>
> >> Now, my premarin knowledge leads me to believe there are adequate
> >> alternatives on the market. Is this true? Or, more clearly:
> >>
> >> 1) are there alternatives?
> >>
> >> if so:
> >>
> >> 2) are they effective?
> >>
> >> 3) are they cost efficient?
> >>
> >> 4) how do they use animals?
> >>
> >> If the answers to these indicate that safe, effective, cheap, more
> >> animal friendly alternatives exist, then is there a reason to continue
> >> with premarin?
> >>
> >> James Hepler
> >>
> >> R Bishop wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <37D7BE...@pacbell.net>,
> >> > Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >R Bishop wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > ><snip>
> >> > >> >Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
> >> > >> >usenet group and did it.
> >> > >
> >> > >> Wow. Talk about suicidal!!
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, not really. I was taking the drug for hormone
> >> > > replacement until I found out how it was made,
> >> > > whereupon, I stopped taking it. PETA has asked
> >> > > post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
> >> > > not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
> >> > > response. I would think many compassionate menopausal
> >> > > women would _like_ to know they are supporting abuse of
> >> > > animals by taking Premarin. Or do you assume all women
> >> > > lose their compassion along with their hormones?
> >> >
> >> > OK, Rat. TRY posting to the group (include a cross-post to rec.equestrian)
> >> > and see what kind of response YOU get.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Rat
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sue
> >> >
> >> > Smoke Often
> >> >
> >> > Die Young
> >>
> >> --
> >> "I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
> >> would want you to believe".
> >> -Bright Eyes
> >
> >--
> >"I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
> >would want you to believe".
> >-Bright Eyes
>
>
>
> Smoke Often
>
> Die Young
James Hepler
Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > > *You* say it's "simple and easy". You'll get no argument on
> > > "simple". "Easy" is your opinion.
> >
> > You are telling him how easy it is for him to say something, or are you
> > telling him how easy it is to understand his argument?
>
> Neither. I am stating that he merely says it's "simple and easy", but that
> doesn't make it so.
He says _what_ is simple and easy?
> And I am calling his argument "simple", as in
> simple-minded.
That is your prerogative.
> > > You equate agreeing to your
> > > simple-minded and logically fallacious argument with "caring about the
> > > animals". That's another logical fallacy.
> >
> > Which one is it? You seem to have no trouble naming them, yet you balk
> > on this one?
>
> The fallacy of equivocation, you dope. You think because I didn't name it I
> don't know it? That's a demerit for you, too.
YEah, right. I would think that in your infinite wisdom, claiming
logical fallacy and not bothering to name it is rather, well, lazy. As
if your demerits sway me.
Oh, and equivocation deals with words, not arguments. As in, "A plane
is a carpenters tool, a boeing 737 is a plane, therefore a boeing 737 is
a carpenters tool." I think your fallacy here is a non sequiter.
Also, equivocation involves intent to deceive. Are you yet another one
of "those" who can't differentiate between a mistake in logic and an
attempt to lie? Demerit indeed.
> > Why are you not arguing his point?
>
> His fallacy doesn't constitute a point. I don't have to argue it.
Heh. You don't *wan't* to argue it. You are too busy typing your
pedantic tripe with one hand while massaging little Jonathan Ball with
the other.
> > You say his argument
> > is logically fallacious, yet you provide no counter argument.
>
> Not obliged to, but you're wrong: I did see below. The presence or absence
> of a counter-argument doesn't change the fact that his argument is
> fallacious.
>
> > In fact,
> > your claim that his argument is logically fallacious, and the fact that
> > you have yet to back up your claim,
>
> But I did back it up. He equates not agreeing with his, uh, "argument" with
> not caring for the animals.
That isn't equivocation. That isn't Ipse Dixit either. That is a non
sequiter. Just so you know.
> > land you well within the boundaries
> > of Ipse Dixit yourself, pally. So can I call you Jonathan Ipse Dixit
> > Ball, or just plain old "freaking hypocrite"?
> >
> > His statement IMO is a mild
>
> What?!? His whole story falls apart on it.
Whatever, Mr. Ipse Dixit Ball. Your saying so doesn't make it so. I
see merit in his argument, even if I think his delivery of said argument
creates a logical fallacy.
> > non sequiter, since it doesn't necessarily
> > follow that if you think killing them is wrong then you have to think
> > that not letting them exist is worse. If you are going to claim that he
> > employs logical fallacies, try to avoid using them yourself.
>
> Tell me which one I used. Define it, too, "pally" (I like that one, too),
> because I don't think you know what they mean.
Why, Ipse Dixit, of course. You run around throwing out the words,
"Logical fallacy" without saying which logical fallacy he used, and how
he used it. You made an assertion from a (mythical) position of
authority and made us rely on your word, rather than explaining yourself
or backing your claim up. You also misused your claim of equivocation.
You know, that last sentence of yours would have been considerably more
accurate had you placed the period after the word "think".
<snip>
> > > But from the shaky perspective of a so-called "ethical" vegetarian, it
> > > *is* wrong to kill them. If you're going to try to persuade them, you
> > > *do* indeed have to support your conclusion that it is even worse to
> > > prevent them from being born.
> >
> > Here you are at least right. I think a logical parallel would be the
> > ole abortion comparison. If you think it is wrong to kill living
> > children, you certainly don't have to think that abortion is wrong.
>
> Thank you. Or how about just preventing pregnancy to begin with?
Exactly. See, it does not follow. Non sequiter defined.
> > > You want to base your statement that it
> > > is even more wrong to prevent the animals from being born on this
> > > belief of theirs, and you imply that this greater "wrong" logically
> > > follows from their belief. So yes, you have to demonstrate that. You
> > > can't just state it as fact.
> >
> > For some it is true for others not. I think non sequiter applies.
>
> I don't know what you mean. He is stating that his contention - that it is
> even more wrong to prevent animals from being born - logically follows from
> the "ethical" vegetarians' belief; he has to show the logic.
I think he uses the argument to create sort of a conflict within a
person. The person says, "Killing animals for meat is wrong." David
says, "Well, what about forcing a species to go extinct?" The person
says, "That's even worse." That seems like a logical progression,
doesn't it? I mean, it does seem logical that if you think killing one
animal is wrong, then killing all animals of a species is worse, right?
Some settler killing an "injun" for no reason would be wrong. The trail
of tears was much worse. The problem with David's argument is his
semantics. "Not letting them live in the first place" is weaker than,
"Supporting and forcing their extinction". That is why I find some
merit in his argument. David then says, "If we all stop killing
animals, specifically domestic animals, for meat then we will be forcing
their extinction.
> But he hasn't
> done it; he merely keeps repeating the contention: "If it is wrong to take
> the life of animals[,] it is even *worse* to try to keep them from ever
> getting to live at all." The "if" is what makes it a, uh, (hesitate to use
> the word here; need quotes) "logical" argument: the "worseness" is presumed
> to follow, somehow - he hasn't shown how - from the "wrongness".
I see what you mean. I firmly believe the argument is in there. Just
needs exposing. But I can see your problem with the stock answer.
> > > Having a point would be a very good start for you.
> >
> > I think he is on to something. Just going around it though. If the
> > ARA's care about animals, how can they be in favor of any species'
> > extinction? One would think that the ARA's would want to prevent
> > extinction, yet they adamantly support it:
> >
> > "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
> > livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and
> > out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They
> > are creations of human selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, as quoted in
> > Animal People, May, 1993)
>
> IMO, no one values the breeds of livestock esthetically, the way some people
> seem to value wild species.
But there is no PeTNLA (Non Livestock). If they don't care about cows,
their paying customers should know. I think it would affect
membership. The ARA philosophy in general probably has a wide variety
of opinions on the subject, but I feel safe in speculating that most
ARA's are not for bovine extinction.
> These livestock breeds are correctly seen as
> contrivances. Mighty useful to us meat-eaters, but contrivances
> nonetheless.
I wouldn't go so far as to say contrivances. That word to me indicates
that cows didn't exist before human intervention. Is this the case? Is
the ox so far from the cow?
> > If they are human creations, and therefore worthy of extinction, then
> > what basis is there for their protection while living?
>
> You have the ARFs (thanks to Bacon for illuminating me as to the "F") by the
> short and curlies here. They are once again shown as utter hypocrites.
> BTW, I think this is evidence in support of the idea that they don't care at
> all about any animals; they only care about their own feelings.
I think (hope) this is the fundamental argument David is trying to make.
> > > And are you going to explain *why* this is the "truth", or are we to
> > > take your word for it?
> >
> > There is always the option of seeking out the truth in what he says, if
> > there is any. Call it option C. Research. You don't have to do it,
> > but if you really want answers to your question, give it a shot.
>
> If he is claiming to have constructed a logical argument, as opposed to
> amassing facts, the burden is on him to expose his logical structure, so
> others can attempt to judge for themselves if his conclusion follows from
> his premises. He hasn't even come close.
Fair enough.
> > > You haven't demonstrated that what you are saying is true. Look up
> > > "ipse dixit".
> >
> > Check yourself, coolio, before you wreck yourself. Ipse Dixit indeed.
> > You would recognize it, wouldn't you?
>
> Nice try...pally. I've said that I don't believe David has shown that his
> one key conclusion - that it is worse to keep the animals from being born -
> logically follows from his premise. He repeatedly posts his simplistic
> "if-then" sentence, but I'm looking for a "because" in there somewhere. He
> has tried to suggest that the "because" is implicit in his belief that the
> ARFs value the lives of the animals, so therefore it ought logically to
> follow that they shouldn't want to prevent the animals from being born. But
> it is clear from the ARFs themselves that they "value" the deaths far higher
> in absolute terms than the lives. There's my counter-arugment that you
> asked for above - contained in the previous post, please note - that David
> has not logically demonstrated his conclusion. But since you seem to be
> accusing me of ipse dixit in claiming that David has offered no basis for
> his conclusion, perhaps you might like to point out his logic to me (unless
> you feel it was the implicit "because" I mentioned above).
I think I was throwing Ipse Dixit at you because you claimed he employed
a logical fallacy but didn't explain how by the time I wrote Ipse
Dixit. I seldom copy edit my own posts, so I probably just didn't wait
long enough.
> > > You are an embarrassment to the people trying to point out the
> > > fallacies of "EV" religion and "AR" fascism.
> >
> > And you're a big help, aren't you?
>
> Don't know. Apparently not to you. But I don't want to engage in the small
> sample bias.
Heh. You might be surprised...
Interesting how these posts start pretty harsh and then sort of funnel
into agreement. I sense that when you reply, the same will be true. If
I reply to your reply, I will take into account the fact that we have
found common ground. If you reply to my reply of your reply, I hope you
will do the same.
James Hepler
Terri
>
> Terri wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> > snip
> > > post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
> > > not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
> > > response.
>
> > where does it end up?
>
> A picture of the woman holding a sign saying she
> pledges never to use Premarin. Some of them are
> published in the PETA magazine, and I believe PETA
> uses the pictures in publicity.
>
Terri
Jonathan Ball
Jonathan Ball wrote:> > > *You* say it's "simple and easy". You'll get no argument on
> > > "simple". "Easy" is your opinion.
> >
> > You are telling him how easy it is for him to say something, or are you
> > telling him how easy it is to understand his argument?
>
> Neither. I am stating that he merely says it's "simple and easy", but that
> doesn't make it so.He says _what_ is simple and easy?
That I copy from who knows where? [I wrote that he copied his stuff "from who-knows-where" - jb] It's from a folder that I call "Stock Answers". What I'm saying is simple and easy, so I may as well post the same replies over and over.David said, "What I'm saying is simple and easy." I think he's referring to his entire argument. What do *you* think he means?
> And I am calling his argument "simple", as in
> simple-minded.That is your prerogative.
> > > You equate agreeing to your
> > > simple-minded and logically fallacious argument with "caring about the
> > > animals". That's another logical fallacy.
> >
> > Which one is it? You seem to have no trouble naming them, yet you balk
> > on this one?
>
> The fallacy of equivocation, you dope. You think because I didn't name it I
> don't know it? That's a demerit for you, too.YEah, right. I would think that in your infinite wisdom, claiming
logical fallacy and not bothering to name it is rather, well, lazy. As
if your demerits sway me.
Oh, and equivocation deals with words, not arguments. As in, "A plane
is a carpenters tool, a boeing 737 is a plane, therefore a boeing 737 is
a carpenters tool." I think your fallacy here is a non sequiter.
David's crapola, on the other hand, might actually be petitio principii - begging the question. He says,
If you don't agree with it the first time you hear my argument, [then] chances are that you'll never actually care enough about the animals themselves to take what I'm saying as important.And
What I'm saying it (sic) true. You are just another person who doesn't want to think about it. The reason Laura sees the truth in what I'm saying, is that she has nothing to lose by accepting the truth of it.....Clearly, he is implicitly saying to someone who asks *why* the "chances are that you'll never actually care...", that it's because if he (asker) did actually care, then he would agree with David's argument the first time he heard it. That's begging the question. In my opinion, the question begging in the second statement is so obvious it doesn't need elaboration; let me know if you think I'm wrong.
Also, equivocation involves intent to deceive. Are you yet another one
of "those" who can't differentiate between a mistake in logic and an
attempt to lie? Demerit indeed.
I disagree. The equivocation on the word "plane" in your example is comical and deliberate. Some other occurrences might be accidental, when two different meanings of a word might not be as obviously different as the different meanings of "plane". It seems to me that False Equivalence could well involve an attempt to deceive.
> > Why are you not arguing his point?
>
> His fallacy doesn't constitute a point. I don't have to argue it.Heh. You don't *wan't* to argue it. You are too busy typing your
pedantic tripe with one hand while massaging little Jonathan Ball with
the other.
James, please! Why should I bother arguing the truth of his premise, which could take hours of definitional back-and-forth about what it means to "care" for the animals (uh-oh! plenty of room for equivocation on that term, eh?) and so forth, when I can economically point out that his conclusion doesn't follow? Let him flesh out (sorry) his argument, if he can, and then I might argue the point.
> > You say his argument
> > is logically fallacious, yet you provide no counter argument.
>
> Not obliged to, but you're wrong: I did see below. The presence or absence
> of a counter-argument doesn't change the fact that his argument is
> fallacious.
>
> > In fact,
> > your claim that his argument is logically fallacious, and the fact that
> > you have yet to back up your claim,
>
> But I did back it up. He equates not agreeing with his, uh, "argument" with
> not caring for the animals.That isn't equivocation. That isn't Ipse Dixit either. That is a non
sequiter. Just so you know.
The ipse dixit occurs when he says things like "What I'm saying it (sic) true. You are just another person who doesn't want to think about it." Does this not seem to be someone saying, "It's true, because I say it's true?" That sure seems like ipse dixit to me.
> > land you well within the boundaries
> > of Ipse Dixit yourself, pally. So can I call you Jonathan Ipse Dixit
> > Ball, or just plain old "freaking hypocrite"?
> >
> > His statement IMO is a mild
>
> What?!? His whole story falls apart on it.Whatever, Mr. Ipse Dixit Ball. Your saying so doesn't make it so. I
see merit in his argument, even if I think his delivery of said argument
creates a logical fallacy.
I honestly think I have demonstrated why his, uh, "argument" is full of holes. Perhaps, I've done a bad job of it, but I haven't said he's full-o-crap only because I say he's full-o-crap. Now I think *you* possibly are claiming I haven't, merely because you say I haven't.
> > non sequiter, since it doesn't necessarily
> > follow that if you think killing them is wrong then you have to think
> > that not letting them exist is worse. If you are going to claim that he
> > employs logical fallacies, try to avoid using them yourself.
>
> Tell me which one I used. Define it, too, "pally" (I like that one, too),
> because I don't think you know what they mean.Why, Ipse Dixit, of course. You run around throwing out the words,
"Logical fallacy" without saying which logical fallacy he used, and how
he used it.
I didn't say which it was originally, but I thought it was implied; careless of me. I corrected that, and I still technically was wrong, but I'm in good company. I have now explained what I feel is his error of false equivalence, and I still think I'm in good company. And you are incorrect in stating that I didn't identify his fallacy. In my direct reply to him, I wrote,
*You* say it's "simple and easy". You'll get no argument on "simple". "Easy" is your opinion. You equate agreeing to your simple-minded and logically fallacious argument with "caring about the animals". That's another logical fallacy.
You made an assertion from a (mythical) position of
authority and made us rely on your word, rather than explaining yourself
or backing your claim up. You also misused your claim of equivocation.
You know, that last sentence of yours would have been considerably more
accurate had you placed the period after the word "think".
Uh...ad hominem, James.
<snip>
> > > But from the shaky perspective of a so-called "ethical" vegetarian, it
> > > *is* wrong to kill them. If you're going to try to persuade them, you
> > > *do* indeed have to support your conclusion that it is even worse to
> > > prevent them from being born.
> >
> > Here you are at least right. I think a logical parallel would be the
> > ole abortion comparison. If you think it is wrong to kill living
> > children, you certainly don't have to think that abortion is wrong.
>
> Thank you. Or how about just preventing pregnancy to begin with?Exactly. See, it does not follow. Non sequiter defined.
> > > You want to base your statement that it
> > > is even more wrong to prevent the animals from being born on this
> > > belief of theirs, and you imply that this greater "wrong" logically
> > > follows from their belief. So yes, you have to demonstrate that. You
> > > can't just state it as fact.
> >
> > For some it is true for others not. I think non sequiter applies.
>
> I don't know what you mean. He is stating that his contention - that it is
> even more wrong to prevent animals from being born - logically follows from
> the "ethical" vegetarians' belief; he has to show the logic.I think he uses the argument to create sort of a conflict within a
person.
IMO, he's trying to set a trap for them, but the trap is flimsy.
The person says, "Killing animals for meat is wrong." David
says, "Well, what about forcing a species to go extinct?" The person
says, "That's even worse." That seems like a logical progression,
doesn't it? I mean, it does seem logical that if you think killing one
animal is wrong, then killing all animals of a species is worse, right?
Now you've implicitly committed a false equivalence, even misstating David's words to do it. No on is talking about killing all *existing* animals of a species. Presumably, the people who advocate letting selectively bred livestock go extinct intend to let the existing animals frolic on pretty little farms until they die naturally.
Some settler killing an "injun" for no reason would be wrong. The trail
of tears was much worse. The problem with David's argument is his
semantics. "Not letting them live in the first place" is weaker than,
"Supporting and forcing their extinction". That is why I find some
merit in his argument. David then says, "If we all stop killing
animals, specifically domestic animals, for meat then we will be forcing
their extinction.> But he hasn't
> done it; he merely keeps repeating the contention: "If it is wrong to take
> the life of animals[,] it is even *worse* to try to keep them from ever
> getting to live at all." The "if" is what makes it a, uh, (hesitate to use
> the word here; need quotes) "logical" argument: the "worseness" is presumed
> to follow, somehow - he hasn't shown how - from the "wrongness".I see what you mean. I firmly believe the argument is in there. Just
needs exposing. But I can see your problem with the stock answer.
I have another problem with his stock answers: I don't believe he wrote them, yet he posts them as if they are his own composition. Look at his other posts, where he departs from them (particularly his last reply to me). IMO, they are inarticulate nearly to the point of being incoherent. Stylistically, his original (huh!) posts don't match the canned crap. Perhaps I'm wrong, and he did write the canned crap. I'll retract my implied charge of plagiarism if he claims he wrote the stock stuff.
Note in his direct reply to me that he claims he *isn't* claiming to have constructed a logical argument. He sure hasn't! (deliberate equivocation on my part, I'm afraid I need to point out)
I have a good reason to want to knock over David's house of cards, and discredit him as any kind of spokesman for the anti-ARF side. A few years ago, 1996, we had a ballot proposition here in California, Proposition 209, which was an anti affirmative action proposition. I believe its intent was to eliminate the usual race based preferences in State of California government hiring and other programs; I don't remember all the terms of it, e.g., if it applied to government contracts as well as hiring. The proposition passed by a comfortable overall majority, then was challenged in court, where a judge at least temporarily blocked its implementation, in whole or in part. I don't know if the challenge stood.
During the election campaign, the student government at California State University, Northridge (San Fernando Valley in L.A.) staged a "debate" on the proposition. The "debate" was an utter mockery. They invited several apparently reasonable people to take the anti 209 side. For the pro 209 debater, they invited...David Duke. That's right, THAT David Duke - the klansman. The pro 209 side screamed foul, and responsible and articulate pro 209 representatives, including the driving force behind it, Ward Connerly, asked at least to be included on the pro 209 "debate" team, if not to replace Duke altogether. The smirking organizers of the "debate" refused.
The PC "debate" organizer shitbags had accomplished their real objective: to characterize the pro 209 position as intrinsically racist, and falsely equating anyone who supported it with a klan sympathizer. It was a loathsome, filthy tactic. Fortunately, it didn't work except possibly on an atomic scale: among gullible college students. The proposition passed comfortably (possibly with over 60% of the vote; maybe just approaching 60%; I can't recall), and the tactic itself was much discussed in the local mainstream media. It was my sense that in the discussion of the tactic, the PC shitbags took a pasting. That obviously is a matter of opinion.
Now, I don't think David remotely represents as grave a threat to the credibility of the anti-ARF side as Duke did to the pro 209 side in that election. (I hope it is perfectly clear by now that I am completely anti-ARF. I'm not sure if I really need to point this out or not, it just might be helpful.) But to some extent, I do believe "we" need to have our house in order, and that includes pointing out dopes like David whose illogic could be used to attempt to discredit quality anti-ARF arguments, even if those so using him are themselves engaging in a game of guilt by association.
Naturally it's possible that I'm overreacting to him. I mean, for the most part, even the ARF/EV goofs don't seem to pay particularly great attention to him. I just personally was offended that he kept repetitiously spouting the same horseshit, and irked that no one was taking him to task. Actually, I can't even say which offended me more, the repetitiousness or the horseshittiness. (Attention, Laura Hailey: my apologies in advance if you think I have demeaned horseshit.)
David
<snip>
>I think he uses the argument to create sort of a conflict within a
>person. The person says, "Killing animals for meat is wrong." David
>says, "Well, what about forcing a species to go extinct?" The person
>says, "That's even worse." That seems like a logical progression,
>doesn't it? I mean, it does seem logical that if you think killing one
>animal is wrong, then killing all animals of a species is worse, right?
>Some settler killing an "injun" for no reason would be wrong. The trail
>of tears was much worse. The problem with David's argument is his
>semantics. "Not letting them live in the first place" is weaker than,
>"Supporting and forcing their extinction". That is why I find some
>merit in his argument. David then says, "If we all stop killing
>animals, specifically domestic animals, for meat then we will be forcing
>their extinction.
If I say that they would become extinct that starts a new argument
where they tell me that there would be a cow here and there kept
as pets, and a few wild ones, blah, blah.... So I try to avoid that
progression by trying to point out that the very animals they are
saving from being killed, they are also keeping from getting to live.
So they will say that the unborn have no rights, can't be hurt,
should not be considered....all that. Eventually they will say
something about raising humans to eat, or Hitler and the Jews,
or the slave trade....
So why shouldn't I have "stock answers" to paste in when the
*same old argument* comes along from a new person? I'm not
trying to be an awesome debater, or a brilliant writer. I'm just
trying to get people to think about something that they appear
to be ignoring ("I think it's a safe bet" that their "AR"/"ethical"
veg*n propaganda and whatever doesn't encourage them to
think about what I'm trying to get them to think about), in the
best way I know how, and at the same time in the way that is
easiest for me. I don't especially love this kinda' thing. I just
feel that what I'm going on about should be taken into
consideration by all veg*ns, because it is certainly a part of
the whole picture....whether I present my argument in the
correct way or whether I'm a bungling ass entirely.
>> But he hasn't
>> done it; he merely keeps repeating the contention: "If it is wrong to take
>> the life of animals[,] it is even *worse* to try to keep them from ever
>> getting to live at all." The "if" is what makes it a, uh, (hesitate to use
>> the word here; need quotes) "logical" argument: the "worseness" is presumed
>> to follow, somehow - he hasn't shown how - from the "wrongness".
>
>I see what you mean. I firmly believe the argument is in there. Just
>needs exposing. But I can see your problem with the stock answer.
My intention is not to carry on an endless debate with the same
people, it is to get people to think about an aspect of vegetarianism
that they are not taking into consideration. If someone doesn't
consider it to be important immediately, there is a chance that after
they get used to the idea, and become more comfortable with it,
they will let it sink in and accept the truth of it. My stock answers
are for people who are new to what I'm arguing, not for the people
who have read them already. My illusion was that people who
have already read them, would ignore them in the future.
That is a big part of it. I'd rather try to encourage them to care about
the animals than to criticize them for not caring. It's very hard not to
be insulting and critical, but I'm trying....
<snip to end>
OT: I notice you guys played GA Tech, or at least you were scheduled
to. I worked with a frat party band called "Iambic Underground" for a
couple of years. They are still going. They use Crescent Moon as a
booking agent. You may be interested in that agency, of course I
have no idea.... In case you are, their Nashville office is (800) 666-0098
Chip Staley is the agent they deal with the most. He handles the state
of GA. They also have a website: www.crescentmoontalent.com
If you are interested in discussing such stuff further, or if you are
coming to the Atlanta area, please contact me at kl...@mindspring.com
James Hepler
David wrote:
> If I say that they would become extinct that starts a new argument
> where they tell me that there would be a cow here and there kept
> as pets, and a few wild ones, blah, blah.... So I try to avoid that
> progression by trying to point out that the very animals they are
> saving from being killed, they are also keeping from getting to live.
> So they will say that the unborn have no rights, can't be hurt,
> should not be considered....all that. Eventually they will say
> something about raising humans to eat, or Hitler and the Jews,
> or the slave trade....
> So why shouldn't I have "stock answers" to paste in when the
> *same old argument* comes along from a new person? I'm not
> trying to be an awesome debater, or a brilliant writer. I'm just
> trying to get people to think about something that they appear
> to be ignoring ("I think it's a safe bet" that their "AR"/"ethical"
> veg*n propaganda and whatever doesn't encourage them to
> think about what I'm trying to get them to think about), in the
> best way I know how, and at the same time in the way that is
> easiest for me. I don't especially love this kinda' thing. I just
> feel that what I'm going on about should be taken into
> consideration by all veg*ns, because it is certainly a part of
> the whole picture....whether I present my argument in the
> correct way or whether I'm a bungling ass entirely.
I do understand this, but I'm not sure it is completely fair. If only
because I can think of situations in which it IS better not to live than
to live. For instance, if a calf were to be born physically deformed,
unable to walk or something, I'd be willing to say it probably shouldn't
have survived. In the wild, evolution would have solved that really
quick.
> >> But he hasn't
> >> done it; he merely keeps repeating the contention: "If it is wrong to take
> >> the life of animals[,] it is even *worse* to try to keep them from ever
> >> getting to live at all." The "if" is what makes it a, uh, (hesitate to use
> >> the word here; need quotes) "logical" argument: the "worseness" is presumed
> >> to follow, somehow - he hasn't shown how - from the "wrongness".
> >
> >I see what you mean. I firmly believe the argument is in there. Just
> >needs exposing. But I can see your problem with the stock answer.
>
> My intention is not to carry on an endless debate with the same
> people, it is to get people to think about an aspect of vegetarianism
> that they are not taking into consideration. If someone doesn't
> consider it to be important immediately, there is a chance that after
> they get used to the idea, and become more comfortable with it,
> they will let it sink in and accept the truth of it. My stock answers
> are for people who are new to what I'm arguing, not for the people
> who have read them already. My illusion was that people who
> have already read them, would ignore them in the future.
This may still happen, although by posting the same thing monthly, you
are kind of doing that which you don't want to, which is carrying on an
endless debate with the same people. You could be right, I have come to
ignore Mikey C's repeated "Hard Truths" faq.
> >> > If they are human creations, and therefore worthy of extinction, then
> >> > what basis is there for their protection while living?
> >>
> >> You have the ARFs (thanks to Bacon for illuminating me as to the "F") by the
> >> short and curlies here. They are once again shown as utter hypocrites.
> >> BTW, I think this is evidence in support of the idea that they don't care at
> >> all about any animals; they only care about their own feelings.
> >
> >I think (hope) this is the fundamental argument David is trying to make.
>
> That is a big part of it. I'd rather try to encourage them to care about
> the animals than to criticize them for not caring. It's very hard not to
> be insulting and critical, but I'm trying....
Screw it! Insult and criticize! Why should you be forced to be more
civil than the lowest common denominator. Thanks to Sue, Rat, feral,
myself, and many others, this is little more than a street brawl. Go
with it!
> <snip to end>
>
> OT: I notice you guys played GA Tech, or at least you were scheduled
> to.
Yeah. Don't tell anyone, but we ended up skinny dipping at some high
school kids parents house. I love rock!
> I worked with a frat party band called "Iambic Underground" for a
> couple of years. They are still going. They use Crescent Moon as a
> booking agent. You may be interested in that agency, of course I
> have no idea.... In case you are, their Nashville office is (800) 666-0098
> Chip Staley is the agent they deal with the most. He handles the state
> of GA. They also have a website: www.crescentmoontalent.com
> If you are interested in discussing such stuff further, or if you are
> coming to the Atlanta area, please contact me at kl...@mindspring.com
So you are in Hotlanta? Cool! We're not really ready for management at
this point, but the recommendation is definitely noted. For anyone
else: If you reside in the NYC area, I'll be torturing innocent, cute,
fuzzy, animals at Nightingales Thursday Night at 11. Come by and I'll
hook you up with a cup of bunny guts free of charge.
R Bishop
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>R Bishop wrote:
>
>> In article <37D88F...@pacbell.net>,
>> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> > A picture of the woman holding a sign saying she
>> > pledges never to use Premarin. Some of them are
>> > published in the PETA magazine, and I believe PETA
>> > uses the pictures in publicity.
>
>> Do they show the same women ten years later, bent over with osteoporosis,
>> leaning on their canes?
>
> No. I am an example: I stopped taking Premarin about
> ten years ago, and I still work a 40 hour week,
> frequently lifting and carrying 40 pounds or more
> at age 54. I have a vegan diet, and take a daily
> multivitamin as my only supplement.
Wait another 10 or 15 years and tell us the same thing. THEN
it might have some credence. As it is, unless you had a hysterectomy
or early menopause ten years ago, it means nothing. AND, btw,
considering your supposed refusal to use any medical procedures,
if you DID have a hysterectomy......
R Bishop
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>R Bishop wrote:
>>
>> In article <37D7F017...@email.unc.edu>,
>> James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >OK. A little research has shown me that Estrace is cheaper, effective,
>> >animal friendly (at least moreso. I won't go so far as to assume it is
>> >completely so, since it is a prescription drug), and as safe, although
>> >the side effects of both premarin and estrace are kinda scary. So why
>> >are most people on premarin?
>> >
>>
>> Well, let's put it this way. Which do YOU prefer? Your wife or an
>> artificial dummy? Artificial hormones are not the same as natural
>> hormones.
>
>According to the chart I saw, Estrace is plant based, from soy and yam.
>The chart had a different category for synthetics, like Alora, Estinyl,
>Fempatch, etc. Can it be synthetic AND plant based?
It's not animal based. Therefore, it's not the same at all.
Plant based hormones are different from animal hormones. If they were
the same, then they would react the same. They don't.
>
>The thing is, the only decent resource I found for comparisons is HSUS.
>
>Get your acrobat reader handy:
>
>http://animalchannel.net/graphics/hrtcht.pdf
>
>Please look at the info before you immediately discount the source.
>
>But could they get away with lying about the sources of drugs? Do they
>go that far? And scientists wanna clear me up, or do I have to contact
>UNC Hospitals?
Give it a try. And, try asking a bunch of horsewomen. I don't suggest
you post on rec.equestrian, though, you'll be immediately deluged with
major complaints. The group has a very high number of experienced and
educated horsepeople on it. AND the vast majority of them have examined
all the information about (and some have visited) PMU farms. They don't
see any problems and the consensus is that HSUS and PeTa have lied about
the farms so they can use it as a fund raiser among the clueless.
You can also check Dejanews for rec.equestrian and search for PMU info.
There's huge amount of bandwidth of discussion.
>James Hepler
>
Sue
>>
>> Sue
>>
>> >James Hepler
>> >
>> >James Hepler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now, my premarin knowledge leads me to believe there are adequate
>> >> alternatives on the market. Is this true? Or, more clearly:
>> >>
>> >> 1) are there alternatives?
>> >>
>> >> if so:
>> >>
>> >> 2) are they effective?
>> >>
>> >> 3) are they cost efficient?
>> >>
>> >> 4) how do they use animals?
>> >>
>> >> If the answers to these indicate that safe, effective, cheap, more
>> >> animal friendly alternatives exist, then is there a reason to continue
>> >> with premarin?
>> >>
>> >> James Hepler
>> >>
>> >> R Bishop wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > In article <37D7BE...@pacbell.net>,
>> >> > Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >R Bishop wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > ><snip>
>> >> > >> >Even more idiotic, she went into the alt.support.menopause
>> >> > >> >usenet group and did it.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Wow. Talk about suicidal!!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Well, not really. I was taking the drug for hormone
>> >> > > replacement until I found out how it was made,
>> >> > > whereupon, I stopped taking it. PETA has asked
>> >> > > post-menopausal women to send pictures and a pledge
>> >> > > not to use the product, and has gotten quite a positive
>> >> > > response. I would think many compassionate menopausal
>> >> > > women would _like_ to know they are supporting abuse of
>> >> > > animals by taking Premarin. Or do you assume all women
>> >> > > lose their compassion along with their hormones?
>> >> >
>> >> > OK, Rat. TRY posting to the group (include a cross-post to rec.equestrian)
>> >> > and see what kind of response YOU get.
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Rat
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Sue
>> >> >
>> >> > Smoke Often
>> >> >
>> >> > Die Young
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> "I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
>> >> would want you to believe".
>> >> -Bright Eyes
>> >
>> >--
>> >"I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
>> >would want you to believe".
>> >-Bright Eyes
>>
>>
>>
>> Smoke Often
>>
>> Die Young
>
>--
>"I have learned there's nothing quite as pressing as the one pressing
>would want you to believe".
>-Bright Eyes
Smoke Often
Die Young
David
<snip>
>I have another problem with his stock answers: I don't believe he wrote them,
Oh...well that does explain a lot of things. The question now is are you a
moron, or an imbecile, or just a dumbass like me?
> yet
>he posts them as if they are his own composition.
Oh shit. It looks like you're a genius instead. Down at the feed store they
have this big display of the inside of a fryer house. The bird in the foreground
is holding a 3.5 disk. The caption says: "HAVING TROUBLE ARGUING
WITH "ETHICAL" VEG*NS?" In smaller print it says: "Get this collection
of "Stock Answers" for arguing with "ethical" veg*ns FREE when you
purchase two bags -- OR MORE!! -- of (whateverbrando') Pig Start & Grow!"
(why a chicken in a pig start and grow add?...how strange.....) Well Buddy!
You can bet I was all over that one..... And you figured that out, all by
yourself?
> Look at his other posts, where
>he departs from them (particularly his last reply to me). IMO, they are
>inarticulate nearly to the point of being incoherent. Stylistically, his original
>(huh!)
(huh?)
I agree.
(yeah right)
> But to some extent, I
>do believe "we" need to have our house in order, and that includes pointing out
>dopes like David whose illogic could be used to attempt to discredit quality
>anti-ARF arguments, even if those so using him are themselves engaging in a game
>of guilt by association.
>
>Naturally it's possible that I'm overreacting to him. I mean, for the most part,
>even the ARF/EV goofs don't seem to pay particularly great attention to him.
How 'bout that. People who's entire way of thinking and their entire diet
would have to change if they were to "pay particularly great attention to him."
don't pay particularly great attention to him. It is odd that they wouldn't change
major parts of their life in order to accomodate the ixpy thiclw whateverthehell
argument of some guy who brings up something that they don't want to think
about.....NOT!
> I
>just personally was offended that he kept repetitiously spouting the same
>horseshit, and irked that no one was taking him to task.
You are probably right to be personally offended. Even though what I'm
saying has absolutely nothing to do with you IMO because you are a meat
eater (so you say) and I am addressing *other* people. But why are you right
to be personally offended?
> Actually, I can't even
>say which offended me more, the repetitiousness or the horseshittiness.
Too bad it's not some kind of bugshittiness. No one cares about bugs, and
maybe bug shit would be less offensive. Of course I can't prove that to be a
fact.
>(Attention, Laura Hailey: my apologies in advance if you think I have demeaned
>horseshit.)
Me too.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I have another problem with his stock answers: I don't believe he wrote them,
>
> Oh...well that does explain a lot of things. The question now is are you a
> moron, or an imbecile, or just a dumbass like me?
>
> >yet
> >he posts them as if they are his own composition.
>
> Oh shit. It looks like you're a genius instead. Down at the feed store they
> have this big display of the inside of a fryer house. The bird in the foreground
> is holding a 3.5 disk. The caption says: "HAVING TROUBLE ARGUING
> WITH "ETHICAL" VEG*NS?" In smaller print it says: "Get this collection
> of "Stock Answers" for arguing with "ethical" veg*ns FREE when you
> purchase two bags -- OR MORE!! -- of (whateverbrando') Pig Start & Grow!"
> (why a chicken in a pig start and grow add?...how strange.....) Well Buddy!
> You can bet I was all over that one..... And you figured that out, all by
> yourself?
>
> [...]
You have some interesting shops in your neighborhood.
But did you write the stock stuff, or didn't you?
frlpwr
(snip)
> to accomodate the ixpy thiclw whateverthehell
I can't help myself. I'm really beginning to like this guy.
(snip)
Jonathan Ball
> David wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > to accomodate the ixpy thiclw whateverthehell
>
> I can't help myself. I'm really beginning to like this guy.
>
> (snip)
You know what? For some strange reason, so am I. I mean it.
Go figure.
frlpwr
>
> <snip>
>
> So I try to avoid that
> progression by trying to point out that the very animals they are
> saving from being killed, they are also keeping from getting to live.
>
Haven't domestic breeds been genetically manipulated to produce animals
that are cost-efficient by being quick to mature, fast to bulk up, early
and prolific breeders and docile enough to be easily managed?
The more successful humans are at making domestic animals useful to us,
the less useful these animals become to themselves. Domestic species
have not evolved according to the rules of natural selection, retaining
and discarding characteristics according to the benefit they provide the
species. They have been hijacked and forced onto an evolutionary
pathway that suits us, not them. That's the idea, anyway.
I am sorry that you did not have any imput to offer on the topic of
feral pigs. You defend domestic breeds' right to exist, but,
apparently, only within the narrow confines of controlled production.
How do you feel about the campaign to eradicate feral swine? Feral
cats? Should animals be punished for their ability to survive
independent of humans?
(snip)
David
I don't feel that type of thinking should be applied to animals
whose lives are of such poor quality that they are in constant
discomfort, or overly cramped, etc. I'm not saying that it should
be applied to *all* situations.
Here's stock answer "not all the same.txt" :
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 "ethical" veg*ns appear to do. To say that *all*
of it is cruel, and to think of *all* animals that 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. <end of stock answer>
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that,
and whether I committed 83 literary crimes, or 178
breachings of debateiquette, I feel that it's clear
enough that a person could get my drift if they tried.
> For instance, if a calf were to be born physically deformed,
>unable to walk or something, I'd be willing to say it probably shouldn't
>have survived. In the wild, evolution would have solved that really
>quick.
And now humans influence their evolution...
David
>David wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >I have another problem with his stock answers: I don't believe he wrote them,
>>
>> Oh...well that does explain a lot of things. The question now is are you a
>> moron, or an imbecile, or just a dumbass like me?
>>
>> >yet
>> >he posts them as if they are his own composition.
>>
>> Oh shit. It looks like you're a genius instead. Down at the feed store they
>> have this big display of the inside of a fryer house. The bird in the foreground
>> is holding a 3.5 disk. The caption says: "HAVING TROUBLE ARGUING
>> WITH "ETHICAL" VEG*NS?" In smaller print it says: "Get this collection
>> of "Stock Answers" for arguing with "ethical" veg*ns FREE when you
>> purchase two bags -- OR MORE!! -- of (whateverbrando') Pig Start & Grow!"
>> (why a chicken in a pig start and grow add?...how strange.....) Well Buddy!
>> You can bet I was all over that one..... And you figured that out, all by
>> yourself?
>>
>> [...]
>
>You have some interesting shops in your neighborhood.
>
>But did you write the stock stuff, or didn't you?
Yes. If I hadn't I would have mentioned where it came from (ok....I lied
about the feed store). What makes you think I didn't?
Jonathan Ball
David
>David wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> So I try to avoid that
>> progression by trying to point out that the very animals they are
>> saving from being killed, they are also keeping from getting to live.
>>
>David,
>
>Haven't domestic breeds been genetically manipulated to produce animals
>that are cost-efficient by being quick to mature, fast to bulk up, early
>and prolific breeders and docile enough to be easily managed?
Yeah, we agree on that one.
>The more successful humans are at making domestic animals useful to us,
>the less useful these animals become to themselves. Domestic species
>have not evolved according to the rules of natural selection, retaining
>and discarding characteristics according to the benefit they provide the
>species. They have been hijacked and forced onto an evolutionary
>pathway that suits us, not them. That's the idea, anyway.
But they don't know that. Even if they did, that particular fact probably
wouldn't bother them any more than it bothers most humans to consider
the fact that they wouldn't last very long if they were left naked and with
no tools in the African bush. Do we agree on that?
>I am sorry that you did not have any imput to offer on the topic of
>feral pigs. You defend domestic breeds' right to exist, but,
>apparently, only within the narrow confines of controlled production.
There are people who stop eating meat because they don't want
to be part of the death of the animals they are eating. I am here to
point out that the animals wouldn't have gotten to live at all if we
didn't raise them to eat, and that if we stop eating them billions of
animals that would have will not get to live. The animals aren't
being cheated out of anything by humans raising them for food.
It would be better *for the animals* for people to eat meat that is
raised in ways that give the animals a decent life, than for people
to stop eating them entirely.
>How do you feel about the campaign to eradicate feral swine? Feral
>cats? Should animals be punished for their ability to survive
>independent of humans?
To me that would depend on the situation, as with all things. When
I raised chickens, I killed a lot of opossums and rats--any that I could
kill living in my area I would kill (sometimes I'd drive them miles away
and release them, but we're not discussing that, so I won't mention
it). Now that I don't raise chickens anymore, I don't kill the opossums
living in my area either. That would be the same way with feral cats
and even more so of swine. There isn't a lot of problem with feral
swine in my area, but I have still know several people who have
been attacked by what few there are. I would say wipe them out
because they are dangerous to humans, and I personally favor
humans over swine. They also cause damage to human property.
You wouldn't want them tearing up your yard, and you wouldn't
want to worry about them attacking your kids, or little brother or
niece on the way to their friend's house. People who have
problems with feral pigs don't like it. I don't know anything about
the issue really, and haven't read any of the posts about it, but
that is how I feel at the moment.
David
>I apologize for suggesting that you didn't write it.
That's ok man. I still don't get it, but I accept and
appreciate your apology.
Cuchulain Libby
'wild'. Javelina are the natural swine. Feral pigs are descendants of
Russian Boar that escaped/were released many years ago. Now, the ratio for a
real good sausage is 30% feral hog and 70% deer. In the proper amounts, one
can begin to exact a measure of revenge for the damage the hogs do. I
personally try to donate as much as I can to the local homeless shelters. As
far as the 'economics' of hog hunting operations, it costs roughly $5,000 to
take a trophy buck so $150 for trespass rights to wack a couple of hogs
seems cheap. Usually a rancher will throw in hogs when you take a deer, so
the fee is most likely from farmers, although I bet if you paid once and
were successful, he'd invite you back for free.
Ok, you get one. Just checked out a hunting operation (ranch) $500 per 2
days limit one per day...they would have a vested interest in the survival
of the species. Most others would include hogs on a general year-round lease
so a price for hogs is hard to figure.
>>How do you feel about the campaign to eradicate feral swine? Feral
>>cats? Should animals be punished for their ability to survive
>>independent of humans?
Hold on feral, other than the cats on the Isle of Wight aren't most feral
cats dependent to some degree on us?
-Cuchulain
frlpwr
>
> Don't know where you guys live, but here in SoTex 'feral' swine are
> not 'wild'.
Crikey. This is depressing; I'm slipping. I figured you for a
Southerner, but I didn't smell Texan.
> Javelina are the natural swine. Feral pigs are descendants of
> Russian Boar that escaped/were released many years ago.
Feral pigs in Texas are hybrids between Russian boars that were
intentionally released by hog-hunters and domestic breeds that were
abandoned by their po' white trash owners. (A human sub-species
concentrated in the Great State of Texas.)
> Now, the ratio for a real good sausage is 30% feral hog and 70% deer. > In the proper amounts, one can begin to exact a measure of revenge for > the damage the hogs do.
Well, fall down and die. I do believe we are witnessing an honest
statement from the keyboard of a hunter. Revenge. This is the best
explanation of why hunters hunt that I've read to date. Thanks.
> I personally try to donate as much as I can to the local homeless > shelters.
You are a truly wonderful person. Dead hogs for the homeless. Dead
hogs for impoverished children's lunch buckets. Maybe you should have
donated that feral mother cat's hide to "Coats for the Homeless".
> far as the 'economics' of hog hunting operations, it costs roughly
> $5,000 to take a trophy buck so $150 for trespass rights to wack a
> couple of hogs seems cheap.
You obviously consider the lives of animals cheap at any price.
> Usually a rancher will throw in hogs when you take a deer, so
> the fee is most likely from farmers, although I bet if you paid once
> and were successful, he'd invite you back for free.
> Ok, you get one.
Keep on looking, Lancelot, there are a helluva lot more than one. In
CA, pigs are considered "game animals" and the Wild Pig Foundation is
lobbying the legislature for a management plan for hogs. They want to
make sure they are not over-hunted.
(snip)
> Hold on feral, other than the cats on the Isle of Wight aren't most
> feral cats dependent to some degree on us?
>
If you mean that the fact that they exist at all depends on human
irresponsiblity, then, yeah. Otherwise, most feral cats rely on their
wits to survive. Most of their offspring die at weaning. (You know,
like the kittens you orphaned.) The lucky ones cross paths with humans
who are willing to assist them, but I wouldn't expect you to understand
anything about that.
Jonathan Ball
Cuchulain Libby wrote:
> [...]
>
> Hold on feral, other than the cats on the Isle of Wight aren't most feral
> cats dependent to some degree on us?
>
> -Cuchulain
If feral means "having escaped from domestication and become wild"
(Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary; c. 1977), then there are feral cats
living near the breakwater at Los Angeles / Long Beach harbor, who seem to get
along just fine on rodents and birds that they catch. I would imagine this to
be true at other harbors.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> If feral means "having escaped from domestication and become wild"
> (Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary; c. 1977), then there are
> feral cats living near the breakwater at Los Angeles / Long Beach > > harbor, who seem to get along just fine on rodents and birds that they > catch. I would imagine this to be true at other harbors.
Wherever people fish, there are cats. There is always a kind fisherman
or two who will throw the heads to the cats.
I've read about the Long Beach cats. To trap the cats for altering,
caretakers use fresh water for bait, instead of food.
(Trap/Spay/Neuter/Release)
James Hepler
Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > He says _what_ is simple and easy?
>
> In reply to my having busted his chops for posting the same trite
> crapola over and over, David wrote,
>
> That I copy from who knows where? [I wrote that he copied
> his stuff "from who-knows-where" - jb] It's from a folder
> that I call "Stock Answers". What I'm saying is simple and
> easy, so I may as well post the same replies over and over.
>
> David said, "What I'm saying is simple and easy." I think he's
> referring to his entire argument. What do *you* think he means?
I didn't know if he meant simple and easy to say or simple and easy to
understand. And I wasn't sure which one you were talking about, either.
> > YEah, right. I would think that in your infinite wisdom, claiming
> > logical fallacy and not bothering to name it is rather, well, lazy.
> > As
> > if your demerits sway me.
>
> I guess it was lazy of me.
Oh yeah, well...
Oh you agreed. Let's hear it:
1-2-3-4 What are we fightin' for?
> > Oh, and equivocation deals with words, not arguments. As in, "A
> > plane
> > is a carpenters tool, a boeing 737 is a plane, therefore a boeing
> > 737 is
> > a carpenters tool." I think your fallacy here is a non sequiter.
>
> I think you are correct (goddammit; I hate being corrected, most of
> all when I deserve it). Mercer and Martens frequently take the
> EVs/ARFs to task (correctly, need I add) for equating not eating
> animals with not killing them, and have called it the fallacy of
> equivocation. A cursory reading of the definition of that fallacy in
> my 28-year-old Intro to Logic book led me to believe that they were
> using the term correctly, so I adopted it. What we really have here
> is some kind of Fallacy of False Equivalence, or perhaps a Fallacy of
> Undemonstrated Equivalence, except my book lists no such fallacy
> (however, the author doesn't claim to have produced an exhaustive
> list; it's an Intro book, after all.) My book does make mention of
> "hidden assumptions", and I imagine that's what the killing/eating
> false equivalence turns on.
If we call it false equivalence, do I have to pay you royalties every
time I use it? We can call it JB's Law.
> David's crapola, on the other hand, might actually be petitio
> principii - begging the question. He says,
>
> If you don't agree with it the first time you hear my
> argument, [then] chances are that you'll never actually care
> enough about the animals themselves to take what I'm saying
> as important.
>
> And
>
> What I'm saying it (sic) true. You are just another person
> who doesn't want to think about it. The reason Laura sees
> the truth in what I'm saying, is that she has nothing to
> lose by accepting the truth of it.....
>
> Clearly, he is implicitly saying to someone who asks *why* the
> "chances are that you'll never actually care...", that it's because if
> he (asker) did actually care, then he would agree with David's
> argument the first time he heard it. That's begging the question. In
> my opinion, the question begging in the second statement is so obvious
> it doesn't need elaboration; let me know if you think I'm wrong.
I think you are right. It was subtle.
> > Also, equivocation involves intent to deceive. Are you yet another
> > one
> > of "those" who can't differentiate between a mistake in logic and an
> >
> > attempt to lie? Demerit indeed.
>
> I disagree. The equivocation on the word "plane" in your example is
> comical and deliberate. Some other occurrences might be accidental,
> when two different meanings of a word might not be as obviously
> different as the different meanings of "plane". It seems to me that
> False Equivalence could well involve an attempt to deceive.
My dictionary used the "intent to deceive" phrase in the definition for
equivocation. That's where this came in. I just get sick of a person
making a blunder and then having to fight off every jerk off who wants
to assault him as a liar. You didn't really accuse him of being a
blatant liar though, so the jerk off tag doesn't apply. But I'm keeping
it handy for some of theses other yahoos, on both sides of the fence.
> > > > Why are you not arguing his point?
> > >
> > > His fallacy doesn't constitute a point. I don't have to argue it.
> >
> > Heh. You don't *wan't* to argue it. You are too busy typing your
> > pedantic tripe with one hand while massaging little Jonathan Ball
> > with
> > the other.
>
> James, please! Why should I bother arguing the truth of his premise,
> which could take hours of definitional back-and-forth about what it
> means to "care" for the animals (uh-oh! plenty of room for
> equivocation on that term, eh?) and so forth, when I can economically
> point out that his conclusion doesn't follow? Let him flesh out
> (sorry) his argument, if he can, and then I might argue the point.
When you are right you are right. And you are right. Right?
Boy, this is long!
> > That isn't equivocation. That isn't Ipse Dixit either. That is a
> > non
> > sequiter. Just so you know.
>
> The ipse dixit occurs when he says things like "What I'm saying it
> (sic) true. You are just another person who doesn't want to think
> about it." Does this not seem to be someone saying, "It's true,
> because I say it's true?" That sure seems like ipse dixit to me.
Right, OK.
> > Whatever, Mr. Ipse Dixit Ball. Your saying so doesn't make it so.
> > I
> > see merit in his argument, even if I think his delivery of said
> > argument
> > creates a logical fallacy.
>
> I honestly think I have demonstrated why his, uh, "argument" is full
> of holes. Perhaps, I've done a bad job of it, but I haven't said he's
> full-o-crap only because I say he's full-o-crap. Now I think *you*
> possibly are claiming I haven't, merely because you say I haven't.
You are only saying that because you are saying it.
> > You made an assertion from a (mythical) position of
> > authority and made us rely on your word, rather than explaining
> > yourself
> > or backing your claim up. You also misused your claim of
> > equivocation.
> > You know, that last sentence of yours would have been considerably
> > more
> > accurate had you placed the period after the word "think".
>
> Uh...ad hominem, James.
Come now. I never said your points should be ignored or are invalid. I
just said you don't think. But hey, I didn't even mean that. I just
thought it made good ammo.
> > I think he uses the argument to create sort of a conflict within a
> > person.
>
> IMO, he's trying to set a trap for them, but the trap is flimsy.
I know that feeling.
> > The person says, "Killing animals for meat is wrong." David
> > says, "Well, what about forcing a species to go extinct?" The
> > person
> > says, "That's even worse." That seems like a logical progression,
> > doesn't it? I mean, it does seem logical that if you think killing
> > one
> > animal is wrong, then killing all animals of a species is worse,
> > right?
>
> Now you've implicitly committed a false equivalence, even misstating
> David's words to do it. No on is talking about killing all *existing*
> animals of a species.
I wrote this with that AR quote about "one generation and out" in my
mind. Is that not evidence enough?
> Presumably, the people who advocate letting
> selectively bred livestock go extinct intend to let the existing
> animals frolic on pretty little farms until they die naturally.
*shudder*
> > > If he is claiming to have constructed a logical argument, as
> > opposed to
> > > amassing facts, the burden is on him to expose his logical
> > structure, so
> > > others can attempt to judge for themselves if his conclusion
> > follows from
> > > his premises. He hasn't even come close.
> >
> > Fair enough.
>
> Note in his direct reply to me that he claims he *isn't* claiming to
> have constructed a logical argument. He sure hasn't! (deliberate
> equivocation on my part, I'm afraid I need to point out)
It's OK. SOmetimes a poke is a poke.
> During the election campaign, the student government at California
> State University, Northridge (San Fernando Valley in L.A.) staged a
> "debate" on the proposition. The "debate" was an utter mockery. They
> invited several apparently reasonable people to take the anti 209
> side. For the pro 209 debater, they invited...David Duke. That's
> right, THAT David Duke - the klansman. The pro 209 side screamed
> foul, and responsible and articulate pro 209 representatives,
> including the driving force behind it, Ward Connerly, asked at least
> to be included on the pro 209 "debate" team, if not to replace Duke
> altogether. The smirking organizers of the "debate" refused.
Ward spoke here at UNC Chapel Hill last year. Can't say I liked his
lecture. But the scenario above is absurd. If you want someone to
support prop 209, Connerly is infinitely better for the task. Obviously
this debate deserves the quotes you gave it.
> Now, I don't think David remotely represents as grave a threat to the
> credibility of the anti-ARF side as Duke did to the pro 209 side in
> that election. (I hope it is perfectly clear by now that I am
> completely anti-ARF. I'm not sure if I really need to point this out
> or not, it just might be helpful.) But to some extent, I do believe
> "we" need to have our house in order, and that includes pointing out
> dopes like David whose illogic could be used to attempt to discredit
> quality anti-ARF arguments, even if those so using him are themselves
> engaging in a game of guilt by association.
Have you seen the AR myths FAQ? I wanted to know what you think of the
nazi reference made.
> Naturally it's possible that I'm overreacting to him. I mean, for the
> most part, even the ARF/EV goofs don't seem to pay particularly great
> attention to him. I just personally was offended that he kept
> repetitiously spouting the same horseshit, and irked that no one was
> taking him to task. Actually, I can't even say which offended me
> more, the repetitiousness or the horseshittiness. (Attention, Laura
> Hailey: my apologies in advance if you think I have demeaned
> horseshit.)
I appreciate your willingness to hand the smack out to allies in the
name of solidarity. Let's hope the ARA's never figure out the value in
that.
Cuchulain Libby
frlpwr
>
> Why would you want TSNR cats?
>
and, when they become too visible, some asshole comes along and
"removes" them. _All_ of them.
Andreas Vedeler
>the things that we know, but they do not know. But
>instead of that, people *often* do just the opposite.
>Instead of trying to understand how the animals would
>perceive their lives, they instead deliberately ignore
>that idea, and try to apply their own "ethical" feelings
>to animals that know nothing about them. That is not
>fair to the animals!!
>
[snip]
>killed. When we think about the truth of it, the animals
>are not being cheated out of any part of their life by
>being raised for food, but instead they are getting the
>opportunity to experience whatever life they get as a
>result of it.
[snip]
You're right! They should _thank_ us, the ungrateful beasts!!!
Andreas
--
"The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making
power into the hands of the central government and then
says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
-- Rothbard
James Hepler
Cuchulain Libby wrote:
>
> Why would you want TSNR cats?
Everyone's interests are protected that way. The cat gets to live, and
you don't have to worry about it reproducing. Duh. Surely you could
have figured that one out.
James hepler
>
> -Cuchulain
>
> frlpwr <frl...@flash.net> wrote
> >I've read about the Long Beach cats. To trap the cats for altering,
> >caretakers use fresh water for bait, instead of food.
> >(Trap/Spay/Neuter/Release)
> >
> >
--
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
> >According to the chart I saw, Estrace is plant based, from soy and yam.
> >The chart had a different category for synthetics, like Alora, Estinyl,
> >Fempatch, etc. Can it be synthetic AND plant based?
>
> It's not animal based. Therefore, it's not the same at all.
>
> Plant based hormones are different from animal hormones. If they were
> the same, then they would react the same. They don't.
I don't know about this logic. I received this email from a
cyberpharmacy which I contacted:
James,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you but I was talking with the
pharmacist about your question. The least expensive medication would be
the
Estrace 1mg #100 $46.06 while the Premarin would be $47.57. He
thinks you
might be interested in our natural hormone therapy program that we have
which
runs $40.00 He has found it is more effective.
Contact info snipped.
James Hepler