FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Dutch

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>>>with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>
>>>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>> animals." - Goo
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>> to experience life" - Goo
>>>
>>>>See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>> live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>
>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>>
>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>> consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>
>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>
>>>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>
>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>
>>>>See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>
>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>
>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>
>>Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.
>
> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
> stupidity, do
> you have any clue at all?

Thanks for the further demonstration, very kind of you..