View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"larrylook" > wrote
>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>>
>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>>> opposition to
>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>>> products.
>>>
>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>>> repugnant.

>>
>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,

>
> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
> think
> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.


Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through that
process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim to,
neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.

>>it's aesthetics, so what
>>else is new?

>
> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.


Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
prevent future animals from being born, or as they see it, they *save* the
animals from being born into an abbreviated life marked by suffering,
deprivation and exploitation.

> All they can do is contribute
> to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
> deliberately.


They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is nothing
worthy of criticism.

> People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.


Only by consuming selectively, simply consuming does not do that. You are
pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't you
stop lying ****wit?

> People
> can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
> same
> time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
> vegetable
> products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.


I have no reason to be opposed to it ****wit. I am opposed to one thing in
this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of the
Larder, and I will continue to oppose it.

> Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:
>
> Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
> to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
> to
> raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
> a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
> fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.


How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?

__________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
> Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
> Message-ID: >
>
> Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
> for the pig here, you ought to listen.
>
> "This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
> and
> what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher? Revered moralist, he
> might plead, fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and tomorrow
> but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my
> porcine
> intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me,
> thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I
> pray
> thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
> considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If,
> then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
> hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
> his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
> fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."
>
> Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my
> flesh,
> then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.
>
> Spare all of us, ****wit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> At one time he pretended to understand that:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
>
> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
> or negative value to the animal.
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
> about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
> anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
> and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
> obviously did.


You are one confused, ****ed-up redneck ****wit.