View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><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,


Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing something
to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.

>or as they see it, they *save* the
>animals from being born into an abbreviated life


· Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
didn't raise them, 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. The animals are not
being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised
and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
they get as a result of it. ·

>marked by suffering,
>deprivation


Some have horrible lives. Some have decent lives. Some have
good lives. To you it makes no difference what the quality of
their lives are...it is all exploitation to you.

>and exploitation.


To me that is an ignorant, shallow way to think.

>> 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,


Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals.

>simply consuming does not do that.


I never said it does.

>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?


I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point out.
For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:

1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
contribute to their elimination.
5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
some vegetable products.
6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.
7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.

>> 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 of course I'm opposed to the Logic of the Fantastic Singing Pig.

>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?


1. Your insistence that we can't take the lives of animals into consideration
when we contemplate human influence on animals.
2. Your insistence that raising animals for food is like raising children for
sex slaves.
3. Your insistence that a speech by an imaginary talking pig written by a
founder of "AR", somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals
benefit from farming.
4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
for "AR" organizations.
5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than deliberately
contribute to decent lives for food animals.
6. Things like this:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:17:31 -0800

it *is* pure exploitation. The fact that animals are alive (ie. "get to experience
life" as you put it) does not offset that fact, in fact it arguably adds to it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700

Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800

My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800

I am an animal rights believer.
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.


Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy to
understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!