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


<dh@.> wrote
> 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.


I'm not saying that there's no doubletalk in veganism, but you don't fight a
dishonest movement by trying to outdo their level of duplicity. When vegans
claim to be helping animals, it makes no sense to take that to mean some
specific animals in barns somewhere. It means livestock animals *in
general*, it means that veganism means fewer livestock and that is a more
moral state of affairs.

>>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. ·


That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep them
in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.

>>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.


For it to be exploitation it does not depend on whether or not the animals
suffer, it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.

>>and exploitation.

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


Exploitation is exploitation, if you treat a slave well, you're still
exploiting him.

>>> 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.


That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.

>>simply consuming does not do that.

>
> I never said it does.


It's implied in your position.

>>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.


You don't "point out truth" ****wit, you spin a shabby sophistry.

> For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
>
> 1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.


Being born is not a benefit.

> 2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.


Only if the animals are born.

> 3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.


No, it would make it irrelevant.

> 4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
> contribute to their elimination.


Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.

> 5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
> livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
> some vegetable products.


There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted with your
spinny rhetoric.

> 6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
> than their deaths.


"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.

> 7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.


Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. We
raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.


>>> 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.


We were opposing LoL years before Salt's essay came along.

>>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.


You can't take a moral credit because they are living creatures.

> 2. Your insistence that raising animals for food is like raising children
> for
> sex slaves.


No, your sophism MAKES it like taking credit for raising children for the
sex trade.

> 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.


It completely refutes your position.

> 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.


I don't even understand that one.

> 5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
> deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for food animals.


Those are not the only two options, it's a fase choice fallacy.

> 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!


I didn't unlearn anything ****wit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.